PBS news anchor admits she is a Democratic stooge

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Even as PBS provided no coverage of the George Stephanopolis scandal, PBS news anchor Judy Woodruff admitted on air last Friday that she had contributed $250 to the Clinton Foundation, supposedly to provide charitable aid to Haiti.

It is unconscionable for any legitimate journalist to give any money to any organization run by a politician. If she wanted to help Haiti, there were many better charities, especially since the Clinton Foundation only gives 6% of its donations to charity, keeping the rest for Bill and Hillary. She did it to let them know whose side she was on.

Meanwhile, PBS’s reasons for not covering Stephanopolis’s own payoffs to the Clintons are downright absurd:

I asked the NewsHour’s executive producer, Sara Just, for the reasoning behind not covering the Stephanopoulos story on the air. She said: “We had an online piece but for broadcast we didn’t think it met the bar as a story for our limited on-air news hole that day.”

In other words, we can’t cover this because it exposes a fellow journalist as a Democratic Party shill, and we can’t allow the public to know that. We have to help ABC and Stephanopolis make believe they are objective journalists so that they, like us, can help Democrats get elected.


  • Nicholas Paizis

    “the Clinton Foundation only gives 6% of its donations to charity, keeping the rest for Bill and Hillary”

    Robert, I think you need to look a little deeper into this before making such a statement. I don’t remember the details but it was brought up in a discussion on Fox news a couple of weeks ago and it was said the 6% number was inaccurate. There’s a lot more going to charitable causes that weren’t accounted for. I know this is very vague but it needs to be looked into rather than repeating a bad number.


  • I am always open to a correction. I had seen this information in one news report, but never saw a revision or correction. I will do some research, but if you have any sources or references please let me know.

    Update: Here is an article documenting the 6% number. Web searches however have not turned up any refutation. If you have one, please provide. Otherwise, the number stands.

    By the way, this 6% number is completely believable considering what I have seen from the Clintons for the past three decades. They are corrupt, and dishonest, and this only provides more evidence of that.

  • Cotour

    15% ?

    Below 25% ?

    12% ?

    6% ? We probably will never really know, but what can be said is that this “charitable” foundation has one hell of a lot of “overhead”.

    I listened to an interview between Chris Wallis and Lanny Davis the Clinton’s fixer, spinner and smoother for the past 20 plus years. Mr. Wallis asks about the millions of dollars that was funneled to the Clinton Foundation through a Canadian subsidiary involved in the uranium mine transfer to the Russians (you know the Russian “reset”). I think the number was reported as 2.3 million dollars. Mr. Davis’s answered without hesitation and smooth as silk, he said “Chris, (like Chris Wallis was insane for even asking such a question) the Clinton Foundation is worth about 2 billion dollars, in the big picture 2.3 million really means nothing”. WOW!

    Skipping right over the core question and creating a ridiculous equivalency where in comparison to 2 billion 2.3 million is meaningless. And of course as we all hear the Clinton’s do such good work for people around the world to boot as a capping thought .

    Mr. Davis unflinchingly earns his pay and he is good at it. I took a shower after I heard the interview and thought of the first rule of politics: Attaining and retaining power at any cost.


  • Cotour

    A PBS contributor may actually get something right, Elanor Clift endorses capitalism as the solution to the “global warming” issue?


    Want to get something done? Make sure there is incentive along with purpose. Whether you agree with the “science” that says we, the human race, is now the significant driver of weather and climate change or not you probably will not disagree with the notion that better and cleaner technology is always preferable to old technology that is dirtier and has more negative health implications for all concerned.

    Is Elanor Clift that rare liberal squirrel who finds a nut?

  • PeterF

    Anything to do with things Clinton can be described with one word:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *