Tag Archives: Media Bias

George Stephanopolous was a member of the Clinton Global Initiative in 2010 and 2011

White House Senior Advisor George Stephanopolous with President Clinton in the Oval Office
White House Senior Advisor George Stephanopolous with President Clinton in the Oval Office

(Image source: Time Magazine)

The text at the bottom of the April 4, 1994 Time Magazine cover says: “White House Senior Advisor George Stephanopolous with President Clinton in the Oval Office”.

Breitbart News has more news on the ABC News defense of the Clinton Foundation by former Clinton administration top aide George Stephanopolous.

Excerpt:

George Stephanopoulos’ connections to the Clinton Foundation may be more substantial than he has so far admitted.

An archived page of the Clinton Global Initiative website lists George Stephanopoulos as a “notable member” for the years 2010 and 2011. ABC News has confirmed Mr. Stephanopoulos was a member during both years.

Blogger Jeryl Bier first noticed Stephanopoulos’ name on a CGI list of “notable past members.” The site did not specify when each individual listed had been a member. However, the Internet archive shows that Stephanopoulos was listed as a notable member in 2010 and 2011 along with a list of other well-known media members like Matt Lauer and Anderson Cooper.

[…]Breitbart News contacted ABC News and was told that Mr. Stephanopoulos did not pay a membership fee in either 2010 or 2011. According to a spokesperson, he was listed as a member because he moderated a panel for CGI events both of those years.

The Internet archive does not have a cache of the notable CGI members prior to 2010, but according to publicly available sources, Stephanopoulos also participated in CGI events in 2005, in 2006, in 2007 and in 2009. Therefore, it’s possible he was considered a member for every year between 2005-2011, with the possible exception of 2008, when he does not appear to have taken part in any CGI event.

On Wednesday of this week, the Washington Free Beacon discovered that ABC’s Stephanopoulos was listed on the Clinton Foundation website as a donor. WFB reporter Andrew Stiles contacted ABC News to confirm those donations. Rather than respond to the WFB, the spokesperson for ABC News appears to have leaked the story on the donations to Politico.

Politico is a left-wing organization, and they would have spun the story to protect the Clintons and ABC News. It amazes me that anyone looks to the mainstream media for news. Why would you trust people to tell you the truth about Clinton when they donated to the Clinton Foundation, did events for the Clinton Global Initiative, helped to get Bill Clinton elected President as a top aide, then worked in Bill Clinton’s administration as White House Communications Director?

Remember what Stephanopoulos did to Romney during the last Republican primary debate?

The radically leftist New York Times summarizes the clip above:

In 2012 advisers in the Romney campaign actively lobbied to exclude Mr. Stephanopoulos from the primary debates to no avail. Conservatives say their fears were borne out during the ABC News debate in New Hampshire that year. Mr. Stephanopoulos repeatedly asked Mr. Romney if he believed that states could outlaw birth control — a question that the Romney campaign saw as off-point and far afield of the issues that concerned voters. Mr. Stephanopoulos pressed repeatedly, asking six follow-up questions.

That’s right. He asked 7 questions about a topic that as relevant to the campaign as Clinton’s affairs with Monica Lewinsky. He did it in order to smear Republicans.

Related posts

ABC News anchor who defended Clinton Foundation donated $75,000 to Clinton Foundation

White House Senior Advisor George Stephanopolous with President Clinton in the Oval Office
Text at the bottom: White House Senior Advisor George Stephanopolous with President Clinton in the Oval Office

(Image source: Time Magazine)

The text at the bottom of the April 4, 1994 Time Magazine cover says: “White House Senior Advisor George Stephanopolous with President Clinton in the Oval Office”.

Whenever the story is media bias, the web site to go to is Newsbusters.

First article:

ABC news host George Stephanopoulos admitted Thursday he had donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation and did not disclose this conflict of interest to viewers before interviewing the author of a book critical of the foundation’s foreign donors and influence over Hillary Clinton at the State Department.

Stephanopoulos, a former Bill Clinton communications aide, interviewed Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer on the April 26 edition of This Week, where he pushed back against his reporting and Schweizer himself, repeating Democratic attacks that he had a “partisan interest” in disparaging the Clintons.

“They say you used to work for President Bush as a speech writer. You are funded by the Koch brothers,” he said. “How do you respond to that?”

“As you know, the Clinton campaign says you haven’t produced a shred of evidence that there was any official action as secretary that supported the interest of donors,” he asked later. “We’ve done investigative work here at ABC News, found no proof of any kind of direct action. An independent government ethics expert at the Sunlight Foundation Bill Allison wrote this: ‘There’s no smoking gun. No evidence that the changed policy based on donations to the foundation. No smoking gun.’ Is there a smoking gun?”

