George Stephanopoulos made the mistake of buying the song of the Mighty Wurlitzer and apologizing for his donations to the Clinton Foundation, and as somebody who has been around the noise machine for decades, he should have known that once his blood hit the water, the sharks would come to rip him to pieces.
It has been a rough weekend for ABC News’s embattled chief anchor, George Stephanopoulos, and an even worse Sunday.
On CNN’s Reliable Sources media criticism program, Stephanopoulos’s former ABC News colleague, Carole Simpson, unloaded on the former top aide to Bill and Hillary Clinton that she said she likes and respects.
“There is a coziness that George cannot escape,” said Simpson, who toiled for two decades at ABC News, notably as the weekend anchor of World News Tonight from 1988 to 2003. “While he did try to separate himself from his political background to become a journalist, he really isn’t a journalist.”
Thus Simpson attempted to obliterate Stephanopoulos’s claims of impartiality as the 2016 presidential campaign heats up, featuring Hillary Clinton’s status as the prohibitive frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.
Like Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter and another former ABC News colleague, Jeff Greenfield, Simpson said she was “dumbfounded” by Thursday’s revelation that Stephanopoulos failed to disclose $75,000 in recent donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation—this, as he conducted a confrontational April 26 interview with Clinton Foundation critic Peter Schweizer.
“I wanted to just take him by the neck and say, ‘George, what were you thinking?’ Clearly, he was not thinking. I thought it was outrageous,” Simpson said. “And I am sorry that again the public trust in the media is being challenged and frayed because of the actions of some of the top people in the business.”
Simpson added that despite Stephanopoulos’s alleged lack of journalistic bona fides, “ABC has made him the face of ABC News, the chief anchor, and I think they’re really caught in a quandary here. While ABC says this was ‘an honest mistake,’ they don’t feel that way. Secretly, they are hopping mad, I am sure.”
It’s kind of hard to feel totally sorry for George the Villager, his Sunday show exists as nothing but empty space to fill with what NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen dubbed “The View From Nowhere” way back in 2003, and ironically it’s now Stephanopoulos who is caught in this No Man’s Land.
Suddenly his Clintonian past is very much the present, and in the space of a week he’s gone from ABC’s front man to evil Clinton operative, and the long knives are out.
I’d say good riddance to him if there was any chance ABC would install a real journalist at This Week, but then again he was hired for being a Villager in the first place, and everyone knew it. Suddenly that’s an issue and everyone’s circling, looking for signs of weakness.
So yes, I’m torn between seeing somebody who should definitely be in the tumbrel get rolled down the street and hating the sight of another “liberal media” head on the Rough Beast’s wall.
Stinks seeing the bad guys about to score again.
NotMax
Never gonna happen in a bazillion years, but it would be a breath of sanity if they hired Barney Frank.
Germy Shoemangler
A real journalist would ask tough questions and follow-up questions. And I don’t mean “why aren’t you wearing a flag pin?”
Gravenstone
Maybe ABC and NBC will swap problematic anchors. Trade WIlliams for Snuffalupagus straight up? Or should there be cash considerations thrown in?
Yatsuno
Hmm…mobile site is being interesting…
I don’t feel bad for Snuffleuphagus here, but if they go after him they have to disclose Diane Sawyer being an old Nixon hack as well. And she has some pull in that newsroom. So yeah, apology and the rest is IOKIYAR.
OzarkHillbilly
If George had been anything like a real journalist he would’ve realized the target rich environment in which he was living and hit back. Instead he folded up like a cheap suit. If ABC had any balls at all they would have circled the wagons like FOX does every time somebody points out O’Reilly’s ridiculousness instead of cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Cervantes
@Yatsuno:
Question isn’t whether anyone remembers that Sawyer was a Nixon hack — or, for that matter, whether anyone remembers that Greenfield was an RFK hack, and so on. Question is whether Sawyer and Greenfield et al. are doing anything comparable to the following:
Provided this is all true and important, of course.
Germy Shoemangler
@Yatsuno:
And every time Andrea Mitchell talks economic (or any) policy on tv, there should be a caption “Married To Allan Greenspan, Ayn Rand Devotee”
Big ole hound
Nobody who lives more than 100 miles from Eastern seaboard gives a shit about any of this except when Jon Stewart sorts it out.
