Shooting Survivor: CNN Gave Me "Scripted Question" After Denying Question About Armed Guards

"

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student Colton Haab said he was approached by CNN to ask a question at Wednesday night's town hall
but decided not to after the network gave him a "scripted question,"
quashing one he wrote himself. Haab, a member of the Junior ROTC shielded students while the school was under attack from the shooter, said he was going to ask about using veterans as armed security guards. (CNN response below.)



"CNN had originally asked me to write a speech and questions and it ended up being all scripted," Haab told WPLG-TV.



CNN aired a town hall on the Florida school shooting
with Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) that included
NRA's Dana Loesch and Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel that was
moderated by Jake Tapper. Students and parents asked questions about gun
control and school safety.



"I expected to be able to ask my questions and give my opinion on my questions," Haab said.



"Colton Haab, a member of the Junior ROTC who shielded classmates in the
midst of terror says he did not get to share his experience," WPLG's
Janine Stanwood explained."

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/22/shooting_survivor_colton_haab_cnn_gave_me_scripted_question_after_denying_question_about_armed_guards.html
«134567

Comments

  • The part I find most unbelievable is that Rubio agreed to do anything with CNN.  What's the point these days of giving interviews or moderator positions to Leftist hacks if you can't use them in the ways, Trump, Newt Gingrich, or Jordan Peterson use them?  If you're a Republican, and you're not using CNN as a punching bag, why engage with them at all?
  • edited February 2018
    nbody said:

    ..."CNN had originally asked me to write a speech and questions and it ended up being all scripted,...




    For a town hall meeting? It's a question and answer session. And what does he mean by "all scripted?" It seemed like a spirited give and take, and not at all scripted.

    Here. This is from your link, too:


    "...Haab wanted to give an extensive speech and not just ask a question, something the network said the forum was not designed for. When the family was told this they decided to pull out of the event..."



    Sounds like he wanted special consideration and didn't get it. 
  • Slap said:

    The part I find most unbelievable is that Rubio agreed to do anything with CNN.  What's the point these days of giving interviews or moderator positions to Leftist hacks if you can't use them in the ways, Trump, Newt Gingrich, or Jordan Peterson use them?  If you're a Republican, and you're not using CNN as a punching bag, why engage with them at all?




    So does "journalism" equate to "leftist hacks" the way "Democrat" equates to "Marxist?"
  • edited February 2018
    vwtool said:

    Slap said:

    The part I find most unbelievable is that Rubio agreed to do anything with CNN.  What's the point these days of giving interviews or moderator positions to Leftist hacks if you can't use them in the ways, Trump, Newt Gingrich, or Jordan Peterson use them?  If you're a Republican, and you're not using CNN as a punching bag, why engage with them at all?




    So does "journalism" equate to "leftist hacks" the way "Democrat" equates to "Marxist?"
    I don't believe Slap was accusing former Handgun Control, Inc spokesman, Jake Tapper, of being a journalist.

    David Horowitz's parents were communists, formal members of the Communist Party.  Guess their party affiliation for their voter registration.
    vwtool said:

    nbody said:

    Sounds like he wanted special consideration and didn't get it. 

    If not serving as a puppet to speak a CNN script is special consideration, it's hard to blame him for wanting special consideration.

    No one supposed this thing would be a question and answer session.  It was the yelling mob most anticipated.
  • Is there any proof of a “script” or is that just conjecture?

    Vigorous give and take is healthy, and it’s not surprising that it became heated, given the circumstances.
  • edited February 2018
    Vigorous give and take is great. CNN's efforts to avoid that are the subject of the article that so cleverly concealed the evidence for it's conclusion in the first sentence.
    Slap said:

    The part I find most unbelievable is that Rubio agreed to do anything with CNN.  What's the point these days of giving interviews or moderator positions to Leftist hacks if you can't use them in the ways, Trump, Newt Gingrich, or Jordan Peterson use them?  If you're a Republican, and you're not using CNN as a punching bag, why engage with them at all?