Stephanopoulos did not point out that the Sunlight Foundation is funded by left-wing billionaire George Soros.

[…]The story came to light when the Free Beacon‘s Andrew Stiles discovered Stephanopoulos’ donation and requested a comment from ABC News. Stephanopoulos then confirmed the donation to Politico and issued an apology for not disclosing it beforehand, and ABC announced it would not take any punitive action against him.

Second article:

Talking to Bloomberg Politics correspondent Joshua Green on Wednesday, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer said he was “really quite stunned” by the revelation that ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos gave $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Schweizer called it a “massive breach of ethical standards” for the Bill Clinton operative turned journalist.

Referencing a contentious interview with Stephanopoulos for This Week on April 26, Schweizer observed: “He fairly noted my four months working as a speech writer for George W. Bush. But he didn’t disclose this?” In that exchange, Stephanopoulos accused Schweizer of having a “partisan interest” in writing a book critical of the Clintons.

In 2014, Stephanopoulos offered a glowing puff piece on the Clinton Foundation, hailing it as an organization that “brings together world leaders…and celebrities, re-imagining the world and taking action.”

Also on Thursday, Kentucky Senator and Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul told The New York Times that Stephanopoulos should not be permitted to moderate any 2016 debates: “It’s impossible to divorce yourself from that, even if you try. I just think it’s really, really hard because he’s been there, so close to them, that there would be a conflict of interest if he tried to be a moderator of any sort.”

And Rand Paul is getting what he asked for, the former Clinton administration communications director George Stephanopolous will not be moderator of a GOP debate. Honestly, why was he in there in the first place? You might as well pick Satan to moderate a debate on the resurrection of Jesus. I’m really not sure why ABC News would make him their chief anchor, since the man is a diehard Democrat. A top Clinton aide, and White House Communications Director when Clinton was President. Do you know what the White House Communications Director does? He just says whatever he has to to make the President look good.

A fair moderator of GOP debates? Give me a break.

The radically leftist New York Times reminds us what Stephanopolous did in the 2012 presidential debate he moderated:

In 2012 advisers in the Romney campaign actively lobbied to exclude Mr. Stephanopoulos from the primary debates to no avail. Conservatives say their fears were borne out during the ABC News debate in New Hampshire that year. Mr. Stephanopoulos repeatedly asked Mr. Romney if he believed that states could outlaw birth control — a question that the Romney campaign saw as off-point and far afield of the issues that concerned voters. Mr. Stephanopoulos pressed repeatedly, asking six follow-up questions.

That’s right. He asked 7 questions about a topic that as relevant to the campaign as Clinton’s affairs with Monica Lewinsky. He did it in order to smear Republicans.

ABC News is, of course, not punishing him from reporting on a foundation that he donated to.

The original source for this story was the Washington Free Beacon. Credit where due.

Related posts

Media silent on DOJ report that refutes their “hands up, don’t shoot” myth

CNN reporters spread lies about Ferguson
CNN clowns lie about Ferguson “hands up, don’t shoot”

Yesterday, I reported on how the Department of Justice had found officer Darren Wilson innocent, and asserted that the mainstream media that spread lies about him would not correct their lies.

Newsbusters reported on how the mainstream media reported on the DOJ report.

Excerpt:

“Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” has been the rallying cry of Ferguson protesters since officer Darren Wilson fatally shot Michael Brown on a Missouri street last August. Brown, the “gentle giant,” was shot while trying to surrender or de-escalate his encounter with Wilson. It was an article of faith on the left, and the three networks used the phrase 140 times in their coverage of Ferguson.

Now, the DOJ report and Attorney General Eric Holder have admitted that the catch phrase was based on false witness accounts. None of the networks apologized or admitted their own reporting spread that false narrative. Instead, they focused on DOJ’s assertions of racism in the Ferguson police department. 

In a press conference yesterday, AG Holder admitted that a false account of events had mysteriously gained popularity with the public, but he wouldn’t admit the media had some small part in this. “I recognize that the findings in our report may leave some to wonder how the department’s findings can differ so sharply from some of the initial, widely reported accounts of what transpired,” he said, “It remains not only valid – but essential – to question how such a strong alternative version of events was able to take hold so swiftly, and be accepted so readily.” 

Er, it might have something to do with people in the media and government (Holder very much included) being all too eager to believe, or at least cynically parrot that “alternative version.” For example, the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” phrase was mentioned 34 times by NBC, 51 by ABC and 55 by CBS from August 9, 2014 to March 3, 2015.

