Karl Rove To Anchor Fox News Sunday...

Pilgrim · May 17, 2015

Well, not really - but it would be the same thing as the deal George Stephanopoulos got from ABC. How absurd that this partisan political hack from the Clinton camp has been one of ABC's headliners on "This Week" and "Good Morning America" posing as a reporter of hard news, all the while promoting the Democrat Party agenda. And to think Brian Williams got canned from NBC for spinning a few "war stories"! The hypocrisy of the MSM continues as this scandal goes virtually unnoticed; one could only imagine the h*ll that would have been raised if Fox had done a similar deal with Rove.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...50k-clinton-foundation-donation-from-viewers/

Ragman · May 17, 2015

The donations are a matter of public record. He has nothing to be sorry for.

Pilgrim · May 18, 2015

It goes a bit deeper than that.

And even though he has apologized to his viewers for keeping this information from both his audience and his bosses, there is much that Stephanopoulos has yet to disclose to his viewers. Indeed, far from being a passive donor who strokes Clinton Foundation checks from afar, a closer look reveals that Stephanopoulos is an ardent and engaged Clinton Foundation advocate.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...schweizer-foundation-hillary-column/27436475/

And for another perspective:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffre...w?hootPostID=6ef9755b4775a33d20a44fcb5f191bdc

Turtle · May 18, 2015

Ragman said:
The donations are a matter of public record. He has nothing to be sorry for.

Other than the obvious, glaring and blatant conflict of interest, that is.

About half the major news organizations prohibit their journalists from politicking or contributing money, the other half has no prohibitions (but still requires the reporting of any conflict of interest).

Giving to candidates is allowed at Fox, Forbes, Time, The New Yorker, Reuters, and at Bloomberg News. At all of those except Fox News, they can't donate if they cover politics directly, however. Fox takes a 'more the merrier' approach.

Donations and other political activity are strictly forbidden at The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN and NPR.

Note the "ABC" there in the list of organizations that prohibit political donations. It's ABC who fired Geraldo Rivera for making a $200 donation to a local mayoral candidate (as they should have), and it's the same ABC that hasn't fired Steffy for his contribution and for his failure to report a conflict of interest.

Part of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states:

- Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.

- Remain free of associations that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

Steffy has zero credibility now. And as long as he's on the payroll of ABC News, they have even less credibility than Steffy.

It's scummy journalism at its finest.

aristotle · May 18, 2015

As a child, I grew up watching television news being reported by men such as Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, Chet Huntley, John Chancellor, Sam Donaldson and Irving R. Levine(think bowtie). Huntley and Brinkley, in particular, seemed to bring a sense of dignity to their work. There doesn't seem to be any television news journalist of that stature anymore, Instead, we have idealogues and former party hacks from both major parties. I am not aware of any American television news outlet which doesn't fully engage in agenda-driven reporting.

muttly · May 18, 2015

A blast from the past video. Whatever one thinks about Iran Contra, and the mistakes that were made, this video is an example of Steffy being Steffy.

muttly · May 18, 2015

Pilgrim said:
How absurd that this partisan political hack from the Clinton camp has been one of ABC's headliners on "This Week" and "Good Morning America" posing as a reporter of hard news, all the while promoting the Democrat Party agenda.

And carrying the water for Dems with planted questions as a debate moderator:

aristotle · May 19, 2015

ABC News should replace George Stephanopoulos with a real television news journalist, Chelsea Clinton. She is free of bias and could hold a series of compelling interviews with Monica Lewinsky. Big ratings! Following that, Chelsea could do one-on-one interviews with Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broadrrick and others. How about Chelsea doing an investigative report on the death of Vince Foster? Travelgate? Missing documents from the Rose Law Firm? Mom's role in Benghazi? Missing government emails? Lots of fertile ground waiting to be plowed.

Pilgrim · May 19, 2015

Notice the difference in coverage by the MSM of Brian Williams' war tales and the political skulduggery of George Stephanopoulos. Williams screwed up by trying to enhance his personal image and consequently ruining his personal credibility. Georgie on the other hand is only furthering the agenda of ABC with his continuing conflict of interest in promoting the Democrat party and their candidates - particularly the Clintons. The MSM has obviously circled the wagons and decided not to cover this scandal because they all have the common goal of Hillary's coronation. So what if Georgie gave a few bucks ($75K) over the years? It's just "charitable donations"; nothing to see here, let's move along.