    Rubio may have calculated that as a FL senator, he would be present figuratively whether he appeared or not.
  • So the armed LEO stood outside while the shooting was going on.

    & has opted for early retirement.


    There aren't enough face palms.
  • edited February 2018
    2.FOH. said:

    So the armed LEO stood outside while the shooting was going on.


    & has opted for early retirement.


    There aren't enough face palms.
    The most charitable take on his lack of action would be that he was an older fellow unsure of his ability to resolve things with a pistol who thought he had signed onto an easy duty for the remainder of his government career.

    I'm guessing that he is receiving death threats.  Irony of ironies, his home is now being guarded.
  • edited February 2018
    vwtool said:

    Is there any proof of a “script” or is that just conjecture?

    Vigorous give and take is healthy, and it’s not surprising that it became heated, given the circumstances.

    I am willing to question Haab's credibility.  He's a kid. (Even if he's turned 18, if he isn't 21 yet, he doesn't enjoy the full rights of citizenship yet).  Kids don't always understand their civic duties, which is why we shouldn't have a serious political question decided by appeals to the emotions of children.  On the other hand, JROTC might have done a better job of educating this particular kid, Haab, to understand his civic duties, that his peers who only had the benefit of a public school civics class.

    Someone who isn't running for office needs to tell these parents and kids in Florida that their grief is horrible, but getting shot isn't the worst way to die.  Its not Zyklon B.  Its not being slowly, intentionally starved to death and driven toward cannibalism.  Its not death by torture in the gulags.  There are things wildly more dangerous than a disturbed, medicated, lone, criminal gunman.  And good laws that protect us from even worse fates aren't the product of a bunch of people who want to write laws based on the immediate grief of children and parents.  Its understandable that people in the midst of a terrible personal loss can make such errors.  What's everyone else's excuse for advocating something as stupid as an AR-15 ban?  It requires ignorance about the AR-15's design, purpose, and involvement in crime statistically.  Support for an AR-15 ban is the dunce cap of American politics.

    vwtool said:

    So does "journalism" equate to "leftist hacks" the way "Democrat" equates to "Marxist?"

    No.  Who ever made either claim?  Are you trying to imply that those categories have zero overlap?
  • 2.FOH. said:

    So the armed LEO stood outside while the shooting was going on.


    & has opted for early retirement.


    There aren't enough face palms.
    That could be the lynch pin for turning the PR machine the Democrats are trying to construct out of this incident on its head.  Let me guess: you learned about this someplace other than CNN?
  • edited February 2018
    nbody said:



    Rubio may have calculated that as a FL senator, he would be present figuratively whether he appeared or not.

    I would have expected better media intelligence though.  If the NRA chick wasn't willing to play bad cop to this crowd, they both should have insisted on a third participant who could say the ugly truths to this crowd while the NRA and the politician make nice.  Get Rush Limbaugh or someone else Democrats love to hate, maybe Anne Couture.

    From what I've heard, Trump handled this shooting better, even without someone else around so he could play good cop.  
  • edited February 2018
    I'm guessing that this was not a failure of foresight.  CNN and Tapper are known quantities.

    This is a tough position.  Even within 2d Am. advocacy groups, there is a split between those who think the NRA should just go silent, and those who want stronger argument.  It mirrors the split amongst repubs on the Garland confirmation hearings.

    I don't care for Rubio or DJT speaking publicly about their willingness to erode civil liberties.  The alternative is to vacate the public forum and leave it to those who would erode them even more.

    I preferred the CPAC clips (magazines?) I've heard in which LaPierre revisits his good guy with a gun line and Dana Loesch notes that media love school shooting stories.
  • edited February 2018
    2.FOH. said:

    That could be the lynch pin for turning the PR machine the Democrats are trying to construct out of this incident on its head.  Let me guess: you learned about this someplace other than CNN?