Eric U.
he probably should have refused to have Peter Schweizer on anyway. But giving ratfuckers like Schweizer air time is what the networks do. Is it possible Snufalupagus thought that carrying water for republicans all these years erased his link to the Clintons? Seems like the best defense would be to mention that everyone knew he worked for the Clintons bitd.
Germy Shoemangler
He disclosed his contribution. He just didn’t do it on air.
I’ve never liked him. But he gives my rwnj neighbor validation of his “librul media” obsession.
Belafon
Liberals apologize. Conservatives find someone else to apologize.
Kathleen
@Germy Shoemangler: I like the fact that George is being consumed by the monster he fed (and I’m not referring to the Clintons).
Cervantes
@Germy Shoemangler:
Well, there’s this:
I have no idea what the truth is here, hence the caveat in my previous comment.
JPL
The problem is George interviewed the author of Clinton Cash, without letting the audience know he donated to their foundation. That was a mistake. I don’t feel that it’s necessary, for reporters, to release their charitable donations. If Fox opinionators disagree, let them release them.
Gin & Tonic
The bad guys are about to score because he’s letting them. Why should I feel badly for someone who’s unwilling to defend himself?
Cervantes
@Kathleen:
Greek tragedy?
I wouldn’t say I like it, though.
Mustang Bobby
George Stephanopoulos gave to the Clinton Foundation — a charity that buys medicine for poor people and supports AIDS research among other things — and the Beltway goes into meltdown. He has to apologize on the air and and has now set himself up as the target for all the right-wing nutsery as proof of the “liberal media.”
Charles and David Koch, who run a huge oil and gas conglomerate, gave billions of dollars to PAC’s for Republican candidates and helped write right-wing legislation against combating climate change, and no one gives a shit.
What am I missing here?
Cervantes
@Mustang Bobby:
You’re not missing a thing, alas.
Ryan
Wouldn’t mind seeing all the Sunday shows disappear. It’d probably swing the next election to the left by one or two percent. That is, if anyone watches them anymore.
Germy Shoemangler
The assumption is that anyone, anywhere who donates money to the Clinton charity can now get them on the phone whenever they want and tell Hillary what to do.
Same thing with organizations who paid her to give a speech: “Hello, Hillary? You spoke at our organization two years ago. Now here’s what we want.”
Joseph Nobles
Who would have believed that industry voices eligible for George’s job would be so vicious in declaiming him? Or that those who might benefit from a friend in his chair would join the chorus? I am amazed at this development.
MattF
I find it hard to work up much sympathy for Stephanopoulos. That said, why should his political views, whatever they may be, so scandalize the various right-wing news sources? {Rhetorical Question} Are they saying that right-wing bias is okeydokey but left-wing bias is a sin? {/Rhetorical Question}
msdc
@Mustang Bobby: This. A thousand times this.
In what kind of twisted world are charitable contributions off-limits for journalists?
Cervantes
@Joseph Nobles:
Stunning, it is.
Cluttered Mind
Serious question: How is a charitable donation awful, but it’s not awful for Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and others from FOX to personally appear at Tea Party rallies and advertise their upcoming presence on the air on FOX? I get that people are upset about the lack of disclosure for the donation, but no one in the right wing media ever lost their jobs for moonlighting as campaign spokespeople for Republicans. It seems to me that if Stephanopoulos loses his job over this, it’ll expose a rather massive double standard and pretty much codify IOKIYAR as law in the media.
Cervantes
@Ryan:
Take a look at the commercials to find out.
CONGRATULATIONS!
Only because George let them. When a Republican does this, they say “fuck you, yeah I did it, I lurve ‘Murica”. No apologies, not even for a second. That’s all George had to do. Instead, he acted like he did something wrong and in today’s society that is simply something you cannot do.
Kill your conscience, it’s the only way to stay alive these days.
Ben Cisco
It’s easy riding the tiger until he realizes there’s an easy meal on his back.
Shygetz
Wait, this is the same George that served on Bill Clinton’s staff during his presidency, right? Worked for Dukakis, Gephardt, and the national Democratic Party? And the thing that makes people think he might be biased is that he donated money to a charity run by the Clintons?
Is everyone high?
