• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Conservative Media Figures Wh.Donated To The Clinton Foundation

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Oh, my how embarrassing for the right! :lamo



Who is that guy? No, no it couldn't be... but it is... Speaking at the Clinton Global Initative? Wow!!!

The Conservative Media Figures Who Donated To The Clinton Foundation | Blog | Media Matters for America

Numerous individuals and entities that don't fit the model for Democratic Party donors have donated to the Clinton Foundation. For instance:



  • Newsmax Media, Inc. The media company, which has billed itself as operating the "#1 Conservative Site in the Nation," has made donations to the Clinton Foundation of between $100,001 to $250,000 and between $1,000,001 to $5,000,000.
  • Donald J. Trump. Trump, a perennial-potential Republican presidential candidate, donated between $100,001 to $250,000 to the foundation.
  • Richard M. Scaife. The late Scaife, who published the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, was described as "one of America's leading funders of conservative causes." He donated between $250,001 to $500,000 to the foundation.
  • News Corporation Foundation. The foundation for News Corp., which is headed by Rupert Murdoch and was formerly the parent company of Fox News, donated between $500,001 to $1,000,000 to the foundation.
  • James R. Murdoch. Murdoch, the co-chief operating officer of Fox News parent company 21[SUP]st[/SUP] Century Fox and son of Rupert Murdoch, donated between $1,000,001 to $5,000,000.
[h=2]High-Profile Republicans Have Supported The Clinton Foundation's Efforts[/h]Many Republican Party-affiliated individuals have attended and supported Clinton Foundation-affiliated events, including the annual Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) meetings. They include former first lady Laura Bush, Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch, former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, Republican billionaire T. Boone Pickens, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Bush Treasury secretary Hank Paulson, and former first daughter Barbara Bush.


continued
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Romney my.HotSheet | Portable Personal Links - Instant News - SuperSearch | Desktop or Mobilespoke to CGI in the middle of his 2012 presidential campaign and praised President Clinton for having "devoted himself to lifting the downtrodden around the world. One of the best things that can happen to any cause, to any people, is to have Bill Clinton as its advocate." He added: "I have been impressed by the extraordinary power you have derived by harnessing together different people of different backgrounds, and different institutions of different persuasions. You have fashioned partnerships across traditional boundaries -- public and private, for-profit and nonprofit, charitable and commercial."

McCain spoke to CGI in September 2008 during his own presidential run, and also praised its efforts, stating: "You know something about great change at the Clinton Global Initiative, because you are striving every day to bring it about. I thank each one of you for the good work you have done to relieve suffering across the earth, and to spread hope. I thank you for the even greater works that you seek to accomplish in the years to come, under the leadership of the man from Hope."

Laura Bush appeared at CGI in 2006 and said she was "delighted to be a part of this year's Clinton Global Initiative. Thank you for inviting me, and thank you for the terrific development work you're doing through your foundation."

Newsmax CEO and editor Christopher Ruddy recently praised the foundation for helping "improve global health and wellness, increase economic opportunities for women in less-developed nations, reduce childhood obesity, and spur economic growth in countries that desperately need the help."

Ruddy, who was a dogged critic of the Clintons during the 1990s, added: "I have always found it nonpartisan. I have never felt the whiff of politics from either its staff or any of its activities."
 

Ryan5

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
483
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Everyone knows the Right simply makes up the BS about Clinton Foundation crap. Nobody really believes it.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Everyone knows the Right simply makes up the BS about Clinton Foundation crap. Nobody really believes it.
I am not so sure that nobody believes it.
 

Derp

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
1,683
Reaction score
1,447
Location
Dunedin, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
That is definitely a right wing conspiracy I tell ya
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
29,804
Reaction score
14,110
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What does this has to do with the scandal? I'll be damned if I can figure it out.

Oh wait... I get it now... Since conservatives and republicans have donated to the Clinton Foundation in the past, that means that we should all pretend that those foreign donors that all got gimme's from the State Department, really didn't get anything, and the Clintons did declare those donations on their taxes and did inform president Obama... I understand now...

It's real easy once you apply Media Matters logic.
 
