Did you watch the CNN/Youtube Debate for the Republican candidates last week? More than 4,000 videotaped questions were submitted online; about three dozen made it to air. The result? Instead of a offering greater insights into the Republican candidates, CNN found itself dubbed the "Corrupt News Network" by LA Times columnist Tim Rutten.

What got Rutten's back up? The columnist charged CNN with weighing the debate down with several questions on illegal immigration -- an issue he says Americans don't care that much about, according to recent polls. Candidates were also asked whether they believed every word in the Bible, and what the Confederate flag meant to them. At a time when surveys show that the Iraq War and the faltering US economy are primary concerns, Rutten said CNN's performance,

"[R]aises serious questions about whether CNN is ethically or professionally suitable to play the political role the Democratic and Republican parties recently have conceded it..."

In an essay for the Online Journalism Review, videoblogger Robin Miller, who covered the debate, satirized the candidates' responses to the immigration questions:

"On stage, while our section of the audience was whispering like like bored high school students, Rudy Giuliani and "Mitt Romney were attacking each other for being too soft on illegal immigrants. If I recall the exchange correctly, it went something like this:

"Mitt: "Nyah, nyah, you ran a sanctuary city, nyah nyah nyah."

"Rudy: "Did not, and you're nothing but a big old boobie-head."

"Tom Tancredo: "I'm meaner to illegal immigrants than both of you put together, yuck, yuck, yuck."

Rudy: "Mitt hires illegals to work on his house. He has a sanctuary mansion, heh, heh, heh."

"John McCain: "Hey, kids, isn't this a nuanced issue that deserves serious consideration, not silly yammer?"

"Maybe these weren't the exact words, but I believe I caught the substance of the conversation correctly: it was flat-out, grade-school name-calling -- until mean old Mr. McCain, the playground monitor, broke up the argument.

"This nonsense is supposed to help us choose a president? Oy!..."

Rutten accused CNN's producers of playing up the questions on illegal immigration in an effort to pump up ratings for its anti-immigrant personality, Lou Dobbs:

"So, why did CNN make immigration the keystone of this debate? What standard dictated the decision to give that much time to an issue so remote from the majority of voters' concerns? The answer is that CNN's most popular news-oriented personality, Lou Dobbs, has made opposition to illegal immigration and free trade the centerpiece of his neonativist/neopopulist platform. In fact, Dobbs led into Wednesday's debate with a good solid dose of immigrant bashing. His network is in a desperate ratings battle with Fox News and, in a critical prime-time slot, with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. So, what's good for Dobbs is good for CNN.

"In other words, CNN intentionally directed the Republicans' debate to advance its own interests. Make immigration a bigger issue and you've made a bigger audience for Dobbs...."

That charge drew a ferocious response from Dobbs, calling Rutten a 'hack liberal advocate" and pointing out that Dobbs had nothing to do with the debate. You can watch his diatribe here:

Actually, CNN senior vice president David Bohrman reportedly told Wired magazine last week that CNN staffers chose the questions because:

"'If you would have taken the most-viewed questions last time, the top question would have been whether Arnold Schwarzenegger was a cyborg sent to save the planet Earth.'"

Other critics contended that CNN staffers allowed questions from Democratic partisans. Andrea Shea King at Radio Patriot highlights this observation from NPR's Mara Eliason:

"'I think CNN does itself a great disservice when it doesn't apply the exact same kind of criteria to both debates. I covered both of them. In the Democratic debate, I don't think there were any questions that were clearly coming from, you know, a Republican point of view. They were generally sympathetic. They were about global warming and health care and education, all kind of Democratic issues. They weren't challenging them.'”

Did you watch the debate? What did you think of the questions that were asked?

Also see:

Mark Paul, The Blogs Flunk the Media Again