Germy Shoemangler
@msdc: I’ll go on a limb here and say that the average low-info voter who doesn’t read progressive blogs and just half-listens to car radio news and talk, and a bit of tv broadcast news probably thinks the Clinton Foundation is a PAC for Hillary’s campaign.
When I watch my local town news try to handle the national stuff, they’re pressed for time (gotta fit in those car dealership commercials and celebrity gossip) and never mention the charitable stuff. Instead, it’s all “The Clintons getting money donated”
Most people aren’t really paying attention, just living their lives; or they’re paying attention to faux news.
Okay, I’m done now with my sweeping generalities.
Cluttered Mind
@CONGRATULATIONS!: I remember reading that statistically speaking the quickest way for a scandal to destroy your career as a politician is to resign. If you don’t resign and either ignore the allegations entirely or completely deny it, eventually it will blow over no matter what you did.
This explains why David Vitter still has a job but Larry Craig doesn’t. Though Mark Sanford managed to get himself elected to office again, so maybe IOKIYAR extends to this now too. Or maybe there’s just something in the water in South Carolina.
Scott S.
@Cluttered Mind: Because IOKIYAR. It’s always IOKIYAR.
A liberal (or liberal-perceived) anchor could sneeze in church and be hounded from public life forever. A wingnut could execute his family, burn every American flag he could get his hands on, and pledge eternal fealty to both ISIS and the ghost of Hitler, all without getting even a reprimand.
feebog
@Mustang Bobby:
Just what is GS supposed to apologize for anyway? Giving money to a charity run by a former President that everyone knows he worked for? Sorry, I don’t see this as a conflict of interest, or even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Schweizer didn’t know his background or the fact he has been close to the Clintons for years?
Germy Shoemangler
@Eric U.:
Yes, that’s the impression I always got. He’d sit there with a tight little smile while Jon Karl delivered his half-truths and innuendo-laden reports. Probably thought everyone would be impressed at how impartial and fair he was.
And now imagine his shock as they chew on him like weasels.
boatboy_srq
@Shygetz: Probably not; but in this age of “full and fair disclosure” not mentioning that there were dollars involved is apparently enough to get booted from the Beltway VSP community. Unlike, as others have noted earlier, Private Citizens™ and Free-Speech-Enabled Corporations™ that send millions to Reichwing causes because Freedom and Citizens United. Stephanopolous’ greatest sin was a traceable transaction.
Sherparick
Again, it is very interesting how ABC and the media critics react to this matter and treat Stephanopolous. Again, saying “I made mistake and was wrong” is apparently the worse strategy. Something Bill O’Reilly and Fox will never be caught doing. They stick to their story no matter the contrary evidence and eventually everyone gets bored and moves on.
Sherparick
@feebog: There was no conflict of interest. His mistake was apparently not disclosing before the interview that he had made donations to the Clinton Foundation. The theory behind Schweizer’s book is that there was a connection of some vague sort between donations to the Foundation and Hilary’s actions and decision as Secretary of State. This is another of the “subjective” appearance games and the fact that Right Wing has really learned to push the scandal buttons of the MSM media critics.
Tenar Darell
O’Reilly’s sins vs. Williams and Stephanopulos’ sins really is the perfect experimental proof of the fact that Fox is a propaganda network. So, the question is will the journamalists at ABC, CBS, or NBC finally start fighting back by doing their jobs and pointing out how wrong Fox is on a loudly regular basis, or not?
Frankensteinbeck
One of my soapbox topics here is that the media is wired for Republicans because it’s a social group dominated by Republicans. This event is exactly how that works. Think about high school cliques. Right now, the media is in a dither because they truly fucking hate the Clintons and want a Republican to win the 2016 presidential election. An event happened which reminded them that one of their number likes the Clintons. Gossip and badmouthing immediately ensues. It may or may not be enough to get that person fired (Jennings) but he’s being humiliated in front of his peers. Meanwhile, journalists with Republican contacts get ‘He’s a good guy’ type support if they’re caught in a pecadillo and it’s swept under the rug. This kind of thing is self-reinforcing, and ensures that everybody leans right.
JPL
@Sherparick: O’Reilly continued to blame the victim for his sexual harassment lawsuit, until it was obvious, she had taped him. The story then disappeared.