But only the CBS Evening News, which gave 42 seconds to clearing Wilson, noted that there was “no credible evidence Brown had his hands up attempting to surrender.”

[…]It’s not just the broadcast news that was complicit in spreading false information and adding fuel to the fire in the Ferguson case. Shockingly, a CNN panel even participated in siding with the protesters by hosting their own, “Hands Up” protest after the grand jury found Wilson not guilty of any criminal charges in December.

You can see the CNN panel raising their hands in order to spread the “hands up, don’t shoot” lie in the photo above.

Is media bias real?

From the Washington Examiner, a study of the political contributions made by the mainstream media.

Excerpt:

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.

[…]The data on contributions by broadcast network employees was compiled by CRP at the request of The Examiner and included all 2008 contributions by individuals who identified their employer as one of the three networks or subsidiaries. The data does not include contributions by employees of the three networks who did not identify their employer.

The CRP is the organization behind OpenSecrets.org, the web site that for more than a decade has put campaign finance data within reach of anybody with an Internet connection.

President Obama received 710 such contributions worth a total of $461,898, for an average contribution of $651 from the network employees. Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain received only 39 contributions totaling $26,926, for an average donation of $709.

And more from a study done by the radically leftist MSNBC.

Excerpt:

MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

The donors include CNN’s Guy Raz, now covering the Pentagon for NPR, who gave to Kerry the same month he was embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq; New Yorker war correspondent George Packer; a producer for Bill O’Reilly at Fox; MSNBC TV host Joe Scarborough; political writers at Vanity Fair; the editor of The Wall Street Journal’s weekend edition; local TV anchors in Washington, Minneapolis, Memphis and Wichita; the ethics columnist at The New York Times; and even MTV’s former presidential campaign correspondent.

I think that we need to be really careful when we watch the mainstream media news channels. It’s not good to willingly subject ourselves to lies that we find comfortable – that fit within our already-established prejudices. As you can see from the handling of the DOJ report on Ferguson, we should be skeptical of what we hear from the news media.

Eric Holder’s DOJ finds officer Darren Wilson innocent in Michael Brown shooting

Ferguson protesters shut down highway
Ferguson protesters shut down highway

Normally, I would not post on this, but I think I must because of the way that the mainstream media and the culture as a whole swallowed a narrative that bashes police officers, and by extension the rule of law, and even the responsibility that criminals bear for their own actions.

Hot Air introduces the Department of Justice’s findings:

The DOJ — Eric Holder’s DOJ — is clear as can be that it thinks Wilson was justified in shooting Michael Brown.

[…][The DOJ report] was a considered argument that not only is Wilson not guilty of a federal civil rights charge, he’s not guilty of a criminal offense of any sort. Had Wilson gone to trial, he could have submitted this as his motion to dismiss and the court might well have torpedoed the indictment before opening arguments.

Hot Air extracts some of the most interesting parts of the report, and I am injecting some photos of “hands-up” Democrats in between the findings.

Page 82:

Wilson’s version is further supported by disinterested eyewitnesses Witness 102, Witness 104. Witness 105. Witness 108. and Witness 109. among others. Those witnesses all agree that Brown ran or charged toward Wilson and that Wilson shot at Brown only as Brown moved toward him. Although some of the witnesses stated that Brown briefly had his hands up or out at about waist-level, none of these witnesses perceived Brown to be attempting to surrender at any point when Wilson fired upon him. To the contrary, several of these witnesses stated that they would have felt threatened by Brown and would have responded in the same way Wilson did. For example. Witness 104 stated that as Wilson ran after Brown yelling “stop, stop. stop.” Brown finally turned around and raised his hands “for a second.” However. Brown then immediately balled his hands into fists and “charged” at Wilson in a “tackle run.” Witness 104 stated that Wilson fired only when Brown moved toward him and that she “would have fired sooner.” Likewise. Witness 105 stated that Brown turned around and put his hands up “for a brief moment.” then refused a command from Wilson to “get down” and instead put his hands “in running position” and maned running toward Wilson. Witness 105 stated that Wilson shot at Brown only when Brown was moving toward him. These witnesses’ accounts are consistent with prior statements they have given, consistent with the forensic and physical evidence, and consistent with each other’s accounts. Accordingly. we conclude that these accounts arc credible.

Democrats:

Democrats say "hands up!"
Democrats say “hands up!”

