Liberal Media fails again.




Stephanopolous questions schweizer on partisanship and fails to disclose he was a clinton operative who donated 75k to their charity. Most libturdds, stephanopolous included see nothing wrong with this scenario.

Liberals really are terribly screwed up individuals, im sure in Stephanopolous eyes he thought of himself as "bipartisan" and thus saw nothing wrong with his attempt to discredit schweizer, since he thinks his views represent reality, and schweizer is just a lowly conservative.




Editor’s Note: This story first appeared in the Daily Beast. We reprint in part here.


ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos, who for 15 years expertly navigated his re-invention from tough Clinton operative to respected television journalist, has finally—and perhaps inevitably—slipped up.

His mistake, by any definition, is a beaut—no doubt prompting a blush of shame and putting the network news division on the defensive.

It turns out that the 54-year-old Stephanopoulos—who served as a top aide in Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign and first White House term before leaving to teach, write an acclaimed memoir and join ABC—failed to disclose to his ABC News bosses $75,000 in contributions he made to the Clinton Foundation.

Worse, he didn’t tell viewers, keeping silent about the potential conflict of interest even as he conducted a contentious interview April 26 on his Sunday panel show,This Week With George Stephanopoulos, with Clinton Foundation critic Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash.

In an interview with Politico media columnist Dylan Byers, who broke the story Thursday morning, Stephanopoulos apologized profusely to his viewers and ABC News colleagues for his misstep, announced that he would no longer moderate the scheduled ABC-sponsored Republican primary debate next February, promised to address the embarrassing issue on Sunday’s program, and expressed regret that he had given the Clinton Foundation money in the first place.

ABC initially said he’d donated a total of $50,000, but Stephanopoulos later corrected that figure, saying he’d written $25,000 checks in each of 2012, 2013, and 2014.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...t-gop-wont-let-stephanopoulos-revelation-die/
 
Last edited:
'Sadly typical': Critics prove liberal author's point by ignoring her argument, accusing her of being 'anti-gay'
BY T. BECKET ADAMS | MAY 13, 2015 | 3:13 PM






"They argue against you with things you never said. ... if they want to argue about what I...

Liberal pundit Kirsten Powers is fairly certain that the many critics attacking her book this week have not read a single page of The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech.

"As far as I can tell, none of these people have actually read it," Powers told the Washington Examiner's media desk. "They argue against you with things you never said. So if they want to argue about what I actually said, then I'd be up for that."

The book, which was released Monday, argues that the Left has increasingly adopted an "any means necessary" approach to suppressing contrary ideas, which includes bypassing all opposing arguments and going straight to accusing people of racism, homophobia and sexism.

Sure enough, the day her book launched, Powers was accused of being "anti-gay" in a move she says just proves her thesis: "They cannot argue with me on my actual arguments. So they say 'homophobe.' "


This claim, which Powers characterizes as "bizzaro," stems from her writing in defense of the free speech rights of former Mozilla Firefox CEO Brendan Eich, who was compelled in 2014to resign after pro-same-sex-marriage activists discovered that he had supported California's infamous Proposition 8 legislation.

Ignoring his right to free expression, activists, including several Mozilla Foundation employees, quickly branded Eich a bigot, culminating with the tech CEO eventually stepping down from the company he helped build, she wrote.

For Powers' critics, her defense of Eich's right to free expression is enough to brand her as an enemy of the LGBT community.

"I'm such a gay-rights supporter and always have been. So it's kind of strange to see them really kind of freak out over that. Defending the right to speech makes me a bigot," she said. "I don't know why I'm surprised by this. I mean, I just wrote a whole book on it."

Though she said she expected baseless accusations in response to the release of The Silencing, the nationally syndicated columnist said she didn't expect this exact line of "pushback."

"To me, it's sort of nonsensical. It's clear that I'm defending people's right to hold their own views and advocating for people to make substantive arguments in favor of their views," she said. "It is strange to twist that into suggesting that I don't support gay rights."

There have been a few unflattering blog posts in response to the release of the The Silencing, but most of the criticism directed at Powers this week has been restricted to social media.

Powers also noted that the book was released just this Monday, so criticism for her work is still young. As a result, she said, much of the angry pushback that she has experienced this week has been sorely lacking in substance.

"Nobody has made any kind of substantive criticism," she said. "I'm happy to debate the topic. But that's not what anybody is trying to do."

"It's a little hard to talk to people about it who haven't read the book. Part of the reason I wrote it is because I think there are people who don't actually know this is going on," she added. "It's surprising people don't know it's happening, but it's hard to have conversations with people who aren't informed."

A second but lesser criticism that Powers said she has encountered is from people who seem to be under the impression that the book it is about her personal experiences of being "silenced."

