ABC’s Stephanopoulos Gave $75G To Clinton Foundation Without Disclosing It

I would like to know why he should feel like he had to disclose it. I thought your political affiliation could remain personal if that is what a person wanted. The only people that I think might care would be the IRS. And that would be a long shot.Should I disclose information that I donated to a particular party (and I do) to my employer? As long as it was my money and I did not press anyone with that info into donating as well at work, who the heck cares ?

originally posted by: Gothmog
I would like to know why he should feel like he had to disclose it. I thought your political affiliation could remain personal if that is what a person wanted. The only people that I think might care would be the IRS. And that would be a long shot.Should I disclose information that I donated to a particular party (and I do) to my employer? As long as it was my money and I did not press anyone with that info into donating as well at work, who the heck cares ?

Those looking to find an issue where there is none. I don't give a # who's asking. My private stuff is mine.

a reply to: Gothmog

Sorta. Stephanopoulos did a piece specifically about the Clinton Foundation. IMO he should have disclosed that he regularly donates large sums of money to it.

a reply to: Kali74
The only reason in that case would be a conflict of interest. I did not see that show , so I cannot comment.But even so , it would be hard to prove a conflict of interest unless he brought up how great the foundation was and it was so great he had been donating to it...

a reply to: IAMTAT

You clearly didn't read the article that came along with the video. That's OK though. Also, my point was MSM news sources in general are crappy and unethical. I'm not comparing what George did to anything. I think you missed my point.

Here's some more straight up lying by Fox News.

www.vox.com...

Again, I'm ascribing this behavior to ALL MSM news sources. They are all terrible and unethical. They're not news, they're entertainment. You can find lying from every network if you look, and you probably wouldn't even have to look very hard.

Further, just to be clear, I'm not defending anybody, quite the opposite, I'm calling them all out.

originally posted by: Pimpish
a reply to: IAMTAT

You clearly didn't read the article that came along with the video. That's OK though. Also, my point was MSM news sources in general are crappy and unethical. I'm not comparing what George did to anything. I think you missed my point.

Here's some more straight up lying by Fox News.

www.vox.com...

Again, I'm ascribing this behavior to ALL MSM news sources. They are all terrible and unethical. They're not news, they're entertainment. You can find lying from every network if you look, and you probably wouldn't even have to look very hard.

Further, just to be clear, I'm not defending anybody, quite the opposite, I'm calling them all out.

I'm sorry if I missed your point. Please forgive me.
Yes, we agree, there is always much to criticize in the MSM news sources. For example, the Brian Williams fiasco is still unraveling and evolving.

As to your link:
Vox.com is Ezra Klein's extremely partisan liberal website. Very few would consider it unbiased.

I think this is a non issue.

I mean George was in the Clinton (Bill that is) cabinet and presidential campaign staff. We know he's a Democrat.

It would be like Sean Hannity saying he donated to the Republicans. You just assume that's what these guys will do. Much ado about nothing. Carry on.

originally posted by: amazing
I think this is a non issue.

I mean George was in the Clinton (Bill that is) cabinet and presidential campaign staff. We know he's a Democrat.

It would be like Sean Hannity saying he donated to the Republicans. You just assume that's what these guys will do. Much ado about nothing. Carry on.

In the dictionary under "redundant" it says, "See redundant."

Valid point. But a Shakespeare reference? How about a Stephen King reference? "Desperation"?

a reply to: IAMTAT

I was more linking that for the Daily Show segment. Although, it's not as if Jon Stewart is unbiased. Exactly my point though, they all are. Everybody is looking out for number one. Can't blame them though, seems like it's pretty much human nature, and I guess nature in generally, really.

I'm not one of those partisan types and I refuse to be put under some sort of label being called a democrat or a republican. Each issue is different and I lean differently per issue - following party lines just because is just nonsense to me and I feel like it's really just a way to divide the public because it's easier to stay in power that way. Divide and conquer, the oldest trick in the book.

Brian Williams is another perfect example of terrible ethics. Geraldo I think would be another. The list goes on. The real question is, what is to be done about it? Perhaps a disclaimer at the beginning of each show and/or commercial break returns? Heck, I'm not even sure what that disclaimer would say.

a reply to: amazing

Network News Anchors being Democrat or a Republican isn't the issue...and I think you understand that, but want to brush off the seriousness of Stephanopoulos' ethical lapse.

The issue at hand is that he assumed the role of impartial interviewer and reporter on stories about a Foundation in which he, himself, was a substantial financial donor and investor...without first making a full disclosure to his audience.

If, as you say, it is "much ado about nothing"...why, then, did ABC remove him from future Presidential debate moderation?
Obviously his employers felt he committed an ethical breach...and that it needed to be addressed.

a reply to: IAMTAT

I would be concerned if the foundation had him on the payroll and it wasn't disclosed or if he had investments in the foundation he could profit from, but knowing that he donated his own money to a foundation does not make much of an impression on me.

Can you clarify on the debate moderation? Did ABC remove him or did he remove himself of his own accord?

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Kali74
The only reason in that case would be a conflict of interest. I did not see that show , so I cannot comment.But even so , it would be hard to prove a conflict of interest unless he brought up how great the foundation was and it was so great he had been donating to it...

It's not about proving anything, it's about removing any secrecy that can then be construed as a bias that affected the investigation or reporting.

ABCNews has a HUGE interest in keeping their anchors and network trustworthy and without scandal. When their employees (and, by extension, the network) fail to do so, it undermines the reason that people try to watch the news--to get unbiased facts and information from hopefully unbiased individuals.

Whether or not G.S. put a biased spin on his reporting is irrelevant...it's about the secretive donations that could lead to it and were hidden from common knowledge.

At the least, someone else should have been tasked with doing the report.

The mainstream media reports nothing but opinion now anyway.

None of them can be trusted to be unbiased and let the viewer make up their own mind. They're all pushing an agenda and intentionally mislead their viewers.

FtheMSM.