Last edited:

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
20,332
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh, my how embarrassing for the right! :lamo
If you're saying that any involvement with the Clinton Global Initiative, particularly by those on the right, is potentially an embarrassment, I'd be interested in your rationale for that determination. If you're saying that the CGI is an embarrassment, I'd be interested in hearing why. If you're saying anyone on the right financially supporting any initiative of anyone on the left is an embarrassment, I'd have to disagree with you. Politics can be divisive, but issues related to mankind shouldn't be.

Without rationale, this is just an attempt at gotcha to throw up smoke to protect those you support.
 

humbolt

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
25,187
Reaction score
17,303
Location
SW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What? They gave to the Clinton Foundation because they care so deeply about HIV and the environment in poor countries.
 

Lovebug

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
20,432
Reaction score
8,556
Location
south
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Since none of the aforementioned people are H Clinton supporters, I fail to see the outrage. Can you explain?
We know that McCain, Murdock etc won't rally around Hillary, and they are very open about it. So if they are in support of the CGI, where is the conflict of interests? What am I missing?
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
29,804
Reaction score
14,110
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Since none of the aforementioned people are H Clinton supporters, I fail to see the outrage. Can you explain?
We know that McCain, Murdock etc won't rally around Hillary, and they are very open about it. So if they are in support of the CGI, where is the conflict of interests? What am I missing?
You aren't missing a thing. Once again Pete allowed Media Matters to do his thinking for him and once again they duped him.... He falls for it every time, just as he will the next time, the time after that, and the time after that...
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If you're saying that any involvement with the Clinton Global Initiative, particularly by those on the right, is potentially an embarrassment, I'd be interested in your rationale for that determination. If you're saying that the CGI is an embarrassment, I'd be interested in hearing why. If you're saying anyone on the right financially supporting any initiative of anyone on the left is an embarrassment, I'd have to disagree with you. Politics can be divisive, but issues related to mankind shouldn't be.

Without rationale, this is just an attempt at gotcha to throw up smoke to protect those you support.
Nonsense, there is noway in hell I can protect the Clintons.

If you don't see major figures in the conservative media who continue to support the Clinton Foundation as an embarrassment to the conservative rhetoric then I don't what to tell you. Of particular note is Christopher Ruddy:

In Defense of the Clinton Foundation
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
29,804
Reaction score
14,110
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You do realize that that Media Matters article is premised on BS don't you Pete? Just read the very first sentence:

"Media are falsely equating donations to the Clinton Foundation with contributions to a Democratic political campaign."
In the 5th paragraph they emphasize this again:

"Recent media coverage of the controversies, however, has falsely morphed the Clinton Foundation from a "widely respected" charity into a supposed-extension of the Democratic Party."
Let's examine that, shall we Pete?

Here is their first example:

For example, Paul Waldman, an American Prospect senior writer and former Media Matters senior fellow, criticized Politico reporter Dylan Byers for drawing a misleading "parallel between donating to a candidate's campaign and donating to a charitable foundation run by an ex-president."
They linked to the " misleading parallel" and it's not an op-ed article he wrote for Politico, it's a tweet...

byers.jpg


The article goes on to post more examples, but now the language has changed:

Other media figures have similarly made the false political campaign comparison. Fox News host Gretchen Carlson, Breitbart.com, National Review Online, and HotAir.com, all suggested a donation to the foundation was equivalent to financing Democratic candidates.

Notice that instead of "media coverage" it's now morphed into "media figures". Of those "figures" you have 3 conservative internet bloggers and Gretchen Carlson from Fox News, who is the only one of those 4 of any significance at all. Here's what they linked to for her, and surprise surprise, it isn't something she said on air, it's once again a tweet:

gretchin.jpg


The other 3 mentioned, John Nolte from Breitbart, Ian Tuttle from NRO and Jazz Shaw from HotAir, all have the same thing in common with Byers and Carlson... They compared the incident with the Olbermann suspension.

Here's where the Media Matters BS comes into play:

Media Matters asserts that all 5 are equating a donation to CGI, to making a political donation as Olbermann did. That is patently untrue and nothing more than dishonest political spin not only by the shills at Media Matters, but by their disciples and thousands of other less-than-honest liberals out there. What this is about is laid out by John Nolte who said "NBC News also suspended Keith Olbermann for not disclosing a campaign contribution of less than $10,000. By comparison, instead of disciplining their anchor over his cover-up of a massive conflict of interest..." and also by Ian Tuttle who stated "But at least MSNBC made the pretense of upholding some sort of journalistic standards."