"I don't think I'm being silenced. I never said that," she said, adding that the book is about tactics and trends and that it's not an autobiography. "[T]his book is not about me. It's not a memoir."

Excerpts of The Silencing have been published already on news sites including the Daily Beastand the Washington Examiner.

The response on social media to these various excerpts has been less-than-flattering in some corners, with critics repeatedly condemning Powers for claims that she never made, prompting her to exclaim at one point, "For God's sake would ONE of you actually read the book? You have no idea what my argument is."

Seemingly misinformed criticism aside, Powers told the Examiner that she expects that The Silencing will find a warm reception on the Right, adding that she hopes it will be similarly welcomed by the Left.

"I hope that they will listen and actually read the book and consider what I'm saying instead of just dismissing it out of hand and misrepresenting my argument," she said.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/s...ccusing-her-of-being-anti-gay/article/2564451
 
Liberals constantly accuse FOX news of partisanship while they pretend to be agnostic. The Liberal media are total hypocrites, frauds and liars. That sack of shit Stephanopolus.....I don't even listen to these clowns anymore. Anytime they open their mouths I just turn them off.
 
I watch both sides on tv regularly. More for comedy, but also to understand the exteme views, and since I am the most extreme of all they both sound moderate to me.

Our job is not to make the media honest, but to accurately identify their lies and hypocrisy.

These days, pointing out hypocrisy is the ultimate drag, there is no end to it. We all know already that both sides are hypocrites.
 
Liberals constantly accuse FOX news of partisanship while they pretend to be agnostic. The Liberal media are total hypocrites, frauds and liars...
That's a matter of opinion.

As opinions go, some people may not like Jon Stewart. Perhaps they consider him polarizing. That may or may not be true. Stewart doesn't much like Fox News. That's his opinion. Rather than take his word for it if you don't like or trust him, consider this video which captures Fox's own hypocrisy on a single subject matter:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/05/14/jon-stewart-fox-news-poor-shaming-is-easily-pro/203647

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LFF3qItnYs

Again, don't take anyone else's word for it. Just Fox's. Dismiss Stewart's commentary. Just focus on what Fox says it didn't say.

So how do you like Fox now?
 
That's a matter of opinion.

As opinions go, some people may not like Jon Stewart. Perhaps they consider him polarizing. That may or may not be true. Stewart doesn't much like Fox News. That's his opinion. Rather than take his word for it if you don't like or trust him, consider this video which captures Fox's own hypocrisy on a single subject matter:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/05/14/jon-stewart-fox-news-poor-shaming-is-easily-pro/203647

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LFF3qItnYs

Again, don't take anyone else's word for it. Just Fox's. Dismiss Stewart's commentary. Just focus on what Fox says it didn't say.

So how do you like Fox now?


11226193_1107038752656104_255863673567865942_n.jpg


That may be Newton's 4th law.
 
when I was a kid, there were only 3 channels on tv, abc, nbc and cbs. Late night a lot of local car dealers would advertise. After a while, you just got to recognize their lies. I am an avid tv watcher, and regularly watch fox and msnbc and Jon Stewart. After a while, you just get to recognize their lies.

remember, their job is not to tell the truth, it is to get paid for advertising. And in msnbc's case, it is often to sell advertising for the companies they say are ruining out planet.

there is hypocrisy all over the place. It's just getting dumb and shallow to point it out on the internet. We all should know that by now. Time to move on and discuss the issues rather than point out all the endless hypocrisy.
 
I don't mind the lies from MSNBC... they are sort of obvious about their love of the left.
The insidious stuff is the stuff we get from the likes of Stefonopoulis (sp). The hidden agenda driving their reportage as they feign impartiality. I note though in this exact case... he did not really need to tell the viewers... we all know his is a clintonista and that he would lie for them The odd thing is that he did not tell is employers. That shows hillary like disdain for the rules. Its clearly deceptive and wrong. It makes you question his integrity to the core. Something I would have not done before (I sort of enjoyed his show the few times I have watched it.) Partisan yes... but completely lacking in integrity? I did not know that.
 
I don't mind the lies from MSNBC... they are sort of obvious about their love of the left.
The insidious stuff is the stuff we get from the likes of Stefonopoulis (sp). The hidden agenda driving their reportage as they feign impartiality. I note though in this exact case... he did not really need to tell the viewers... we all know his is a clintonista and that he would lie for them The odd thing is that he did not tell is employers. That shows hillary like disdain for the rules. Its clearly deceptive and wrong. It makes you question his integrity to the core. Something I would have not thought before. Partisan yes... but completely lacking in integrity? I did not know that.
sounds like you are a closet liberal. They think they are smart and all the voters are dumb. Typical elitists. And they fear any opposing view not based on their facts.
 
Back
Top