Roger Moore
@Cluttered Mind:
Because they’re being honest and up-front about it. The implication, at least, is that if Stephanopoulos had disclosed his donation to the Clinton Foundation on the air, there wouldn’t be a problem.
Cluttered Mind
@JPL: Disappeared faster than an intern at Joe Scarborough’s office.
Valdivia
This story encapsulates perfectly everything that is wrong with the Village–the mob mentality when a story breaks, their prejudices, their obsession in feeding the noise machine and as someone mentioned above maintaining the view from nowhere bs. ugh.
ETA: what you @Frankensteinbeck: said. All of it.
Roger Moore
@Cluttered Mind:
The problem is that this is subject to all kinds of problems with spurious correlations. For example, it’s entirely possible that the propensity to resign depends on the severity of the scandal and the politician’s estimation of his political capital, so that people who resign are the ones who know they couldn’t weather the scandal and those who tough it out are the ones who know they can. This is an especially likely interpretation when you consider that some people start out trying to tough the scandal out, only to resign when the bad news keeps coming in.
Mandalay
@Cluttered Mind:
I’m not sure whether you’re trolling, but that is obviously not the issue.
The issue is that he interviewed someone critical of the Clinton Foundation without disclosing that he had donated $75,000 to that foundation. Even Stephanopoulos agrees that was wrong (unless he is just pretending to agree with his bosses, in which case he fully deserves all the shit coming his way for being spineless).
And Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck never remotely pretend to be impartial whereas George Stephanopoulos does. Beck and Hannity are openly and obviously partisan. Comparing their behavior to his is meaningless.
I am surprised at how few folks here are even conceding that what Stephanopoulos did was wrong, even if the backlash is absurd.
gene108
@Joseph Nobles:
Is this snark? Or are you serious?
Everything I’ve read about the national news media is that is utterly cut throat and they’d do anything to get a better gig.
Frankensteinbeck
I put to you the ultimate example that the national journalist media is a Republican high school clique: Dan Rather. Getting something wrong in their group is an absolute non-issue normally. Look at how he was treated, vs. when it came out that reporters committed breaches of ethics or were just plain wrong supporting the Iraq War. The lesson is clear: Dan Rather made the unforgivable mistake of saying something bad about the dreamy popular boy, and was torn to pieces. ‘Dreamy popular boy’ is exactly how the media described Bush throughout his presidency, too.
Bystander
@Mustang Bobby: Says it all. Thanks.
Tree With Water
Stephanapolous was hired to serve the interests of corporate America, which he ably performed. If we shall suppose that American corporate servitude is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both ABC and Stephanopolous this ridiculous accusation as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a corporate America always ascribe to Him?
Poopyman
@gene108: Who in their right mind would write snark on Balloon Juice?
Valdivia
@Frankensteinbeck:
Also: Lara Logan. Still doing ‘war correspondent’ reports even after she got everything wrong. But she was taking a shot at Obama so that’s ok.
Germy Shoemangler
@Valdivia:
Does she ever disclose on-air the role her husband played in Bush’s iraq war? Maybe she has; I’ve never seen her do it.
All George had to do before the Clinton Cash interview was turn to the camera and say “in the interest of public disclosure… I made a contribution to the fund.” I’ve heard Lockjaw Kermit the Frog (george will) disclose his wife’s role in republican presidential campaigns before bloviating. It can be done.
boatboy_srq
@Frankensteinbeck: Rather is not a good example. The Reichwing had it in for him for a long time: “CBS News: Rather Biased” was a Reichwing bumper sticker a long time before those events. The TX Natl Guard business was just the opportunity the Reichwing latched onto.
catclub
OT: Interesting way to look at big government.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-18/big-government-is-surest-way-for-nations-to-get-rich
All rich nations have big governments. Demand small government and you get a poorer nation, plus the ability to lose wars.
I wish the figure that showed size of governments also included GDP/capita.
Mandalay
@Germy Shoemangler:
This x1000. It’s astounding if he deliberately decided to hush it up, but even more astounding if he decided that there was no simply need to mention it.
Tree With Water
@boatboy_srq: Indeed, that was evident as early as the 1970’s. In an episode of All In The Family back then, the family had been watching Richard Nixon speaking from the White House. Staring at the TV after Nixon had finished, Archie suddenly asked, “What’s this?”, to which Edith replied, “This is the part where Dan Rather comes on and explains to everybody what president Nixon just said”.
