Liberal Media fails again.

Regarding Stephanopolousgate, much ado about little.

It is obvious to anyone who follows politics that Stephanopolous was a Clinton operative at one time. That is no surprise. His "association" with the Clinton Foundation, a non-partisan charitable organization that has done a lot of good across the world and continues to do so, is merely as a donor. While I think it would have been better for him to disclose his donation, for the sake of appearances and good form, he has no more direct "ties" to the Clinton Global Initiative than you do to any one of the charities to which you may donate.

However, no one on Fox seemed at all disturbed that Schweizer did not have any direct evidence regarding the very allegation he was making. To quote Schweizer directly, “We don’t have direct evidence." How is that not even worthy of Fox's mention, since these are serious allegations presented with no evidence?

So, yes, Stephanopolous would have been better served by full disclosure at the outset. But that did not preclude him from sniffing out a turd. And it doesn't take away from his observation. An observation that Fox appears incapable of making and addressing. For some reason.

On the other hand, I'm surprised Fox didn't point out that Stephanopolous wasn't wearing a flagpin at the time.
 
Last edited:
Of course a Clinton apologist wouldn't recognize a conflict of interest in grilling an author and trying to undermine him about an issue that the "journalist" was himself involved in. Everyone doesn't know that Georgie was a hired fixer for the Clintons. It's not like he goes out of his way to disclose it. Just like Cokie Roberts never has disclosed that her parents were Hale and Lindy Boggs. He was the former Speaker of the House and she assumed his seat when he died in a plane crash. Or that her late brother was the notorious Tommy Boggs, the most prominent lobbyist in Washington for decades.
 
Steph was on the John Stewart show just two weeks ago and he said that anyone that gives to the Clinton foundation expects to get something in return.

So there needs to be a next step to this investigation to find out exactly what Steph expected to get in return for his donation. A high job in the next white house if she wins?

We need to know what he expected and when did he expect it.
 
Last edited:
Fact-driven, fair, aggressive journalism animates American politics. As an investigative journalist, I am accustomed to asking tough questions. When I publish, I expect tough questions in turn,

That's not what ABC News This Week host and chief anchor George Stephanopoulos delivered when he interviewed me about my new book on the Clinton Foundation last month. There's a reason. Though Stephanopoulos belatedly disclosed$75,000 in donations to the foundation, he has yet to disclose his much deeper relationship with the Clinton Foundation.

When Stephanopoulos invited me on his Sunday program, I knew that he had worked as a top adviser and campaign manager to President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, but I didn't know about his donations or his other ties to the foundation founded and overseen by the former president and his wife, potential future president Hillary Clinton.


USA TODAY
Wolff: Stephanopoulos donation furor overdone

I agreed to be interviewed, expecting a robust examination of my new book, Clinton Cash, and my reporting on the Clintons' accumulation of massive personal wealth, cronyism and the lack of transparency surrounding the Clintons' foundation.

I expected probing questions, similar to the ones I've received from Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC, Chris Wallace on Fox News and Frank Sesno on CNN.

What I did not expect — what no one expected — was the sort of "hidden hand journalism" that has contributed to America's news media's crisis of credibility in particular, and Americans' distrust of the news media more broadly.

If Stephanopoulos had disclosed his donations to the very foundation I was there to talk about, perhaps it would have put the aggressive posture of his interview with me in context.

But he didn't.

And even though he has apologized to his viewers for keeping this information from both his audience and his bosses, there is much that Stephanopoulos has yet to disclose to his viewers. Indeed, far from being a passive donor who strokes Clinton Foundation checks from afar, a closer look reveals that Stephanopoulos is an ardent and engaged Clinton Foundation advocate.

For example, in his on air apology for this ethical mess, Stephanopoulos did not disclose that in 2006 he was a featured attendee and panel moderator at the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI).


USA TODAY
Only the Clintons seem blind to foundation's conflicts: Our view


USA TODAY
Clinton Foundation is open and accountable: Opposing view

He did not disclose that in 2007, he was a featured attendee at the CGI annual meeting, a gathering also attended by several individuals I report on in Clinton Cash, including mega Clinton Foundation donors Lucas Lundin, Frank Giustra, Frank Holmes, and Carlos Slim — individuals whose involvement with the Clintons I assumed he had invited me on his program to discuss.

