• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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

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.

Well Grim I decided to check why Keith Olbermann was suspended indefinitely without pay. As it turns out it wasn't because of a conflict of interest, but rather it was because Olbermann donated to political campaigns. It was a direct violation of NBC rules. It was a breach of his contract with NBC News and he could have been fired for it.

Almost everyone says that George Stephanopoulous should have revealed his donation to the Clinton Foundation when he interviewed Peter Schweitzer, but the fact he didn't is nowhere at the same level as to what Olbermann did.


.NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions — considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover.



Read more: Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Democrats - Simmi Aujla - POLITICO.com
 
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."


:shock:

:lamo

Come on Pete, I've seen better spin in my commode. What the heck does this have to do with the Left Dominated Media's failure to disclose their lack of impartiality? If it's no big deal, why is Stepho falling on his sword?

Too funny. You need to tell your buddies they should avoid looking so desperate.
 
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

You are embarrassing yourself. Stephanopolous was interviewing the author of a book about CGI without disclosing he was a CGI supporter. It's conflict of interest.
 
You are embarrassing yourself. Stephanopolous was interviewing the author of a book about CGI without disclosing he was a CGI supporter. It's conflict of interest.

So, if that is the case, what do you suggest should happen?
 
Well Grim I decided to check why Keith Olbermann was suspended indefinitely without pay. As it turns out it wasn't because of a conflict of interest, but rather it was because Olbermann donated to political campaigns.

Oh FFS Pete, I though we were beyond that... But you just don't know how to do anything but spin and deceive do you? You are talking about his actions, I asked you about the offense. Forgive me for attempting this, but let's try some logic... shall we?

Olbermann
Action: Donated to 3 political campaigns and didn't disclose it to his viewers or the network.
Offense: Violates journalistic ethics and standards of objectivity by creating a conflict of interest with his job as a political journalist, interviewer and part of NBC's election coverage team.

Stephanopoulos
Action: Donated multiple times to the Clinton Foundation and didn't disclose it to his viewers or the network.
Offense: Violated journalistic ethics, standards of objectivity and was a conflict of interest on his reporting of the CGI scandal and his interviewing the author of the book at the center of the scandal.

Get it yet Pete?

The actions they took were different, but the offense was the same... They weren't making a comparison of their individual actions, they were comparing the similarity of their offense and how the networks handled it differently.

It's all right there in black and white Pete... You just have to take off your Media Matters glasses, open up your eyes and see it.
 
So, if that is the case, what do you suggest should happen?

Stephanopolous has been a Clinton enforcer for more that 20 years. He never should have gotten the job that requires political objectivity. That years old error should be corrected.

On the bright side, he could be fired just in time to join the Clinton campaign.
 
Oh FFS Pete, I though we were beyond that... But you just don't know how to do anything but spin and deceive do you? You are talking about his actions, I asked you about the offense. Forgive me for attempting this, but let's try some logic... shall we?

Olbermann
Action: Donated to 3 political campaigns and didn't disclose it to his viewers or the network.
Offense: Violates journalistic ethics and standards of objectivity by creating a conflict of interest with his job as a political journalist, interviewer and part of NBC's election coverage team.
No, that's not exactly the way it was. There is an NBC rule that employees are not to donate to political campaigns because it looks like a conflict of interest. Not all news organizations have the rule. He broke the conditions in his contract and NBC had no choice after Politico revealed his donations.

Stephanopoulos
Action: Donated multiple times to the Clinton Foundation and didn't disclose it to his viewers or the network.
Offense: Violated journalistic ethics, standards of objectivity and was a conflict of interest on his reporting of the CGI scandal and his interviewing the author of the book at the center of the scandal.

Get it yet Pete?

The actions they took were different, but the offense was the same... They weren't making a comparison of their individual actions, they were comparing the similarity of their offense and how the networks handled it differently.

Their actions were not the same, not even close. On one hand there is Olbermann violating the terms of his contract and on the other hand there was Stephanopoulos neglecting to reaveal he donated to the Clinton Foundation. There is lightyears difference between the two. Sorry pal.