NotMax
Never previously knew that Stephanopoulo is Greek for clueless.
Valdivia
@Germy Shoemangler:
As far as I know, she never disclosed this. That she is still employed after what happened says it all, the double standard etc.
Samuel Knight
Sadly funny reading the Wash Post this morning.
Stephanopolous’ not reporting a donation to a charity organization is exactly the same journalistic sin of just making stories up (O’Reilly and Williams).
He’s a completely useless hack of course, a perfectly horrible interviewer and analyst (did this guy really do the War Room 20 years ago? ).
Patrick
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/news-corp-murdoch-clinton-foundation-donation
This is about 10 times as much as George S gave. Shouldn’t Murdoch have to apologize and possibly resign based on the logic that George S has to apologize?
Keith G
Sargent Swanton of Waco PD is giving a fantastic press statement regarding the shooting and investigation. The guy brought his A game and is giving a detailed report while saying that there is still much to learn.
El Caganer
There is consternation among various media creatures over the appearance that activity by the Senior Chief Managing Administrative Head Director of some unknown Sunday television show signals a conflict of interest? In the world where human beings live and breathe and act, how many of them actually give a shit about this?
cokane
While I agree with alot of what you wrote Zandar, I’m sick of seeing that Rosen essay on the demerits “View from Nowhere Journalism” credulous passed along year after year. I think it’s bullshit.
Sure, journalists can never be 100 percent objective. But a surgeon can’t work in a 100 percent sanitized environment either. That does not mean that there is no merit in attempting to get as close as possible to that ideal. Would we want science reporting, sports reporting, crime reporting etc to all be opinionated Fox/MSN style journalism? I frankly fail to understand this urge among liberals to want to promote only this infotainment, pundit soaked type of journalism. As if things like the Associated Press, AFP, Reuters — the things that form the backbone of our reported world — have little to no value.
Cervantes
@boatboy_srq:
@Tree With Water:
In fact, I think it was on that very episode of All in the Family that Lear took the opportunity to rehearse once again the notion that Walter Cronkite Himself was a Communist.
Anyway, point is, right-wing antipathy towards CBS News long pre-dated Dan Rather. Think back to the McCarthy era and Ed Murrow.
catclub
@Patrick: There are people who say that FOX is too liberal. Could be why….
Cluttered Mind
@Mandalay: It was absolutely wrong to not disclose. Let me try a better apples to apples comparison. Back when Keith Olbermann was still at MSNBC, he donated to the campaigns of two congressional candidates who he had on his show and didn’t bother to mention that until someone found out and outed him…at which point he apologized for the lack of disclosure, accepted a slap on the wrist for it, and went on like nothing happened.
Stephanopolous’s screwup seems to me to be on the same level as this, and yet people are screaming for his head. I just don’t understand the severity of the outrage. I’m not saying he wasn’t wrong, I’m just saying that this seems like a severe overreaction to a pretty minor case of journalistic bad behavior.
Cervantes
@Cluttered Mind:
Perhaps it’s because he was slated to “moderate” some Republican “debates.”
Mike J
@Cluttered Mind:
This wasn’t a campaign donation.
Mandalay
@Patrick:
Get back to us when Murdoch is presenting himself as an impartial interviewer. Some of the arguments being pushed in this thread are absolutely absurd.
gene108
@cokane:
The criticism of the “View from Nowhere” is it is highly ineffective at providing objective reporting.
As a method of attempting to reach objectivity it sucks.
John the Democrat says, “Today is Monday in America”
Bill the Republican says, “Today is Quagnar day on Pluto and we need to not get swept up in Democratic accusations that it is, in fact, Monday in America.”
Both sides are given even weight as being reasonable statements. That is “View from Nowhere” reporting.
It’s like surgeons ignoring the fact half their patients die from gang-green and stick to doing something in a way we know does more harm than good, when facts exist to demonstrate when information being disseminated is wrong.
Cluttered Mind
@Mike J: I know that it was a donation to the Clinton foundation and not the campaign. The reason I used this comparison is because it matches up pretty well in other ways. Olbermann’s defense was that he didn’t feel he needed to disclose that he supported candidates that he was bringing on his show in order to promote, it should be obvious that he supports them. Stephanopolous might have thought that it should be obvious that he is close to the Clintons, and maybe he made the boneheaded decision not to disclose for the same reason.