Page 84:

When the shootings are viewed, as they must be, in light of all the surrounding circumstances and what Wilson knew at the time, as established by the credible physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, it was not unreasonable for Wilson to fire on Brown until he stopped moving forward and was clearly subdued. Although, with hindsight. we know that Brown was not armed with a gun or other weapon, this fact does not render Wilson’s use of deadly force objectively unreasonable. Again. the key question is whether Brown could reasonably have been perceived to pose a deadly threat to Wilson at the time he shot him regardless of whether Brown was armed. Sufficient credible evidence supports Wilson’s claim that he reasonably perceived Brown to be posing a deadly threat. First. Wilson did not know that Brown was not armed at the time he shot him, and had reason to suspect that he might be when Brown reached into the waistband of his pants as he advanced toward Wilson. S

[…]While Brown did not use a gun on Wilson at the SUV, his aggressive actions would have given Wilson reason to at least question whether he might be armed, as would his subsequent forward advance and reach toward his waistband. This is especially so in light of the rapidly-evolving nature of the incident. Wilson did not have time to determine whether Brown had a gun and was not required to risk being shot himself in order to make a more definitive assessment.

Democrats:

Another Democrat says "hands up"
Another Democrat says “hands up”

Here’s a witness who was disqualified:

Witness 101 is a 22-year-old black male who was walking in the middle of Canfield Drive with Brown when they encountered Wilson. Witness 101 made multiple statements to the media immediately following the incident that spawned the popular narrative that Wilson shot Brown execution style as he held up his hands in surrender. These media interviews occurred prior to Witness 101 giving his two statements. First, FBI and SLCPD jointly interviewed Witness 101 on August 13. 2014. in the presence of Witness 101’s mother. Witness 101’s two attorneys, and an individual who explained that he was in charge of Witness 101’s personal security. Witness 101 subsequently testified before the county grand jury.

After pointing out all the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in his testimony, the report concludes:

Witness 101 has a misdemeanor conviction for a crime of dishonesty likely admissible in federal court as impeachment evidence. As described above, material parts of Witness 101’s account are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence. internally inconsistent from one part of his account to the next, and inconsistent with other credible witness accounts that are corroborated by physical evidence. It is also unclear whether Witness 101 had the ability to accurately perceive the shootings. Witness 101 likely crouched down next to a white Monte Carlo as Wilson chased Brown. The Monte Carlo was facing west with a view of the passenger side of the SUV. Brown ran in the opposite direction that the Monte Carlo was facing. Witness accounts vary as to whether Witness 101 was ducking for cover on the passenger side of the Monte Carlo with his back to the shooting, or whether he fled the scene prior to the final shots being fired. Both Witness 101’s inconsistencies and his ability to perceive what happened, or lack thereof, make his account vulnerable to effective cross-examination and extensive impeachment. Accordingly, after a thorough review of all of the evidence, federal prosecutors determined material portions of Witness 101’s account lack credibility and therefore determined that his account does not support a prosecution of Darren Wilson.

Now, I want you to think about what it meant that the mainstream media in this country, and their allies in the Democrat party, were able to cause riots, vandalism, crime, and all manner of unrest because of a lie. Did you fall for it? Do you know anyone who did? I would like to think that the same people who went rioting will hear about this from their favorite media propagandists, but I don’t they they will. After all, getting to the truth is the last thing the media wanted to do. They won’t cover the correction to their lies. They wanted to cause divisions, and prop up the Democrat party as the savior of colored people.

I recommend that everyone watch this 15-minute TED.com talk with Sharyl Attkisson: (H/T Drew)

For the record, my skin color is about the same as Sheila Jackson Lee, above.

Jeb Bush’s bussed-in supporters applaud driver’s licenses and in-state tuition for illegals

Jeb Bush and Barack Obama
Jeb Bush and Barack Obama

Did you know that Jeb Bush supports driver’s licenses and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants?

He faced questions about his tenure as governor of Florida, when he tried to provide driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants and, later, supported letting undocumented students pay in-state tuition at state colleges.

Bush drew some boos, but stuck to his position that illegal immigrants have to be brought into the American fold.

“I know there’s disagreement here,” he conceded.

Not all CPAC attendees boo’d Bush’s leftist speech at CPAC – some just walked out of the room.

But Breitbart reports that some neither left the room, nor boo’d him – who were they?:

Perhaps in fear that he didn’t have enough backers willing to show up on their own, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s campaign organized to bus supporters to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to cheer during his appearance on stage and vote for him in the straw poll.

The New York Times’ Jonathan Martin writes that Bush brought people in from Washington, D.C.: “Mr. Bush’s supporters organized caravans of his Washington backers to attend his speech, and they cheered whenever anyone else booed,” Martin wrote.

Those same bused in cheerers also will likely be expected by Bush’s campaign to vote for him in the famed straw poll.

Betsy Woodruff at the liberal outlet Slate also obtained emails that prove Bush’s team was busing in supporters from K Street.

