Media bias at the YouTube debate

At the latest Republican debate, where the questions were all submitted on YouTube, at least 4 of the questioners are Democratic supporters or work for a Democratic candidate. Yet, the Democratic debate with YouTube questions had no such opposition questions.
CNN says they didn't have time to vet the questioner's affiliation, but bloggers found connections quickly, some right on their YouTube profile. [Link]

From comments [Link]

I would like to hear the candidates from both parties face hostile questions from the left, from the right, and from the center. I would like them to also face friendly questions from the left, the right, and the center.

What we get now are Republicans asked questions framed from the left and Democrats asked questions framed from the left. If I was a lefty, I would think that is just fine. But I am not. And I don't think I would like the reverse, either. Nor do I think I would like both sides getting only questions framed from their side, or both sides getting only questions framed from the other side.

UPDATE: From Instapundit

CNN's problem isn't just bias -- it's a failure of professionalism. Frankly, if bloggers ran some sort of event and were infiltrated in this fashion, the usual media-ethics suspects would be tugging their beards about blogger irresponsibility and praising the superior layers of editors and fact-checkers at Big Media outfits like . . . CNN.

But we learn that CNN did use Google:

He said CNN never spoke to Kerr and had Google, which owns YouTube, bring the retired general and about a dozen other questioners to the debate because their videos were likely to be used, although no final decision had been made.

Using Google for plane tickets is okay. But next time, try using them for . . . Googling. As a commenter at Kurtz's observes: "What should be noted about this issue is that CNN probably has a whole army of interns and low-level producers who could vet the possible questioners. They 'could spend hours Googling everybody', while the top level hacks concentrated on choosing the 'best' questions."

Meanwhile, I'll just repeat what I said earlier: If Fox hosted a Democratic debate and many of the most pointed questions turned out to come from Republican activists, but Fox didn't disclose that, do you think it would pass unremarked?

UPDATE: From Wizbang

It's been over a full day since the CNN/YouTube Republican debate, and I think it's time for a full roundup of the identified plants in the questioning:

1) Retired Colonel Keith Kerr, staffer on Hillary Clinton's and John Kerry's campaigns.

2) Adam Florzak, aide to Senator Dick Durbin.

3) Mark Strauss, announced Bill Richardson supporter.

4) David Cerrone, announced Barack Obama supporter.

5) LeeAnn Anderson, United Steelworkers Union activist -- which has endorsed John Edwards.

6) "Journey," another announced Edwards supporter.

7) Ted Faturos, former intern to Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA)

8) David McMillan, aspiring TV writer whose biggest schtick is his satire as "the blind black Republican" and attendee of Barack Obama fundraisers

8 of 34. Just under 24%.