    Yep. Local NBC affiliate, although CNN does have it as a Headline currently.


    The most charitable take on his lack of action would be that he was an older fellow unsure of his ability to resolve things with a pistol who thought he had signed onto an easy duty for the remainder of his government career.

    I would tend to agree.

    From what I've read, armed officers are instructed to at least engage an active shooter to distract
    them from doing what they're doing. 

  • I just finished watching the CNN town hall, it was a complete mess but I give Senator Rubio credit for being there and doing a good job addressing an obviously hostile crowd.  He outclassed the other politicians in the audience by miles.

    Also, Dana Loesch has huge balls.

    It's not really worth a watch.
  • My wife falls left of center and wanted to talk about an article in the NYT written by a Dem congresscritter who is also a veteran. She thought it was logical and rational and to me it was the same old pablum and pap that folks decry whenever one of these events occur. I also had to explain to her why a model specific ban on a gun like the AR-15 doesn't really mean anything.

    She downloaded the same formula so many people do; firearm availability is the cause of these massacres. I pointed to Switzerland and asked why they don't see the same issues and she was unaware of their history of gun ownership. True to her nature, she immediately began to research and we ended up having a more interesting discussion. One restriction they do impose that we don't is immigrants from specific countries aren't allowed to own guns.

    What if Trump suggested a ban on firearm sales and ownership for immigrants from certain nations. Many, many heads would explode. :)
  • Seabird said:

    One restriction they do impose that we don't is immigrants from specific countries aren't allowed to own guns.

    What if Trump suggested a ban on firearm sales and ownership for immigrants from certain nations. Many, many heads would explode. :)




    And that why I've instructed Jerrod to immediately ban all arms sales to muslims, not the beautiful luxurious ones, they're amazing, amazing people. Believe me. Just a big beautiful ban on terrorists buying rifles...and the rapists and murderers...and dirty beaners.
  • I just finished watching the CNN town hall, it was a complete mess but I give Senator Rubio credit for being there and doing a good job addressing an obviously hostile crowd.  He outclassed the other politicians in the audience by miles.


    Also, Dana Loesch has huge balls.

    It's not really worth a watch.



    That fact that it was what you call a "complete mess" is what made it worthwhile viewing. Rubio does deserve a ton of credit for facing what he had to know would be a tough room. Even Loesch came across as an actual human being capable of holding complex thoughts, rather than the caricature she-demon she plays on NRATV.

    But the rarity of such an event demonstrates the nature of the problem we face. And the fact that you think the crowd was "hostile" does, too. Have you really become so accustomed to the spectacle of a friendly crowd chanting inane slogans that you can't recognize the give and take, the skepticism and even the anger as being healthy?
  • nbody said:

    ...I preferred the CPAC clips (magazines?) I've heard in which LaPierre revisits his good guy with a gun line and Dana Loesch notes that media love school shooting stories.




    So you prefer these discussions to take place in the form of slogan recitation in a friendly room? In other words, not really a discussion at all?

    Also, If it bleeds, it leads is an expression that pre-dates this issue. That the media uses sensation to attract readers and viewers isn't a notion that applies only to this discussion.
  • vwtool said:

    nbody said:

    ...I preferred the CPAC clips (magazines?) I've heard in which LaPierre revisits his good guy with a gun line and Dana Loesch notes that media love school shooting stories.




    So you prefer these discussions to take place in the form of slogan recitation in a friendly room? In other words, not really a discussion at all?



    So you're saying we should reorganize society along the lines of lobsters?

    Had you read the text competently you would already have understood that the reference was to the substance of the statements and not the venue in which they occurred.
    vwtool said:



    Also, If it bleeds, it leads is an expression that pre-dates this issue. That the media uses sensation to attract readers and viewers isn't a notion that applies only to this discussion.