The Republicans should NOT let this issue wither and die. Every one of their primary candidates should boycott Stephanopolis and any show in which he participates, just like the Democrats have been doing to Fox News.

muttly · May 19, 2015

Stephanopoulos also moderated one of the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary debates. One of the candidates on stage was Hillary Clinton. You would think the Dems, would have prevented him from moderating, given his history with the Clintons.
It would probably be similar to Karl Rove moderating a debate with Jeb Bush as a candidate.

Turtle · May 19, 2015

Pilgrim said:
The MSM has obviously circled the wagons and decided not to cover this scandal because they all have the common goal of Hillary's coronation.

They aren't covering it because they don't want the contributions of their own reporters to become news.

aristotle · May 19, 2015

The GOP national committee should know better than to allow former political hacks moderate a presidential debate. It is symptomatic of every foolish concession they make to the mainstream press. The GOP Establishment is comprised of laughable incompetents mimicking the Keystone Cops. Worse than useless, they bring harm.

Turtle · May 19, 2015

muttly said:
Stephanopoulos also moderated one of the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary debates. One of the candidates on stage was Hillary Clinton. You would think the Dems, would have prevented him from moderating, given his history with the Clintons.
It would probably be similar to Karl Rove moderating a debate with Jeb Bush as a candidate.

Do you think a debate moderator is supposed to be impartial and unbiased or something? A debate moderator can be just as biased politically as they want. The only impartiality that is required is in the role of giving each participant equal time in answering and rebuttals.

Turtle · May 19, 2015

aristotle said:
The GOP national committee should know better than to allow former political hacks moderate a presidential debate. It is symptomatic of every foolish concession they make to the mainstream press. The GOP Establishment is comprised of laughable incompetents mimicking the Keystone Cops. Worse than useless, they bring harm.

The GOP doesn't have control over who moderates the debates. They and the Democrats tried that in 1998 and the League of Women Voters responded by pulling their sponsorship of the debates. Since then the presidential debates have been sponsored (moderated) by the aptly named Commission on President Debates, a private non-profit organization started by both the Republican and Democratic parties.

aristotle · May 19, 2015

Turtle said:
The GOP doesn't have control over who moderates the debates. They and the Democrats tried that in 1998 and the League of Women Voters responded by pulling their sponsorship of the debates. Since then the presidential debates have been sponsored (moderated) by the aptly named Commission on President Debates, a private non-profit organization started by both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Many of us view the Commission on Presidential Debates as little more than a front group shielding the Establishment from having direct fingerprints on the process. No doubt, behind the scenes the Establishment wields enormous influence and control at every stage of the nomination process. The exasperation millions of grassroots conservatives feel toward the GOP hierarchy cannot be overstated.

muttly · May 19, 2015

Turtle said:
Do you think a debate moderator is supposed to be impartial and unbiased or something? A debate moderator can be just as biased politically as they want. The only impartiality that is required is in the role of giving each participant equal time in answering and rebuttals.

It's unrealistic to think so. Everyone has their own biases. He was just too close with the Clintons and had a history in their campaigns of framing perceptions for them. He knows the tricks of the trade in politics. He was a damage control guy for his candidate, and a political opponents character assassin. Steffy was over the top with the hypothetical condom question that he hammered away with for about 5 mins. He was once again trying to frame perceptions with a democrat operative approved, and contrived question. It was the beginning of the 'war on women' narrative.

Pilgrim · May 19, 2015

Steffy has quite a bit of company in the MSM.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...ellent-reasons-to-distrust-despise-the-media/

Turtle · May 19, 2015

Too close to the Clintons... for what? For your liking?

The selection of the moderators for the debates is about a 2 year process. The Commission selects the names and then submits them to both parties, and either party can veto or approve a name.

They tend to choose TV journalists because they're known and trusted by the public, they can think on their feet with a director barking orders in their earpiece, and can be forceful in telling a candidate that their out of time or they aren't answering a question. Being politically neutral isn't a requirement, nor is it expected by either party or the Commission.

It's a problem if you're agenda-driven in your news journalism, though. That's why no one from MSNBC or Fox News has never been a Moderator.

Of course, Univision wants a Latino, or at the very least, a bilingual moderator, and African Americans want a black moderator. Because, you know, it's more about the moderators than the candidates.

muttly · May 19, 2015

To my liking? Yes, if I were a republican. Anyone who observed his past with the Clintons, knows he's a political operative at his core.
He would be less interested in getting a candidate to answer an honest question and more interested in sabotaging a debate with some idiotic condom question.
He has never been a journalist.

It's a problem because all news organizations are agenda driven, but won't admit that they are. Evidence says otherwise.
Please don't tell me you want more examples about CNN's agenda or others.

Didn't Gwen Ifill moderate a Vice Presidential debate in 2008, while writing a book on Obama, released after the election? Yeah that's right.