Stephanopoulos did not disclose that he was a 2008 panelist at the CGI annual meeting which, once again, featured individuals I report on in the book, such as billionaire Clinton Foundation foreign donor Denis O'Brien.

ABC's most visible news employee did not disclose that in 2009, he served as a panel moderator at CGI's annual meeting, nor did he disclose that in 2010 and 2011, he was an official CGI member.

Stephanopoulos did not disclose that in 2013 and 2014, he and Chelsea Clinton served as CGI contest judges for awards, in part, underwritten by Laureate International Universities — a for-profit education company I report on in the book. Bill Clinton was on its payroll until his recent resignation.

Obviously, Stephanopoulos has favorable feelings toward Hillary and Bill Clinton; he gives their foundation his money and his time. Big-time news media personalities have one thing in very short supply — time. Regular participation in Clinton Foundation events shows a deeper commitment to the Clintons than just the donations.


USA TODAY
For Bill O'Reilly, the facts are a factor: Our view


USA TODAY
NBC made the right call to suspend Williams: Our view

Perhaps if Stephanopoulos weren't so close to the subject of my book, he might have asked me about my reporting on Hillary Clinton's brother, Tony Rodham, serving on the board of a company that scored a coveted and rare gold mining permit in Haiti as the Clintons directed the flow of U.S. Agency for International Development dollars. (As The Washington Post reported, Rodham met those mining executives at a CGI meeting.)

Indeed, Stephanopoulos could have pounded away at all the book's news. He chose not to. Instead, he made sure to highlight the four months I wrote speeches for President George W. Bush and my long past financial supporters, all while keeping quiet about his deep and longstanding involvement in the Clintons' foundation, and the three annual checks for $25,000 that he wrote.

What ABC News' top anchor has done is far different than the "honest mistake" ABC called it in a statement earlier this week.

I asked ABC News about the fact that this information was yet to be disclosed to ABC viewers, and mostly they avoided my questions, releasing a statement that reads in full, "Yes, George made us aware that he was moderating these panels and that is absolutely within our guidelines. We know that he would be listed as a member — as all moderators are. He is in good company of scores of other journalists that have moderated these panels."

That, however, is not at all what the Clinton Foundation website says about CGI membership. Read for yourself. Whether ABC News will ultimately punish Stephanopoulos is unclear.

What is certain is that Stephanopoulos' ethical malpractice and hidden-hand journalism have done further injury to an essential, if beleaguered, institution, one already battling to preserve legitimacy.

That's news no one can celebrate.
 
Winston tastes good like a cigarette should

They use to let journalists smoke on tv

Ah, those were the days, when you could trust everything you saw on tv (as long as they could sell Winston Cigarettes.) And they could sell Winston cigarettes as long as people trusted them and watched them.

See how things have changed?
 
Flashback: George Stephanopoulos to Hillary Clinton: 'I Love You'

From the closing pages of his book:


Pages 427-428

Hillary was in the back bedroom, helping Chelsea get dressed. Just before I left for a victory lap with the network anchors, I knocked on her door. She peeked out, "Just a minute," then came into the hall. Only the two of us were there, separated by a wall from the suite where the returns were being announced and Clinton was holding court. This was our private good-bye. She gave me a hug, then held at arm's length for an extra second, a hand on each of my shoulders, her eyes shining.

We smiled through the silence. Victory was vindication – even sweeter for her than her husband. She paid a high price, taken harder hits, achieved fewer dreams. Now she'd have a second chance, and I wished her luck. She did the same for me. All the stresses and threats and resentments, all the times the two of us had clashed because I blamed her for being too rigid and she blamed me for not being as "tough as Kennedy's men" – all that was behind us now. We had survived. We had on. All would be well.

"I love you, George Stephanopoulos."
"I love you too."
Staff no more, I walked out the door.

- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-...llary-clinton-i-love-you#sthash.FLWQkc7p.dpuf
 
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?

I don't give a shit about Fox news. Or John Stewart.