    Then you agree with her. That makes us all so happy.
    vwtool said:


    But the rarity of such an event demonstrates the nature of the problem we face. And the fact that you think the crowd was "hostile" does, too. Have you really become so accustomed to the spectacle of a friendly crowd chanting inane slogans that you can't recognize the give and take, the skepticism and even the anger as being healthy?




    It is not effective for you to deny the hostility of the crowd where you proceed to describe it as angry. It is also a clumsy rhetoric that would pretend that someone who decries an angry mob is a mess became so accustomed to the spectacle of a friendly crowd chanting inane slogans over the last nine years that he can't recognize a competent conversation.
  • nbody said:

    ...Had you read the text competently you would already have understood that the reference was to the substance of the statements and not the venue in which they occurred...

    Since the "substance" of those statements seems to occur chiefly in venues like CPAC, the two ideas can't be completely disentangled. Loesch was much more civil on CNN because, as I have mentioned, in real life, people tend to act more like humans than they do in echo chambers.


    nbody said:

    ...Then you agree with her. That makes us all so happy...

    The larger point is that the NRA/gun owners aren't being singled out. There is no "conspiracy," it's just the ad-driven media business model.

    nbody said:

    ...It is not effective for you to deny the hostility of the crowd where you proceed to describe it as angry...




    Conversation doesn't normally include footnotes, but you seem to require them. The crowd was not hostile even though some people expressed anger in some moments. The two words are not synonymous.
  • vwtool said:

    nbody said:

    ...Had you read the text competently you would already have understood that the reference was to the substance of the statements and not the venue in which they occurred...

    Since the "substance" of those statements seems to occur chiefly in venues like CPAC, the two ideas can't be completely disentangled.



    Actually, what one says is quite easily disentangled from the venue in which one says it. Here, I'll do it for you now. The comment on media was made at CPAC and here. That doesn't mean that NPB and CPAC are difficult to distinguish.
    vwtool said:






    nbody said:

    ...Then you agree with her. That makes us all so happy...

    The larger point is that the NRA/gun owners aren't being singled out. There is no "conspiracy," it's just the ad-driven media business model.



    The larger point is that you did not understand her statement? She did not allege or imply a conspiracy.
    vwtool said:


    nbody said:

    ...It is not effective for you to deny the hostility of the crowd where you proceed to describe it as angry...




    Conversation doesn't normally include footnotes, but you seem to require them. The crowd was not hostile even though some people expressed anger in some moments. The two words are not synonymous.



    Where a speaker is unable to finish her comment because a crowd shouts her down, denying the hostility of the crowd is roughly as implausible as any of your other arguments.
  • edited February 2018
    nbody said:

    ...The larger point is that you did not understand her statement? She did not allege or imply a conspiracy...

    The NRA never stops peddling their paranoid style. It's always us against THEM! If you don't want to have gun vending machines in schools, then you're a gun-grabber!™

    The media "loves" any story that garners good ratings. There is no "news" there.
    nbody said:

    ...Where a speaker is unable to finish her comment because a crowd shouts her down, denying the hostility of the crowd is roughly as implausible as any of your other arguments.




    They listened to her, even in some cases when she recited boilerplate, then reacted. Kudos to her for showing up, but I hope she takes away the lesson that if her organization is going to claim to represent "real Americans," then they have to listen to real Americans, too.


    Do we have any physical evidence of this alleged "script" yet, or is it all the kid's say-so?
  • vwtool said:

    nbody said:

    ...The larger point is that you did not understand her statement? She did not allege or imply a conspiracy...

    The NRA never stops peddling their paranoid style. It's always us against THEM! If you don't want to have gun vending machines in schools, then you're a gun-grabber!™



    Don't sell yourself short, Judge. You're tremendously paranoid.
  • edited February 2018
    vwtool said:




    That fact that it was what you call a "complete mess" is what made it worthwhile viewing. Rubio does deserve a ton of credit for facing what he had to know would be a tough room. Even Loesch came across as an actual human being capable of holding complex thoughts, rather than the caricature she-demon she plays on NRATV.

