I knew I would quickly regret making the initial post about George Stephanopoulos’s undisclosed and hypocritical conflict of interest partially about me rather than just George. I couldn’t resist, though: I was still (am still) annoyed by the comments on the original post that suggested that there was nothing wrong with his cross-examination of “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer and his mouthing all of the Clinton team’s talking points while sounding like a clone of Lanny Davis.
I’ll admit it: I am finding it increasingly difficult to hold anything but contempt for those who refuses to see, or admit that they see, how corrupt Hillary Clinton is, and how utterly unqualified and untrustworthy she is to hold any elective office. I have the least respect for the women who disgrace feminism (and embrace bigotry) by saying that they will (ewwww) “vote with their vaginas.” This is the essence of brain-dead tribalism: sorry, if all you care about in the White House is chromosomes, you’re a sexist idiot and a disgrace to democracy. I’m curious, too: is there anyone with a vagina that you wouldn’t vote for? Rosie O’Donnell? Maxine Waters? Sofia Vergara? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Paris Hilton? Kris Kardashian? ANY Kardashian? Because, you know, I’d trust any one of them at least as much as I’d trust Hillary Clinton.
Stephanopoulos was angry and adversarial in the interview, while Schweizer was candid and unconfrontational. The ABC News star’s pro-Clinton orientation—sharp tone, annoyed expression, defense attorney language— was obvious to anyone not thinking “Go get him, George!” That’s not objectivity. That’s taking sides, without admitting it.
I was right again, you’ll note, when I concluded by saying that ABC wouldn’t discipline George, and that’s exactly what the network has said. The entire journalistic establishment should rise up and slam the network for this, but all but a few slivers of that establishment are as corrupt, biased and conflicted as George and his bosses. Tell me, ABC, why is he too conflicted to moderate debates, but not too conflicted to continue to interview candidates and critics challenging Clinton? Or to discuss controversies involving the Clintons, or to moderate—moderators are supposed to be fair and neutral–round table discussions about those controversies? Would an objective moderator keep putting a paid Democratic operative like Donna Brazile at his round table and pretend that she is an independent pundit? ARRRGH!
I’ll have more after Dwayne N. Zechman’s spot-on Comment of the Day covering other aspects of this ethics fiasco, on the post: Remember That “Kaboom!” About ABC’s George Stephanopoulos’ Hypocritical Conflict Of Interest? Well….
Just read the AP story that Jack linked to in the UPDATE: line. Short, sweet, and OH MY GAWD. My comments are in bold.
“NEW YORK (AP) — George Stephanopoulos is apologizing to “Good Morning America” viewers for donating $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation, saying that was a mistake….”
So far, so good. Why was it a mistake, George?>
“The ABC News anchor said on the air Friday that he should have gone the extra mile to avoid the appearance of a conflict.”
Um, no, this isn’t the appearance of a conflict. This is evidence of a conflict. But maybe I’m just being pedantic . . . unless he really means that he should have gone the extra mile to avoid having his conflict appear in the news. But really, we should only expect that kind of weasel-language from . . .
“He gave the money to the foundation started by his one-time boss, former President Bill Clinton, to help on global AIDS prevention and deforestation. Stephanopoulos worked on Clinton’s 1992 campaign and in the White House.”
. . . from BILL CLINTON. Wait, his “one-time boss”??? It says right there that he worked on the campaign AND in the White House. AND. That’s TWO.
And . . . correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t someone else named Clinton associate with that foundation running for President? Did the AP reporter not get that THAT is the important part?
“Stephanopoulos rose to the top ranks at ABC over 18 years…”
Um, no, he just one day BAM! had a show. Had he “rose” to those top ranks, he’d have started in the mailroom or something.
“…and worked to establish himself as an independent journalist despite his political background,…”
…by doing what? The AP is stating without evidence that Steph is an independent journalist, when the rebuttable presumption is that he IS NOT, precisely because of his political background. At least give us SOMETHING of a rebuttal.
“…only to see his actions bring that issue back to the fore just as Hillary Rodham Clinton is launching her presidential campaign.”
“only to see his actions” HAHAHAHA. Don’t you mean “only to bring that issue back to the fore himself through his own actions”? No, he’s some sort of passive observer in all this. A victim, dontchaknow. Maybe even a victim of that vast right-wing cons–
Oh, look, there’s Hillary, mentioned right at the end–and (gasp) she’s running for President.
And lest we miss the forest for the trees, looking at the story as a whole, the actual news story is that George Stephanopoulos is apologizing, not that he made the donations and how that shows that he is NOT “an independent journalist” at all.
I’m back. I’m sorry, but this issue has driven me nuts for all 18 years that George Stephanopoulos has been masquerading as a journalist. I know, Chris Matthews worked for Tip O’Neill but 1) Tip was Saint Peter compared to either Clinton; 2) Matthews has always been up front about it; 3) He’s a pundit, not an anchor, and 4) he never pretends to be objective and unbiased.
Sean Hannity, who occassionally gets thing right, pointed out how Clintonian George’s original “apology” was. Bingo. George wrote (my comments in Zechmann Bold:
“I made charitable donations to the Foundation in support of the work they’re doing on global AIDS prevention and deforestation, causes I care about deeply…”
Cleverly framing himself as a good guy and citizen of Planet Earth. Why just in the last three years, George, when the Foundation was morphing into an influence peddling slush fund? How do we know it wasn’t “pay to play”: give the Clintons money, get insider dope on the campaign to scoop the competition? Are we supposed to believe that this most mutual-back-scratching of power couples doesn’t give favors to the journalists who “support the work they’re doing” over those—I call them “ethical reporters” — who don’t?
“I thought that my contributions were a matter of public record.”
Right. Because all your viewers regularly peruse non-profit 990 forms. Any public document is a matter of public record. So what? Did you know that a lawyer can’t disclose information in public records that relate to their representation of their clients, because it is assumed that the information is still confidential until it is generally published? Sure you did. You knew the contributions were a matter of public record, and also knew this is very different from making the contributions public knowledge, Did Bill write this part for you?
“However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on-air during the recent news stories about the foundation.”
Why “in hindsight”? If he’s been a journalist for 18 years, the principle of disclosing conflicts should be engraved on his brain. What this literally means is that George doesn’t get the importance of conflicts and their affect on credibility and objectivity…after 18 years! What other conflicts has he ignored?
Get lost, you phony.