In a USA Today editorial Sunday, Peter Schweizer exposes the bias of ABC News and their lying-by-omission news anchor, George Stephanopoulos, who “interviewed” Mr. Schweizer to discuss his new book, Clinton Cash. Instead of discussing the book’s claims, Stephanopoulos spent the “interview” defending Hillary Clinton, while NEVER once mentioning that he himself has donated as much as $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation (I previously noted the amount as only being $50,000), and that he has had extensive, long-term dealings with the Clintons.
The irony, of course, is that the entire focus of Schweizer’s book is to expose the powerful influence the Clinton’s wield through their “charitable” organization, the Clinton Foundation. How did George Stephanopoulos’s interview with Schweizer NOT typify that kind of influence?
Schweizer notes in his Sunday editorial that Stephanopoulos “apologized” to viewers for not revealing his financial donations to the Clinton Foundation, but,
“…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.”
Schweizer then specifically details the on-going relationship between Stephanopoulos and the Clintons. Based on the facts he presented, it should be obvious to anyone with a pulse that George Stephanopoulos functions as much more than merely a financial donor to the Clinton Foundation.
The facts stand in mocking contrast to ABC News which sent out a spokesperson to defend Stephanopoulos’s deception-by-omission as an “…honest mistake….” As I asked in a previous article, “How was it honest? How was it a mistake?”
How was any of Stephanopoulos’s behavior during the Schweizer interview anything else than a bold-faced attempt by a leading media figure to direct public perception to accept a narrative divorced from factual reality? If Peter Schweizer’s book, Clinton Cash, has revealed anything, it is that the Clinton’s – though currently holding no government seats of power – still exert a great deal of powerful influence, and they seem to be making millions of dollars – hand over fist – doing it.
But at what expense to the American people?
Peter Schweizer hit the nail on the head when he notes in his editorial:
“What I did not expect — what no one expected — was the sort of ‘hidden hand journalism’ that has contributed to America’s news media’s crisis of credibility in particular, and Americans’ distrust of the news media more broadly.”
He went on to observe that:
“What is certain is that Stephanopoulos’ ethical malpractice and hidden-hand journalism have done further injury to an essential, if beleaguered, institution, one already battling to preserve legitimacy.”
A free press is essential to maintain our free Republic. What will we – as Americans – lose if we tolerate sham propaganda masquerading as journalism?
What have we lost because of the Clintons’ “hidden-hands” around the globe?