It’s a better comparison than comparing him to Fox anchors, which was unfair to him and I acknowledge that. I still think that it’s a gigantic overreaction. Considering what happened here wasn’t a campaign contribution, one would think Olbermann’s transgression would be considered worse, yet he didn’t lose his job over that
D58826
@Cluttered Mind: George Will helped Reagan in his presidential debate prep while appearing on ABC. I don’t think he disclosed that fact till years later and it hasn’t hurt his TV career.
Tree With Water
@Cervantes: Oh, I always do.. although I deem McCarthy and Murrow a mere scythe swipe apart from the present generation (that’s us), and instead trace today’s right wing lineage further back to bowels of the slaveholding South.
“In the 1830’s slavery was so deeply entrenched that it could not even be discussed in Congress, which had enacted a “gag rule” to ensure that ahi-slavery petitions would be summarily rejected”. That a blurb on the back cover of my copy of Arguing About Slavery (William Lee Miller; Vintage Books;1995).
D58826
@Mandalay: let’s get real Murdoch’s entire media empire is a campaign gift to the GOP.
gene108
@gene108:
A more real world example would be:
John the Democrat says, “We have know, since at least the mid-20th Century that CO2 is a green house gas and the more CO2 gets into the atmosphere the more intense the greenhouse effect will be, and therefore human CO2 output will increase the temperature of the planet.”
Bill the Republican says, “Well, we’ve had Ice Ages, before industry started, we’ve had mini-Ice Ages and even if the world’s temperature is changing, we should not jeopardize millions of American jobs in a panic until all the facts are in on this so called ‘Global Climate Change’ and why is it ‘Climate Change’ now and not ‘Global Warming’, I mean you guys could not prove the Earth’s getting warmer so you’ll just change the name to see if something sticks.”
Cluttered Mind
@D58826: And during the 2000 campaign, George W Bush threw David Gregory a birthday party on his campaign plane. He then became a White House correspondent and was named the “best white house correspondent” by Brent Bozell’s outfit, the Media Research Center. Somehow after all that his objectivity was never called into question as anchor of Meet the Press (except by, you know, liberals)
Again, really not trying to defend Stephanopolous here. What he did was objectively wrong, he shouldn’t have done it, and in a perfect world he would lose his position for it. The problem is that in said perfect world where journalistic malpractice is appropriately punished, a lot of other people in the media wouldn’t have jobs either, people who have done far worse than Stephanopolous. I’m not saying that this is a reason to go easy on him, I’m saying that it’s worth pressing people who are howling for his head about why specifically they think he needs to go but they give so many other people who have done far worse a pass.
I’m not trying to troll or defend the man, I’m just saying that there’s a bizarre double standard at play here and it’s not okay to single him out when there are far worse people at his own network even who are completely untouched.
kc
I guess everyone is cool with the fact that Diane Sawyer worked for Nixon.
Patrick
@Mandalay:
I take it you never talk to right-wingers. In their mind, FoxNews is impartial.
the Conster
Paddy Chayefsky was a genius.
Patrick
@Cluttered Mind:
I don’t think even people on the left would think Olbermann was neutral. To me it seemed silly that he had to disclose. There was a difference between what Olbermann’s show was vs what George S’s show is.
Mandalay
@Cluttered Mind:
Stephanopoulos is not in trouble for his donations at all. He is in trouble for not disclosing his donations to the Clinton Foundation when interviewing someone who was critical of that foundation. He is in trouble for the same basic reason that sank Brian Williams: some people feel that he lacks integrity and can’t be trusted. If that’s just right wing partisans then it’s no biggie, but if his viewers feel that way then he is in deep trouble.
Trust and credibility are the bedrock of news anchors. If that is gone they become a liability.
GregB
Money is speech. Why do Republicans hate free speech for Stuffy?
Keith G
Just got a tweet that POTUS is now on Twitter.