    But the rarity of such an event demonstrates the nature of the problem we face. And the fact that you think the crowd was "hostile" does, too. Have you really become so accustomed to the spectacle of a friendly crowd chanting inane slogans that you can't recognize the give and take, the skepticism and even the anger as being healthy?

    It is unfortunate this town hall is what civilized discourse looks like to you and others.  It wasn't.  Show some introspection and acknowledge the bias as a separate issue from the passion and anger over what happened.  Well meaning and thoughtful people can hold a variety of opinions on the shooting and the resolution.
  • edited February 2018

    ...It is unfortunate this town hall is what civilized discourse looks like to you and others.  It wasn't.  Show some introspection and acknowledge the bias as a separate issue from the passion and anger over what happened.  Well meaning and thoughtful people can hold a variety of opinions on the shooting and the resolution.




    It was a heated public discussion DAYS after a mass killing. I know we've all become rather inured to that, but I'm betting the parent of a child gunned down in their own school isn't.

    Everyone has a "bias." Pretending you don't have any, and that you're a purely rational creature acting on logic alone, no icky emotion involved, is an act of self-deception. And if you can't open your heart just an "inch" to people who've experienced a loss no parent wants to imagine, never mind live, because you think that's how the feds are gonna come for your guns, then god help us all.

    If events like this are "too much" for you, then maybe Ms Loesch will loan you her "big balls" so you can bear up to it. ;-)
  • edited February 2018
    vwtool said:

    Everyone has a "bias." Pretending you don't have any, and that you're a purely rational creature acting on logic alone, no icky emotion involved, is an act of self-deception.




    This is yet another response to an assertion no one made. JIMP made no assertion that he is bias free. He noted that the bias of CNN and Jake Tapper are distinguishable from peoples' authentic grief. One father addressed Rubio in an accusatory manner. His voice was calm, but he spoke about how angry he was that he wouldn't see his daughter again. There can be no reasonable doubt that his anger was authentic.

    He used the term "weapons of war" in his comment. That's a relatively recent cliche in the gun control argument. It's possible that part of this fellow's grieving involved reading, and he picked the term up in his reading.

    It's decent to giving grieving people a wide zone of personal consideration. It is not legitimate to use that zone as armor to press transparently shoddy public policy. Manipulating children and grief stricken parents deserves all the contempt it has met.
  • nbody said:

    Haab, a member of the Junior ROTC shielded students while the school was under attack from the shooter, said he was going to ask about using veterans as armed security guards.

    That potential question takes on a greater relevance in light of this security guard's failure to engage the shooter.
  • nbody said:

    ...It's decent to giving grieving people a wide zone of personal consideration. It is not legitimate to use that zone as armor to press transparently shoddy public policy. Manipulating children and grief stricken parents deserves all the contempt it has met.




    1) Every news source has a bias, even the ones that try not to. Again, this is not news.

    2) So pick a public policy that's not "shoddy" and find common ground.

    3) There hasn't been that much contempt among the general public. Most reactions to the kids have been favorable, including their determination to make their voices heard.

    4) There has been real contempt directed at the voices calling these kids "crisis actors."

    5) Trump is serving raw meat at CPAC. Is this the "real" Trump, or was the guy who seemed willing to compromise in Florida the real one?
  • vwtool said:



    1) Every news source has a bias, even the ones that try not to. Again, this is not news.




    That's not responsive to the point that you asserted JIMP pretended to be bias free, when he suggested that you acknowledge CNN's bias. It's an example of the sort of nonsense for which you are known.

  • nbody said:

    ....That's not responsive to the point that you asserted JIMP pretended to be bias free...





    When I state that "everyone" has a bias, I'm not singling JIMP out.

    If you like, I can utilize the pronoun "one" from now on, kinda like the French do, if that would be an aid to clarity.
Sign In or Register to comment.