Given who this guy is, I think a legitimate answer would be: "To associate this guy with the McCain campaign and therefore further denigrate its chances of success."

So all these pundits and guests on these cable news shows need now be vetted for past campaign indignations, with every detail put out there otherwise it's just not good enough for MMFA?

Roberts was clear in stating Stone had run some very VERY negative campaigns, seems like plenty of disclosure for most, except those around here, apparently.

Tommy, I for one am glad that CNN did not mention the C word , it is vile and disgusting. No need to hear it again.

CNN was discussing negative campaigning and clearly identified Stone as a champion in that area, their choice of guest and their summary of him was perfectly appropriate.

Roberts was clear in stating Stone had run some very VERY negative campaigns, seems like plenty of disclosure for most, except those around here, apparently.

Seems to me that a proper disclosure would be for Stone to state what work Roberts has done rather than describe it as negative.  The point here is that this creep has no credibility.  Zero.

Roberts was clear in stating Stone had run some very VERY negative campaigns, seems like plenty of disclosure for most, except those around here, apparently.

Next on CNN, we have a guest who has done some very controversial things in his political career, but who has agreed to talk to us about the latest presidential campaign. Thanks for being with us tonight, Mr. Hitler....

He shouldn't be given credibility at all.  Why on earth would you ask this person if something was legitimate or not?

It would seem that the price for crossing lines is that you don't get recognition from mainstream outlets.  Otherwise, where's the sense of accountability?

Perhaps CNN thought he would be a knowledgable source on negative campaigning, since he has engaged in it quite famously, as CNN points out.

MMFA is free to complain if they want to, but we both know it has more to do with ideology than accountability.

The point is that CNN did not disclose what this guy has done.

Actually, the point is that they should not have had him on in the first place!

Amen Carlileb5935

That would be reasonable if he were asked questions about the efficacy of dirty campaigning. But he was asked about the fairness of McCain's campaigning, a subject on which he is patently not credible. What did he say?

"It is not hateful, it is not divisive to compare your positions, your records, your worldview with those of your opponent."

But it is hateful and divisive to smear your opponent as "dangerous" and a terrorist's friend when you don't even believe it yourself. It is hateful and divisive to allow your audience to shout "terrorist" and "kill him" without commenting on it, and later defend them as "the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track." Shouting "kill him" = cheering for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track? That's not only hateful and divisive, that's disturbing.

Roberts could have responded with any of this, but instead said, "We'll see you again; thanks."

So an infamous dirty trickster, who allegedly threatened Eliot Spitzer's dad, who made up some nonsense about Michelle Obama, and who ran a sexist anti-Hillary Web and T-shirt campaign, and who MMFA is basically (rightly, IMHO) saying shouldn't be given a platform, is invited on CNN, where he is asked whether McCain's hateful, racist, inflammatory campaign is over the line. He says it's not, and throws out a red herring about Social Security as a reason, ignoring the hateful, racist, inflammatory part. CNN's Roberts thanks him and suggests they do it again sometime.

No problem with accountability there!

Wait, on second thought, I think MMFA is on to something. Maybe sources allowed to opine on the election on "News" networks SHOULD be credible and reliable.

And how do we know that?  It's always amusing how even though there's a valid complaint about this person's very presence in the public discourse, there must be an ideological motive behind it.  As if a non-partisan source would think this person had some credibility and respectability.

Did this person renounce his former ways or something?  How would they expect him to give an honest opinion about what's fair or justifiable or anything else?

Roberts didn't say "VERY negative campaigns", he said "very EFFECTIVE negative campaigns". Not the same thing. He wasn't noting how negative they were, only how how effective. Negative campaigning is OK if it works. 

Don't you think if people knew he was behind an anti-Hillary 527 with the acronym C.U.N.T., they might not value his opinion so much?

So you maintain he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to negative campaigning?  I would say he's pretty damn near an expert on the subject.

As I see it, the point of the MMfA article is that it's mis-information on Stones's part to portray Obama as "dangerous", not that he isn't an expert on negative campaigns. You emphasized the view that Robert's noted Stone's "VERY negative" campaigns when he didn't. He noted their effectiveness, despite the fact that in this case Stone provided no basis for the allegation.