None of 5 examples presented by Media Matters were equating the organisations that were donated to (CGI and a political campaign), they were equating the journalistic infraction of "conflict of interest" committed by both in making those contributions and failing to disclose them.


Olbermann was co-hosting election coverage and doing political interviews without disclosing that he had contributed to 3 democratic candidates that were running for office at the time, and Stephanopoulos was reporting on the CGI scandal and interviewing the author of the book that the scandal stemmed from, without disclosing he had was a major CGI contributor and supporter. It's all about "conflict of interest" not equating the Clinton Foundation to a political pac.

Another phony Media Matters article ripped to shreds... We'll talk again the next time they dupe you Pete.


.
 
Last edited:

BWWzfc

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
593
Reaction score
145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If you don't see major figures in the conservative media who continue to support the Clinton Foundation as an embarrassment to the conservative rhetoric then I don't what to tell you.
Bummer.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You do realize that that Media Matters article is premised on BS don't you Pete? Just read the very first sentence:



In the 5th paragraph they emphasize this again:



Let's examine that, shall we Pete?

Here is their first example:



They linked to the " misleading parallel" and it's not an op-ed article he wrote for Politico, it's a tweet...

View attachment 67184397


The article goes on to post more examples, but now the language has changed:

Other media figures have similarly made the false political campaign comparison. Fox News host Gretchen Carlson, Breitbart.com, National Review Online, and HotAir.com, all suggested a donation to the foundation was equivalent to financing Democratic candidates.

Notice that instead of "media coverage" it's now morphed into "media figures". Of those "figures" you have 3 conservative internet bloggers and Gretchen Carlson from Fox News, who is the only one of those 4 of any significance at all. Here's what they linked to for her, and surprise surprise, it isn't something she said on air, it's once again a tweet:

View attachment 67184398


The other 3 mentioned, John Nolte from Breitbart, Ian Tuttle from NRO and Jazz Shaw from HotAir, all have the same thing in common with Byers and Carlson... They compared the incident with the Olbermann suspension.

Here's where the Media Matters BS comes into play:

Media Matters asserts that all 5 are equating a donation to CGI, to making a political donation as Olbermann did. That is patently untrue and nothing more than dishonest political spin not only by the shills at Media Matters, but by their disciples and thousands of other less-than-honest liberals out there. What this is about is laid out by John Nolte who said "NBC News also suspended Keith Olbermann for not disclosing a campaign contribution of less than $10,000. By comparison, instead of disciplining their anchor over his cover-up of a massive conflict of interest..." and also by Ian Tuttle who stated "But at least MSNBC made the pretense of upholding some sort of journalistic standards."


None of 5 examples presented by Media Matters were equating the organisations that were donated to (CGI and a political campaign), they were equating the journalistic infraction of "conflict of interest" committed by both in making those contributions and failing to disclose them.


Olbermann was co-hosting election coverage and doing political interviews without disclosing that he had contributed to 3 democratic candidates that were running for office at the time, and Stephanopoulos was reporting on the CGI scandal and interviewing the author of the book that the scandal stemmed from, without disclosing he had was a major CGI contributor and supporter. It's all about "conflict of interest" not equating the Clinton Foundation to a political pac.

Another phony Media Matters article ripped to shreds... We'll talk again the next time they dupe you Pete.


.
Do you realize that Keith Olberman was suspended because he made campaign contributions to two Democrats in Arizona? You should have read Dylan Byers tweet more closely. :lol: George Stephanopolous donated to a charity. :thumbs: You must stop trying to debunk Media Matters, it makes you look silly. :lamo
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
29,804
Reaction score
14,110
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Do you realize that Keith Olberman was suspended because he made campaign contributions to two Democrats in Arizona?
If you read my post, you wouldn't have asked that question.


You should have read Dylan Byers tweet more closely.
I read and understand it perfectly... Do you think I posted a screen shot of it without reading it first?

George Stephanopolous donated to a charity.
Really? I had no earthly idea.... Learn something new every day.

<sarcasm OFF>

If you read my post, you wouldn't have asked that question.

You must stop trying to debunk Media Matters, it makes you look silly. :lamo
I didn't just try to debunk them, I succeeded... There was no mystery that you would be incapable of acknowledging it, because you never have been able to. That's why you easily hold the forum record for the poster most fooled by the same website.