The point is that Liberal Media portray themselves as completely and totally unbiased, which is absolute horseshit. They pretend they have NO slant and then accuse right-wing media for their admitted bias. FOX News admits their bias. That's fine. At least theyre honest.

Liberals are liars and frauds. It's part of their mental delusion. They think they're soooooo smart, and only other liberal elites can understand their genius. They're just delusional shit-bags riddled with every sort of hypocrisy imaginable. And then they invent excuses for their inconsistencies which somehow proves their superior 'genius'. IT's all bullshit.

As for neocons, I hate them. They're scum of the earth, too. But what you need to understand is that you're a Fabian Socialist left-wing Fascist. The neocons are right-wing jack-boot thugs fascists. You're both scumbag Fascists, just of a different variety. One an arm-chair, chicken-hawk, quarter-back. And the other a faggy, limp-wristed, pussy with a sadistic streak. You both want to tell other people how to live, and you're both scum.

Have a good day :O)
 
I don't give a shit about Fox news. Or John Stewart.

The point is that Liberal Media portray themselves as completely and totally unbiased, which is absolute horseshit. They pretend they have NO slant and then accuse right-wing media for their admitted bias. FOX News admits their bias. That's fine. At least theyre honest.

Liberals are liars and frauds. It's part of their mental delusion. They think they're soooooo smart, and only other liberal elites can understand their genius. They're just delusional shit-bags riddled with every sort of hypocrisy imaginable. And then they invent excuses for their inconsistencies which somehow proves their superior 'genius'. IT's all bullshit.

As for neocons, I hate them. They're scum of the earth, too. But what you need to understand is that you're a Fabian Socialist left-wing Fascist. The neocons are right-wing jack-boot thugs fascists. You're both scumbag Fascists, just of a different variety. One an arm-chair, chicken-hawk, quarter-back. And the other a faggy, limp-wristed, pussy with a sadistic streak. You both want to tell other people how to live, and you're both scum.

Have a good day :O)
LMAO

Good post. Truth.
 
I don't give a shit about Fox news. Or John Stewart.

The point is that Liberal Media portray themselves as completely and totally unbiased, which is absolute horseshit. They pretend they have NO slant and then accuse right-wing media for their admitted bias. FOX News admits their bias. That's fine. At least theyre honest.

Liberals are liars and frauds. It's part of their mental delusion. They think they're soooooo smart, and only other liberal elites can understand their genius. They're just delusional shit-bags riddled with every sort of hypocrisy imaginable. And then they invent excuses for their inconsistencies which somehow proves their superior 'genius'. IT's all bullshit.

As for neocons, I hate them. They're scum of the earth, too. But what you need to understand is that you're a Fabian Socialist left-wing Fascist. The neocons are right-wing jack-boot thugs fascists. You're both scumbag Fascists, just of a different variety. One an arm-chair, chicken-hawk, quarter-back. And the other a faggy, limp-wristed, pussy with a sadistic streak. You both want to tell other people how to live, and you're both scum.

Have a good day :O)
That's a lot of rage and hate on display right there. IBS flare up again?

And if I understand you correctly, the "Liberal Media" encompasses anyone other than Fox News, whom you supposedly "don't give a shit about" despite their "honesty." Did you manage to catch a snippet of that honesty in the video I posted?
 
Last edited:
That's a lot of rage and hate on display right there. IBS flare up again?

And if I understand you correctly, the "Liberal Media" encompasses anyone other than Fox News, whom you supposedly "don't give a shit about" despite their "honesty." Did you manage to catch a snippet of that honesty in the video I posted?
Like I said, I dont give a shit about FOX News. They're OWNED by Fortune 500, just as much as left-wing media are. FOX is honest about their slant. I didn't say their reporting is honest. Although it's more honest in terms of reporting on race, racial issues etc. Left-wing media push every story of cops killing blacks and ignore the piles of stories of blacks killing whites and targeting whites. FOX News is a neocon mouthpiece. They push War.

As far as me being angry, if you're not outraged at the state of America and what's happening to our Freedoms, you're either woefully misinformed, an idiot, or a fascist.
 
Back
Top