Oh, my how embarrassing for the right! :lamo
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?
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.
"Media are falsely equating donations to the Clinton Foundation with contributions to a Democratic political campaign."
"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, 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."
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.
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. :lamoYou 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.
George Stephanopolous donated to a charity.
You must stop trying to debunk Media Matters, it makes you look silly. :lamo
Since you liked Grims post why don't you read post #14 :lamo
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:
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:
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...
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.
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?
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
Yes, I know they were wrong.That is Media Matters point (or should I say spin), but it wasn't the point that the 5 instances they cited were making.
Because it showed he wasn't impartial He favored one party over another.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?
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.
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.
Since you liked Grims post why don't you read post #14 :3oops:
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?