Why was Olbermann donating to those political campaigns and not disclosing it wrong?
Why was Georgie donating to CGI and not disclosing it wrong?

True or False Pete.... The answer to both those questions is that their donations represented a conflict of interest with their jobs as objective journalists, jeopardizing the integrity and credibility of the news networks they worked for. With Olbermann, it was a conflict of interest because he was part of their election team coverage and did various interviews with politicians... With Georgie, it was a conflict of interest because he was reporting on the CGI scandal and was also the man who interviewed the author of the book that was at the center of the scandal.

If you use your head Pete instead of letting those idiots do your thinking for you, you'd see the truth every once in a while and realize that Media Matters has been playing you for a fool.
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
29,804
Reaction score
14,110
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Since you liked Grims post why don't you read post #14 :lamo
I'm sure he did Pete... But like everyone else, he probably just laughed and shook his head. It's difficult to have a real conversation with someone that's incapable of seeing even the simplest, most basic of truths.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If you read my post, you wouldn't have asked that question.




I read and understand it perfectly... Do you think I posted a screen shot of it without reading it first?



Really? I had no earthly idea.... Learn something new every day.

<sarcasm OFF>

If you read my post, you wouldn't have asked that question.



I didn't just try to debunk them, I succeeded... There was no mystery that you would be incapable of acknowledging it, because you never have been able to. That's why you easily hold the forum record for the poster most fooled by the same website. :lamo

Why was Olbermann donating to those political campaigns and not disclosing it wrong?
Why was Georgie donating to CGI and not disclosing it wrong?
True or False Pete.... The answer to both those questions is that their donations represented a conflict of interest with their jobs as objective journalists, jeopardizing the integrity and credibility of the news networks they worked for. With Olbermann, it was a conflict of interest because he was part of their election team coverage and did various interviews with politicians... With Georgie, it was a conflict of interest because he was reporting on the CGI scandal and was also the man who interviewed the author of the book that was at the center of the scandal.

If you use your head Pete instead of letting those idiots do your thinking for you, you'd see the truth every once in a while and realize that Media Matters has been playing you for a fool.
Bull****, you didn't debunk them and you never will. However, I did make a mistake reading your post about Olberman's donation to campaigns and for some reason I missed what MM was actually saying. Their point which is a good one, was that George Stephanopolus donation to a chairty is not the same a donation to a political campaign. Apple and oranges. Here is what Media Matters wrote:


Recent media coverage of the controversies, however, has falsely morphed the Clinton Foundation from a "widely respected" charity into a supposed-extension of the Democratic Party.

For example, Paul Waldman, an American Prospect senior writer and former Media Matters senior fellow, criticizedPolitico reporter Dylan Byers for drawing a misleading "parallel between donating to a candidate's campaign and donating to a charitable foundation run by an ex-president."

Other media figures have similarly made the false political campaign comparison. Fox News host Gretchen Carlson,Breitbart.com, National Review Online, and HotAir.com, all suggested a donation to the foundation was equivalent to financing Democratic candidates.

As Waldman explained at The Washington Post, "it's notable that everyone is now treating the Clinton Foundation as if it has long been central to sort of scheme to personally benefit the Clintons, and not a charitable foundation." He added that "judging by the way the foundation is now talked about -- as if anyone who has had any association with it is tainted -- you'd think it was running a network of international assassins instead of distributing malaria medication."

BTW, if you read the following link you will see George Stephanopolus donation to the Clinton Foundation was a matter of public knowledge.

How George Stephanopoulos just did the right a great big favor - The Washington Post


And that's why you were asking me those two questions of yours I quoted.

:2party::monkeyarm:2funny:
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
29,804
Reaction score
14,110
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Bull****, you didn't debunk them and you never will. However, I did make a mistake reading your post about Olberman's donation to campaigns and for some reason I missed what MM was actually saying. Their point which is a good one, was that George Stephanopolus donation to a chairty is not the same a donation to a political campaign. Apple and oranges. Here is what Media Matters wrote:


Recent media coverage of the controversies, however, has falsely morphed the Clinton Foundation from a "widely respected" charity into a supposed-extension of the Democratic Party.