Stone is a partisan who thinks an Obama presidency would be dangerous because illegal immigrants would get drivers licenses, that is the context here. 

So you think MMFA is objecting just because someone from the right is giving their slanted opinion?  Maybe so.

I think MMFA is objecting because the person giving his opinion has said and done things in the past that make him not just "from the right," but actually lacking in credibility, reliability, and respectability. I think MMFA is suggesting not that Stone misinformed, but that his C.V. should preclude him from being invited by an ersatz credible news organization to opine. They have asked similar "Why" questions in the past about Ann Coulter and others whose statements and actions are so beyond the pale that they shouldn't be invited to appear in mainstream news.

Tommy gets it, he's just being intellectually dishonest.  This latching on to an irrelevant detail in the article is a common tactic of his.

Tommy,

Then the only reason that CNN should have had him on then was if he was deciding to come clean about his past negative campaigning to say he was sorry for his past indiscretion and to expose negative campaigning in hopes of putting an end to it.... since he is, as you say, an expert in negative campaigning.....

What a disgusting man, and so disrepectful towards woman.

Disrespectful towards women Roger is not.

 -- pundits and guests on these cable news shows -- tommy

mmfa poses the question "why was he invited?".

The answer is pretty simple...almost all of these cable news shows are scrambling to fill huge amounts of air time...and the easiest way to do that is to invite almost anyone with a political opinion...astute or stupid.

These shows contribute very little to the political debate...except opinionated rancor. And almost all of the programming...if you can call it that...is inside the beltway water cooler campaign blather rather than informed discussion of the issues.

These shows are just baby sitters for the red meat political junkies during elections...that's why their ratings are usually in the tank...except for the uptick during the campaign cycle. Few opinions are moved left or right because of these soap opera type shows.

Mostly much ado about nothing...except in the world of cable networks and the blogosphere...and the Jerry Springer fans.

This guy Roger Stone is a jerk.  The interesting thing to note is that all these moron's that were so tough on Hillary are going to pay the ultimate price: an even MORE liberal President Obama.

As for CNN, why can't they intereview anybody they want?  Does MediaMatters have some sort of "Blacklist" of people that should not be intereviewed?

They can interview the Grand Wizard of the KKK if they like.  But MMfA can point out that he's not a very reliable source, and has no place in the public discourse.

And no, I'm not saying that Stone is as bad as the KKK, just in case someone wants to cry foul over that notion.

Another worthless analogy.

I thought it was pretty nice, Tommy. "Pearls before swine" I guess....

Why?  Slimeballs shouldn't get air time.  This isn't a radical concept.

I agree. Why validate someone's opinions, like Stone's ?

This is the fundamental problem with the media and our political system today.

In an attempt to give "all sides" to a story, even the most ridiculous claim is given credence. There are not two or three or more sides to every story. Sometimes there's only the truth.

It's possible to discuss negative campaign tactics without giving morons equal time. What's next, having the crazy old woman in the red shirt and wild mop of gray hair her own show to tell us that Obama is an Arab?

What's also funny is that Tommy has wrung his hands over people being mentioned on here - a web site - because it gives them legitimacy.  Of course, it's negative attention that doesn't make the person look credible at all, but supposedly this is a big concern.  But here, as long as they point out that he's done effective negative campaigning, then putting this jackass on national television is just fine.

Boy, just the name of his organization is a sexually charged term. Watching the right wing stoop to new lows really makes one question their claims of being moral christians, doesn't it?

Maybe Stone isn't a religious or cultural conservative. He could be from the "third leg" of the Republican base...

Snoop, I don't know how familiar you are with Stone... Here is an article about him from The New Yorker... 

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/02/080602fa_fact_toobin

Stone and his wife are "swingers".

