George Stephanopoulos, “news” anchor for ABC, donated $75,000 to “The Clinton Global Initiative,” ie to Hillary and Bill’s greater enrichment, and then grilled the guy who wrote a book — “Clinton Cash” — critical of the Clintons.
Think it might have been a good idea for Stephanopoulos to have disclosed that he was already extremely favorably disposed toward The Hill-Billies?
Ready for the obvious? Any FOX anchor caught doing the equivalent would have been fired immediately.
Seriously, though, what did people really expect? Stephanopulos worked for the Bill Clinton for President campaign, worked for several years in the White House for Bill, and then left for a great deal more money as a “news” reporter at ABC. Did anyone really expect that he’d be an honest reporter of news?
Seriously? Who’s really that naïve?
Nor will Stephanopoulos be fired for it. Frankly, I don’t think he should. I mean, what difference at this point does it make?
The media are hopelessly corrupt, hopelessly dishonest, hopelessly in the tank for Hillary. Any replacement of Stephanopoulos would be a corrupt replacement of Stephanopoulos, in the tank for Hillary. At least with Stephanopoulos, we already know he’s in the tank for Hillary.
This is a thing I’ve advocated for decades: honest disclosure by the media. No reporter anywhere should ever be allowed to report on anything without first indicating where he or she stands on the topic. Period.
Want an example? Some news anchor introduces a story on an upcoming case before the Supreme Court. The reporter should be obliged to indicate how he or she thinks the High Court should rule. Simple as that. A more precise example: Andrea Mitchell announces a story about the potential repercussions that would happen as a result of the Obamacare case currently being considered by the court. She should also indicate that she supports a ruling in favor of Obamacare from the court. Simple as that.(1)
As for this thing about allowing liberal media personalities to moderate Republican debates? Heck no! That should never happen! As for allowing liberal medial personalities to moderate even Presidential debates, that should never happen either. Period.
Time after time after time after time, the left proves itself unwilling or unable to be honest moderators of anything. Why would Republicans ever allow themselves to stand in front of a group of corrupt liberals to be target practice?
(1) – Why? Simple: in 1974, the press demonstrated that they are every bit as powerful, if not more powerful, than the President (Nixon) of the United States. Remember Woodward and Bernstein? Everyone to this day praises them as courageous “defenders of the Constitution.”
Between you and me, Woodward and Bernstein were little more than partisan hacks — they’ve been mostly silent about Obama’s corruption and his transparent assaults on the Constitution — but they did do the country the service of exposing the vast power of the media. It should go without saying that a “courageous defender of the Constitution” can be a “courageous defender of the Constitution,” if and only if he has real, very serious, power.
That power, without transparency into the views of those who wield it, is unchecked and dangerous to democracy. We don’t allow our elected representatives to arrive in office without publicly presenting their views on the issues of the day; why would we excuse the even more powerful press from that responsibility?
Furthermore, the press should be made to express themselves on the elections on which they report, both Presidential and Congressional. Same reason. Our elected representatives have to pronounce themselves on whom they’re supporting each election cycle; why would we excuse the even more powerful press from that same responsibility? In these pages, we proposed that here, all the way back in December of 2012!