It's all right there in black and white Pete... You just have to take off your Media Matters glasses, open up your eyes and see it.

There is nothing wrong with the Media Matters report, they were not carrying George Stephanopoulos' water for him. They were simply and correctly pointing out the comparison between Olbermann and Stephanopoulos was rediculous. I know you don't agree, but I don't care.
 
No, that's not exactly the way it was. There is an NBC rule that employees are not to donate to political campaigns because it looks like a conflict of interest. Not all news organizations have the rule. He broke the conditions in his contract and NBC had no choice after Politico revealed his donations.

So what? Whether he or anyone else in his profession has a contract in place or not, those actions still constitute a violation of journalistic ethics. A contract, or lack there of, doesn't change that.



Their actions were not the same, not even close. On one hand there is Olbermann violating the terms of his contract and on the other hand there was Stephanopoulos neglecting to reaveal he donated to the Clinton Foundation. There is lightyears difference between the two. Sorry pal.

No **** Sherlock! I not only said that, but you even quoted it!

JFC Pete, you are trying so hard to spin this that you make stupid, irrelevant statements about crap that's not even in dispute. Need a reminder:

Olbermann
Action: Donated to 3 political campaigns and didn't disclose it to his viewers or the network.

Stephanopoulos
Action: Donated multiple times to the Clinton Foundation and didn't disclose it to his viewers or the network.




There is nothing wrong with the Media Matters report, they were not carrying George Stephanopoulos' water for him. They were simply and correctly pointing out the comparison between Olbermann and Stephanopoulos was rediculous.

Though there is virtually no chance of the truth getting through to you and breaking the Media Matters spell you are under, I will say it once again...

They did not equate their "actions" as Media Matters claims, they compared how each of the networks dealt with their offenses (which were the same)... It was a criticism of ABC for not taking action against Stephanopoulos for breaching journalistic ethics, compromising his objectivity and damaging the credibility of the network... The same offense that MSNBC chose to suspend both Olbermann and Scarborough for doing.

Just read any one of the 3 pieces Media Matters linked to Pete... It's right there in front of you, in black and white, and as plain as day.


I know you don't agree, but I don't care.

What you don't care about Pete, is the truth... All you care about is protecting your masters over at Media Matters, no matter how many times they play you for the fool.
 
So what? Whether he or anyone else in his profession has a contract in place or not, those actions still constitute a violation of journalistic ethics. A contract, or lack there of, doesn't change that.





No **** Sherlock! I not only said that, but you even quoted it!

JFC Pete, you are trying so hard to spin this that you make stupid, irrelevant statements about crap that's not even in dispute. Need a reminder:








Though there is virtually no chance of the truth getting through to you and breaking the Media Matters spell you are under, I will say it once again...

They did not equate their "actions" as Media Matters claims, they compared how each of the networks dealt with their offenses (which were the same)... It was a criticism of ABC for not taking action against Stephanopoulos for breaching journalistic ethics, compromising his objectivity and damaging the credibility of the network... The same offense that MSNBC chose to suspend both Olbermann and Scarborough for doing.

Just read any one of the 3 pieces Media Matters linked to Pete... It's right there in front of you, in black and white, and as plain as day.




What you don't care about Pete, is the truth... All you care about is protecting your masters over at Media Matters, no matter how many times they play you for the fool.

Bull****, the offences were not the same no matter how many times you say it. And even if they were, its up to each network as how to handle it. Enough Said For Christ's sake. !!!!!!
 
Bull****, the offences were not the same no matter how many times you say it. And even if they were, its up to each network as how to handle it. Enough Said For Christ's sake. !!!!!!

Sure it is up to each network to figure out how they want to handle obvious cases of conflict of interest. It is entirely expected that the network that cares so little for conflict of interest that they hired a long time Clinton and Democrat campaign operative for a reporting role would not consider the resulting conflict of interest a serious offense.

Stephanopolouses defends Clintons because that is what Stephanopolouses do.
 