“Emails provided to Slate show that backers of the former Florida governor are busing supporters from downtown Washington D.C. to CPAC in National Harbor, Maryland, and organizing to get them day passes into the event,” Woodruff wrote.

One person behind the effort to bus in Bush backers, Woodruff confirmed, was former George W. Bush advance man Fritz Brogan. “A Bush insider confirmed to Slate that Bush’s Right to Rise PAC is helping organize the transportation,” Woodruff wrote.

And the Bush leftists are lying about it, too:

Before CPAC, when asked if Bush’s supporters would be paid and bused in, Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell denied it flatly. She said in an email that she “can confirm that we are not trying to play in the straw poll – despite what anyone else is telling you.”

Campbell, Bush’s spokeswoman, told Breitbart News on Saturday afternoon: “We aren’t trying to play in the straw poll. Some supporters in the DC area who were planning to attend CPAC expressed concerns about getting over to the Gaylord. We helping by providing some limited transportation on Friday only (specific to the time of the Governor’s speech.)”

Maybe there is still time for him to switch parties and run against Hillary? Run to her left, I mean. Maybe he can be Elizabeth Warren’s running mate or vice versa.

I went back to look at Bush’s CPAC speech from 2013.

Here’s what he said:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush beseeched a gathering of conservatives in remarkably frank terms on Friday night to change the course of the Republican Party and to become a more diverse, welcoming and understanding party to minorities and low-income Americans.

Bush, speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference annual dinner, made the heart of his speech a call to the GOP to “learn from past mistakes.” He made his case in some of the bluntest language he has used.

“All too often we’re associated with being ‘anti’ everything,” Bush said. “Way too many people believe Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-worker, and the list goes on and on and on. Many voters are simply unwilling to choose our candidates even though they share our core beliefs, because those voters feel unloved, unwanted and unwelcome in our party.”

[…]In his book, written last year, he said he favored a path to residency, but not a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. He changed that position in interviews after it was pointed out that the current plan in the Senate includes citizenship.

Bush penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that went live online Friday, in which he again voiced support for a path to citizenship. But while his speech Friday night used much of the content from his op-ed, he cut the lines about the path to citizenship and made only passing mention of immigration reform.

This is what these points mean, in my opinion:

  • He’s very concerned that he not be perceived as anti-immigrant = AMNESTY.
  • He’s very concerned that he not be perceived as anti-woman= ABORTION.
  • He’s very concerned that he not be perceived as anti-science= GLOBAL WARMING.
  • He’s very concerned that he not be perceived as anti-gay = SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.
  • He’s very concerned that he not be perceived as anti-worker = SOCIALISM.

He wants to make sure that Democrats approve him – that’s his primary concern. He wants to be liked by people on the secular left.

Bush likes to portray himself as very concerned about the poor, but what would he know about poverty?

Look:

In 1999, Columba Bush, the famously private wife of then-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, was detained and fined by federal customs officials for misrepresenting the amount of clothing and jewelry she had bought while on a solo five-day shopping spree in Paris.

The incident left the Florida first lady deeply mortified and her husband politically chagrined. Jeb Bush said the first lady had misled customs officials because she did not want him to know that she had spent about $19,000 on the trip.

“The embarrassment I felt made me ashamed to face my family and friends,” Columba Bush said in a July 1999 speech to the Central Florida Make-a-Wish Foundation, not long after the incident. “It was the worst feeling I’ve ever had in my life.”

The ordeal did not stop her from spending freely, however. Less than a year later, she took out a loan to buy $42,311.70 worth of jewelry on a single day, according to records filed with the state of Florida by Mayors Jewelers.

That purchase was part of a pattern by Columba Bush of borrowing to buy tens of thousands of dollars of jewelry at a time from the South Florida store over a 14-year period. Documentation available online, which does not include the details of two transactions made less than six weeks apart in 1995, shows that she spent a total of more than $90,000 at the store.

No wonder the CPAC conservatives were booing him – they probably don’t make $90,000 in a year of working.

However the leftist mainstream media is very much in favor of Jeb Bush:

  • CNN: Jeb Bush survives — and thrives — at CPAC
  • Washington Post: Jeb Bush was very, very good at CPAC today
  • Politico: Jeb Bush survives at CPAC
  • Bloomberg: The Conservative Contempt Awaiting Jeb Bush at CPAC
  • NPR: Jeb’s Rowdy Supporters Help Him Escape The CPAC Lion’s Den
  • National Journal: Jeb Bush Survives CPAC

From a left-wing media point of view, Bush did a great job at CPAC. They love him! But then, they love amnesty, Common Core and Obamacare, just like he does.