For example, Paul Waldman, an American Prospect senior writer and former Media Matters senior fellow, criticizedPolitico reporter Dylan Byers for drawing a misleading "parallel between donating to a candidate's campaign and donating to a charitable foundation run by an ex-president."

Other media figures have similarly made the false political campaign comparison. Fox News host Gretchen Carlson,Breitbart.com, National Review Online, and HotAir.com, all suggested a donation to the foundation was equivalent to financing Democratic candidates.

As Waldman explained at The Washington Post, "it's notable that everyone is now treating the Clinton Foundation as if it has long been central to sort of scheme to personally benefit the Clintons, and not a charitable foundation." He added that "judging by the way the foundation is now talked about -- as if anyone who has had any association with it is tainted -- you'd think it was running a network of international assassins instead of distributing malaria medication."

BTW, if you read the following link you will see George Stephanopolus donation to the Clinton Foundation was a matter of public knowledge.

How George Stephanopoulos just did the right a great big favor - The Washington Post


And that's why you were asking me those two questions of yours I quoted.

:2party::monkeyarm:2funny:
If you are so right Pete, then how come you can't just answer the question "true" or "false"?
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
29,804
Reaction score
14,110
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Their point which is a good one, was that George Stephanopolus donation to a chairty is not the same a donation to a political campaign. Apple and oranges. Here is what Media Matters wrote:
That is Media Matters point (or should I say spin), but it wasn't the point that the 5 instances they cited were making.

All you have to do is answer this question and it's perfectly clear... but I'm betting that you wont because it's an answer you won't like.

All rules have a reason behind them. Like the both the action of shooting someone in the head with a gun, and throwing someone off a 40 story building are not acceptable behavior, because such an actions can cause great bodily harm and likely constitute a murder.

So just tell me why Olbermann donating to those political campaigns was a no-no in the network's eyes? In other words, why did those actions result in him being suspended by the network?

If you actually decide to answer that, then it should be very simple for you to also tell me the reason that Stephanopoulos donating 75K to CGI was so wrong that the network had to address the issue, and Georgie had to issue a public, on air apology?

The answer is the reason for the comparison, just as it was alluded to in the Breitbart article:

Stephanopoulos continued a Big Money relationship with the Clintons through their foundation, vigorously (and bizarrely) defended the Clintons after the foundation scandal hit, and lied by way of omission about his $75,000 conflict of interest....

...

NBC News also suspended Keith Olbermann for not disclosing a campaign contribution of less than $10,000. By comparison, instead of disciplining their anchor over his cover-up of a massive conflict of interest, after Stephanopoulos and ABC News were caught...
The reason was also alluded to in the NRO article:

n 2010 Keith Olbermann, then at MSNBC, donated the maximum $2,400 to Arizona congressmen Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords, and to Kentucky attorney general Jack Conway...

...

The problem of George Stephanopoulos’s bias would not be solved by a temporary suspension. It’s not as if he would not return to This Week as an objective straight-shooter. But at least MSNBC made the pretense of upholding some sort of journalistic standards.
And finally, the article at HotAir also alluded to it:

MSNBC suspended Joe Scarborough for tossing $500 to his brother-in-law’s local race, along with a couple other friends and relatives without filling out the usual disclosure forms. In fact, they suspended Olbermann for the same thing...

...

... Has anyone at ABC stopped to ask themselves what the state of affairs is when they can’t meet the bar for journalistic standards set by MSNBC?
Are you starting to figure it out yet, or is this going to be just like it always is with you? You know, where you refuse to answer simple questions, refuse to acknowledge the truth, and fight to the death to defend those dishonest clowns over at Media Matters, even though they duped you and made you look foolish once again.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
That is Media Matters point (or should I say spin), but it wasn't the point that the 5 instances they cited were making.

All you have to do is answer this question and it's perfectly clear... but I'm betting that you wont because it's an answer you won't like.

All rules have a reason behind them. Like the both the action of shooting someone in the head with a gun, and throwing someone off a 40 story building are not acceptable behavior, because such an actions can cause great bodily harm and likely constitute a murder.

So just tell me why Olbermann donating to those political campaigns was a no-no in the network's eyes? In other words, why did those actions result in him being suspended by the network?