Bull****, the offences were not the same no matter how many times you say it. And even if they were, its up to each network as how to handle it. Enough Said For Christ's sake. !!!!!!

What does this say Pete? It's from the Breitbart article that Media Matters linked to:

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 by the Washington Free Beacon, like a sleazy unethical politician, they ran to Politico to disguise themselves as being proactive in admitting to the donations.

What was the comparison their Pete?

Here's the NRO article Media Matters linked to:

In 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, who unsuccessfully ran against current Kentucky senator Rand Paul. Olbermann was suspended indefinitely without pay...

he 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.

What was the point of that comparison Pete?


Here's the HotAir article that Media Matters linked to:

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 Olberman for the same thing. And we all saw what happened to NBC’s Brian Williams just for spinning a few tales about his exploits. 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?

... and what was the point of that comparison Pete?

All 3 were comparing how MSNBC/NBC did the right thing and suspended Olbermann, while ABC didn't with Stephanopoulos. What Stephanopoulos did wouldn't have been a problem if he would have simply disclosed those donations before being the one to report on the story and interview Schweizer. Because he didn't disclose this to ABC News or the public, it was exactly the same conflict of interest and violation of journalistic ethics as it was with Olbermann.

None of them were equating the clinton Foundation with a political campaign.
 
What does this say Pete? It's from the Breitbart article that Media Matters linked to:



What was the comparison their Pete?

Here's the NRO article Media Matters linked to:

In 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, who unsuccessfully ran against current Kentucky senator Rand Paul. Olbermann was suspended indefinitely without pay...

he 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.

What was the point of that comparison Pete?


Here's the HotAir article that Media Matters linked to:

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 Olberman for the same thing. And we all saw what happened to NBC’s Brian Williams just for spinning a few tales about his exploits. 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?

... and what was the point of that comparison Pete?

All 3 were comparing how MSNBC/NBC did the right thing and suspended Olbermann, while ABC didn't with Stephanopoulos. What Stephanopoulos did wouldn't have been a problem if he would have simply disclosed those donations before being the one to report on the story and interview Schweizer. Because he didn't disclose this to ABC News or the public, it was exactly the same conflict of interest and violation of journalistic ethics as it was with Olbermann.

None of them were equating the clinton Foundation with a political campaign.
Okay, I see your problem, you think Keith Olbermann and Joe Scarborough were suspended because they didn't disclose their political donations. That's incorrect, they were suspended for making the donations in the first place. I told you that this morning. Now get it through your noggin that what Olberman and Stephanopolous are completely different.

Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Democrats - Simmi Aujla - POLITICO.com
 
Okay, I see your problem, you think Keith Olbermann and Joe Scarborough were suspended because they didn't disclose their political donations. That's incorrect, they were suspended for making the donations in the first place. I told you that this morning. Now get it through your noggin that what Olberman and Stephanopolous are completely different.

Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Democrats - Simmi Aujla - POLITICO.com

Gee... I wonder why you completely ignored all 3 of the questions, from all 3 of the actual articles Media Matters linked to?

Let me guess... answering those questions is a conflict of interest for you? LMAO

Once a blind apologist for Media Matters... Forever a blind apologist for Media Matters.
 
Gee... I wonder why you completely ignored all 3 of the questions, from all 3 of the actual articles Media Matters linked to?

Let me guess... answering those questions is a conflict of interest for you? LMAO

Once a blind apologist for Media Matters... Forever a blind apologist for Media Matters.

They were trying to compare with what Obermann did was similar to what Stephanopolous did. THEY WERE WRONG GODDAMNIT. Olbermann was suspended because he made donations to political campaigns. Do you understand?????
 
Everyone knows the Right simply makes up the BS about Clinton Foundation crap. Nobody really believes it.

Lol !!

Yep, we " made up " so much stuff Ryan it forced the Clintons to redo 5 years of Tax returns and acknowledge a 2.5 Million dollar donation they hid from everyone.
 
Back
Top Bottom