Translation: Stephanopoulos regrets having his donation become public such that it makes dubious his journalistic objectivity. He'd have been fine with having the public not know of his bias.
I think an investigation would show that many if not most MSM have contributed to the Clinton foundation or any of the other charities of the same type and/or political leaningsIt's a two pronged question. As Geraldo explains, the real reason was over a "spiked" story, whateverthehellthatmeans, but still the other prong is that it was considered a valid reason to fire him back then. It's not as much an issue now because there is no presumption of journalistic integrity now. Now, more than then, journalism is a pragmatic means to an end that has nothing to do with simply objectively reporting news.
In all fairness the Clinton foundation is, at least on the surface, a charitable organization and not a political one. I think Stephanopoulos, when interviewing Schweitzer about his critical view of the Clinton Foundation, should have disclosed to Schweitzer and the audience that he has donated money to that foundation. His excuse about it being public record is not a valid one. The fact that he's a donar of the organization he's interviewing about should disqualify him as an objective interviewer.
Stephanopolis was literally part of the Clinton Administration. He was a Clinton staff member. Why is the donation controversial? Its not exactly shocking or new. He's always been a political operative.
I think an investigation would show that many if not most MSM have contributed to the Clinton foundation or any of the other charities of the same type and/or political leanings
Wow. You do a great impression of my brother-in-law.I am personally getting sick of these attempts to destroy her credibility in the eyes of the American voters.
Wow. You do a great impression of my brother-in-law.
Sounds like your sister has ****ty taste in men.