If you actually decide to answer that, then it should be very simple for you to also tell me the reason that Stephanopoulos donating 75K to CGI was so wrong that the network had to address the issue, and Georgie had to issue a public, on air apology?

The answer is the reason for the comparison, just as it was alluded to in the Breitbart article:



The reason was also alluded to in the NRO article:



And finally, the article at HotAir also alluded to it:



Are you starting to figure it out yet, or is this going to be just like it always is with you? You know, where you refuse to answer simple questions, refuse to acknowledge the truth, and fight to the death to defend those dishonest clowns over at Media Matters, even though they duped you and made you look foolish once again.[/QUOTE
That is Media Matters point (or should I say spin), but it wasn't the point that the 5 instances they cited were making.
Yes, I know they were wrong.

So just tell me why Olbermann donating to those political campaigns was a no-no in the network's eyes? In other words, why did those actions result in him being suspended by the network?
Because it showed he wasn't impartial He favored one party over another.
I think MSMBC was correct suspending Olbermann.

If you actually decide to answer that, then it should be very simple for you to also tell me the reason that Stephanopoulos donating 75K to CGI was so wrong that the network had to address the issue, and Georgie had to issue a public, on air apology?
Georgie? and you think I look foolish? :lamo

JFC Grim do you realize that ABC and Stephanolous could not ignore the criticism they were getting in the press. THEY HAD TO DO SOMETHING. The fact is that he should have shown he was a doner to the Clinton Foundation. I don't believe he neglected it on purpose, it was something he didn't think off.
 
Last edited:

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
29,804
Reaction score
14,110
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That is Media Matters point (or should I say spin), but it wasn't the point that the 5 instances they cited were making.
Yes, I know they were wrong.

So just tell me why Olbermann donating to those political campaigns was a no-no in the network's eyes? In other words, why did those actions result in him being suspended by the network?
Because it showed he wasn't impartial He favored one party over another.
I think MSMBC was correct suspending Olbermann.

If you actually decide to answer that, then it should be very simple for you to also tell me the reason that Stephanopoulos donating 75K to CGI was so wrong that the network had to address the issue, and Georgie had to issue a public, on air apology?
The fact is that he should have shown he was a doner to the Clinton Foundation. I don't believe he neglected it on purpose, it was something he didn't think off.
Wow... I'm floored.

1. You admit Media Matters was wrong.
2. You not only answered the Olbermann question, but you answered it correctly.
3. You understand that it was a conflict of interest and a question of journalistic integrity with Stephanopoulos, just as it was for Olbermann.
4. You didn't try and spin what the comparison was actually about to defend the Media Matters article.

Pete, you have renewed my faith in you partner... Keep it up.
 

BWWzfc

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
593
Reaction score
145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Since you liked Grims post why don't you read post #14 :3oops:
For some reason you had the wrong smiley appended to your post. I fixed it for you.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Wow... I'm floored.

1. You admit Media Matters was wrong.
2. You not only answered the Olbermann question, but you answered it correctly.
3. You understand that it was a conflict of interest and a question of journalistic integrity with Stephanopoulos, just as it was for Olbermann.
4. You didn't try and spin what the comparison was actually about to defend the Media Matters article.

Pete, you have renewed my faith in you partner... Keep it up.
Sorry for the confusion but when I said they were wrong, I wasn't referring to media matters, I meant those 5 entities.
Take away your like if you want, but MM wasn't wrong.
 
Last edited:

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
29,804
Reaction score
14,110
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sorry for the confusion but when I said they were wrong, I wasn't referring to media matters, I meant those 5 entities.
Take away your like if you want, but MM wasn't wrong.
You were honest about some of it, so you can keep the like...

I just don't understand how you can:

a) know that what they both did created a conflict of interest,
b) know what they both did was a breech of journalistic ethics.
c) see with your own 2 eyes that all three of the articles Media Matters linked to, compared the actions taken by MSNBC to Olbermann's breech of ethics, to the lack of action taken by ABC for the breech of ethics by Stephanopoulos.
d) be such a shill for those lying clowns at Media Matters and still claim that they were equating donations to the Clinton Foundation, to donations to a political campaign, like "a" "b" and "C" don't even exist.

Everyone knows, especially me, that you abandoned the truth and sacrificed your dignity long ago to serve your master... Politics... so expecting anything better from you was my a mistake on my part.
 
Top Bottom