To IRONY 101:  Thanks for bringing the New Yorker article by Jeff Toobin about Stone to my attention!  This guy's a coossal sleaze- or slime-bag.  All the more reason to raise the question why he's given air time.  But in an age when the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Hume, Bennet, Liddy, Hewett, Beck, Coulter and countless other sickos are the stock and trade of the airwaves, the question is moot.  By this time most readers of MMfA are well aware that much of CNN is simply FOX lite!

You're welcome...  I remember reading the article a few months ago and how repulsed I was by it. I don't care what a person does in his private life or what his sexual proclivities are but Stone apparently lives a life of sleaze which he brings into his political endeavors. He's a walking, talking, breathing sleazebag.

I didn't know much but I did intend my point to be that in practice, they really aren't, they just claim they are. A little bit of a sweeping generalization, but boy, when you read about Stone, he sure looks like a slimeball as early as 1st grade!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone

In a country with a functioning media, national airtime would be too valuable a privilege to give to whatever clod walks in the door.  But our media demolishes that argument with its own employees.

Let's first have pundits with a shred of expertise, who are the slightest bit good at anything.  Then we can critique guests.

So i teke it this years election is about who can be the most vile political consultant will win a spot in pundit land. So contrary to what comes out of their leader's mouth, Mr McCain.

Hey liberals, Aren't you the self-proclaimed all inclusionary folks?

Roger Stone has been involved in the American electoral system for 5 decades.

You think you have the right to decide who CNN or MSNBC or any other network or cable channel should or shouldn't put on-air?

You liberals pretend that you are fair. When the exact opposite is true.

Stone is smart, has a rare command of issues. He's objective and hits both sides hard. The one-sided nature of this website is breath-taking.

You simply want it all. You want a monopoly on access to the airwaves because your failed ideas and policies cannot sustain fair scrutiny.

Good job Roger Stone. To all readers here, if you want some balance and smart political commentary go to www.stonezone.com

Sincerely,

Harry Hurley

Most of you making comments on Roger Stone are quite juvenile. Can't you come up with something better to hit him on other than his personal life? The fact of the matter here is that Stone has effectively been involved with eight winning campaigns. As for his 527, anti-Hillary involvement, for liberals who are so PRO first amendment, he should be able to use any acronym that he wishes. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw "stones." Stop trying to censor and discredit (with no firm accusations) those who don't share your liberal bias.

Trying to uphold standards of honesty and decency in the media isn't censorship.  It's not a free speech issue.

what was not honest?? There are no standards....free speech is just that, FREE SPEECH

I think if the Weekly Standard calls you a "professional dirty trickster", that's some sort of commentary on the honesty of your methods.

You have no free speech in the media.  Your behavior is limited by standards which are imposed by the media outlet in particular and the industry in general.  Nobody is obligated to give this person a platform.

If you disagree with any of that, please be specific instead of screaming about something that's already been addressed.

Hey liberals, can't you take a JOKE??? Say what you will about Stone, but you gotta admit, he's got a better sense of humor than you do! C.U.N.T. is F.U.N.N.Y! Oh, and tell me this, would you guys hate Stone so much if he weren't so successful??? I mean come on, even if you blame Stone for the phone call to the dad, you can't deny that Spitzer is no longer the Guv! Lots of new sites, but the way, credit Stone with tipping the feds off to Spitzer's little eccentricities. Admit it...you hate Stone because he wins, and because he gets more laughs than you do!!!

Those on your fringe elements can love him all they want.  That doesn't mean he deserves validation from national media.

This is how HItler started.  Silence everyone who disagrees with you. Whether or not you agree with Roger Stone is beside the point.  As a guy who has been involved in eight national Republican presidential campaigns Stone has a unique perspective and something interesting to say.

If you look at the interview on CNN he was equally critical of the Obama and McCain campaigns - in fact, he is one of the few Republican  talking heads who doesn't parrot the GOP party line and is often more critical of Republicans - particularly the Bushes - than the Democrats. 

Why should Media Matters be the arbiter of who can and cannot be interviewed on television? I find Arianna Huffington's views to be vile and repugnant but I still think she should be allowed to speak and be interviewed for her point of view.

You are "the new censors."  You should be ashamed.

Plus, he's a total stud.