John Cole +0
I’ve been reliably assured that there is no big deal with donating to the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton SuperPacs, or just putting money in Clinton’s bank account for speaking to them, so I am kind of surprised someone would make this a campaign issue.
catclub
Another OT: Yes, it is possible to fly a plane via its in flight entertainment system. The Internet of Everything could be a little scary
when the IP connected Teddy Bear kills your child.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-18/don-t-punish-the-plane-hacker
I expect the authorities will do the right thing here…. they sure did with Aaron Schwartz.
catclub
@Cluttered Mind:
So any reporter discussing the Pope (or any other aspect of religion) should mention if they donated to a church? I have not seen that very often.
How about health reporters? What if they gave to the LiveStrong Foundation – or The March of Dimes?
D58826
@Cluttered Mind: Oh I agree. The political types and the Washington press types are so intertwined that it isn’t even worth getting excited about. One can just hope that on occasion they happen to mention the relationship.
But on a happier note – Bobby ‘don’t be stupid’ Jindal is forming an exploratory committee for 2016. But on a sad note John Bolton isn’t running so we won’t have his mustache to kick around this year.
Chris
So what I’m getting from this is that a guy who’s spent years trying to be the right wing machine’s Liberal/Moderate Best Friend just got thrown under the bus by it?
D58826
If the standard for TV talker is
then there would be a lot of empty seats on Faux news
Chris
@Frankensteinbeck:
This exactly.
(And part of the reason they loathe Obama so much is that he keeps demonstrating that he has no interest in being in their Cool Kids clique, and he isn’t suffering from it in the slightest).
Cluttered Mind
@catclub: It’s a little more specific than that. He was doing an interview with a guy where a specific foundation, its donors, and the influence that its donors might be able to wield was the topic of discussion, and he didn’t mention that he himself was one of those donors. That’s a pretty specific and blatant nono.
Kathleen
@Chris: Thank you. That was my point. I agree that he should have disclosed the donation before the interview and that openly Republican journalists (translation, most) do not get called out. But I’m not shedding any tears for George, because he aided and abetted the “Both Sides” crap.
Keith G
@John Cole +0:,
of course they’ll make this a campaign issue. It beats having to talk about their plans for healthcare or their deep-seated desire to invade another Muslim country.
Roger Moore
@Cluttered Mind:
He’s threatening the anti-Clinton narrative. They really, really want the Clinton Foundation thing to be Hillary’s downfall, and anything that might interfere with that- say, pointing out just how thin the evidence actually is- must be attacked.
Cluttered Mind
@Roger Moore: That’s true. I’d forgotten how much the mainstream media machine utterly despises the Clintons.
Chris
@Kathleen:
I agree. In Frankensteinbeck’s “high school clique” analogy, there are always these kids who aren’t actually part of the cool kids clique but are still tagging along, desperately trying to be cool by association, and punching down even harder at the kids who’re lower than them on the totem pole. Everyone hates those guys. If anything, even more than the actual cool kids.
I haven’t followed Stephanopoulos in depth. Reading this thread, the story kind of reminds me of – from another part of Official Washington – Colin Powell. The good little assistant who obediently towed the party line on My Lai and Iran-contra, who thought after doing those things he was a “made man” and part of the club, but ended up with a rude awakening when he was brought into the Bush cabinet only to be ignored, sidelined, and used as a PR-friendly sock-puppet. Lot of people think he got a raw deal. Me, I think he was just another asshole, a more pathetic figure than his bosses but cut from the same stinking cloth.
Elizabelle
Out of f*cks to give about George S. Seems very sloppy to have not opened the segment with a disclosure of the contributions, and why he donated (The Clinton Foundation supports life-saving medical treatment and education opportunities, etc.)
George S is part of the problem, giving cover to what Dr. Krugman calls “Very Serious Persons” who get it wrong, serially, and never have to pay a price. Can’t look at him or Charlie Rose with admiration.
They’re there to massage the powers that be.
Belafon
@John Cole +0:
It’s not currently a campaign issue as much as it’s a being a newsperson for any station other than FOX.
Edit: No one on the right seems to mind that one of the largest shareholders of the company that owns FOX is a Saudi prince.
cokane
@gene108: Failing to put statements in proper context such as Republicans arguing against climate change — essentially your example — isn’t an example of “view from nowhere journalism”, it’s just bad journalism, regardless of the “view”. For example, Fox News reporting on climate change, emphasizing the denial, is clearly not “view from nowhere” journalism, but it’s still bad.
Chris
@Belafon:
It’s a hell of a commentary on the role of money, power, and ideology in our society that despite the breadth of the Islamophobic backlash since 9/11, the movement never even for a second latched onto this as a target. A Ground Zero Mosque that was not a mosque and was not at ground zero – yep. Bans on Sharia Laws that were never passed or even attempted – yep. Allen West freaking out over halal food – yep.
But one of the ruling family of one of the world’s wealthiest Muslim nations, buying up the most important news channel in America? Clearly, there’s nothing to see here. Move along.
(And the Saudis aren’t exactly just any Muslims; they’ve been one of the biggest financial centers for Wahhabism for over thirty years, the connection between these guys and 9/11 is a lot less tenuous than it is for a Sufi imam in New York City).
RaflW
IMO the mop-head should have said “Fuck you I gave to an international charity. What have YOU done for world peace lately. Next topic.” and moved on.
But liberals are spineless twerps all too often (and Steph is a top 10 twerp in my book), so he’ll grovel and be a loser. Derp derpity do.
mikefromArlington
Since when did donations to a charity become a bad thing?
Tree With Water
@Keith G: “Throw shit and see what sticks”- Chapter 1, Republican Playbook.
Mandalay
@Chris:
That’s putting it far too kindly. Colin Powell was a self-serving liar who would say or do whatever it took to advance his own career. An absolute shitstain who had been getting away with it for years, and richly deserved the humiliation foisted on him by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Fuck him forever for his efforts to cover up My Lai and Iran Contra. Colin Powell is a piece of shit.
Chris
@Mandalay:
You know something?
Reading that, I just realized that Colin Powell ending up with egg all over his face and then getting thrown under the bus by the president and the neocon faction who were his real advisers might actually be the closest we’ll ever get to seeing a member of the Bush administration pay for his crimes.
Jack Hagan
You guys are missing the main thing. The Dem’s are not going to get their people in close to the players this time. THAT game is over. You are seeing battlefield prep right in front of your incredulous eyes. Lol.
Mandalay
@RaflW:
No, he should have said “I am about to interview someone who is critical of the Clinton Foundation so it is entirely appropriate that I disclose that I have donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation”.
Even the godawful CNBC requires their analysts to disclose their holdings when they have skin in the game, and they did that over fifteen years ago. Stephanopoulos screwed up. This is blindingly obvious if you view the issue simply in terms of doing the right thing rather than framing it as Democrats vs. Republicans.
Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (formerly Mumphrey, et al.)
I don’t give a shit about him. Why is somebody like that working as a “news reporter” anyway? What the fuck happened to all the drunk, unkempt asshole reporters who would sooner pull their own heads off than pal around with the people they wrote about? I swear, every fucking time I see Andrea Mitchell on the news, it makes me want to throw up. She’s married to Alan Greenspan–which is enough to make anybody throw up for cosmetic reasons–but she was married to him when he was still the chairman of the Federal Reserve, and she sometimes talked about what the Federal Reserve was doing in her reports. How can that be all right? And I never heard her tell us at the outset, when she had anything to say about it, that her husband was the chairman.
You know, I really would rather have the cynical, unsociable drunks doing the news, but it looks like we aren’t going to go back to that. But short of that, why the hell can’t news networks and newspapers make all their god damned “reporters” own up to their ties to the people they write and talk about when they write and talk abut them?
I mean, if Dick Wadd, ace reporter played golf every weekend with John Boehner, I would’t mind him reporting on Boehner so much if, every time he spoke about anything having to do with Congress or, well, anything at all, he began by saying, “Before I give this report, I want to say that John Boehner is my friend, and we play golf and drink together and cry in each other’s arms a lot. Having said that, today on Capitol Hill…” I could live with that. I think we all could, since we’d know right from the word go just how tight the reporters are with their subjects, and we could take that into account when they report on them.
Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (formerly Mumphrey, et al.)
@catclub:
That’s a good piece. I’ve always said, if you want to see how a country with a small, weak government fares, look at Honduras. It’s a country I lived in, and love deeply, but damn, they have a shitload of woes, and there’s no way to make most of it much better, because the one institution that could in theory do all kinds of great things without having to worry about whether it makes money or keeps the shareholders happy is too weak to do anything.