Stephanopoulos admits he 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.

Why I consider television news a Democratic Party cesspool: George Stephanopoulos admits that he had donated $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, even as he conducted interviews condemning critics of that foundation, without disclosing his donations.

Meanwhile, ABC News has absolved Stephanopoulos of any wrong-doing, which is not a surprise, since from the perspective of television news Stephanopoulos didn’t do anything wrong. He supported the Clintons and the Democratic Party, both by how he reported the news and conducted his interviews, and now with money itself. This is exactly what a television news anchor is supposed to do in today’s modern television propaganda machine: Help Democrats get elected.

If you get your news information from this news source, you either are incredibly naive, or are a Democratic stooge yourself.

Update: The amount of money Stephanopoulos donated to the Clintons is actually $75K, not $50K as first reported.


  • Jwing


    If a person avoids the news from either ABC,CBS,NBC,MSNBS or NPR, that person, by default, will have automatically increased his overall intelligence.

  • Cotour

    Who cares what he just was forced to admit, that he gave money to the Clinton Foundation, like this is news?

    Stephanopolis is and has been a Democrat political operative and smoother for the Clintons in his TV host position from day one. What has amazed me is that any Republican that has been interviewed by him has not turned the interview around on him with extreme prejudice and shamed him on his own show.

  • Matt in AZ

    Shaming him on his own camera is one thing, but how would that ever get past the editing process? Gotta protect the talent!

  • Cotour

    Be ready to make the interview about him as soon as he asks a set up / ambush question. All of these politicians who in effect kow tow to him and his position as the interviewer allow him steer them as he pleases for his own purposes.

  • wodun

    NPR is pretty despicable on the bias front.

    I don’t care if media outlets want to push a pov but I think they should be upfront with their bias and shouldn’t get money from the government to act as PR for one party.

  • Edward

    Hmm. ABC said that it was an “honest mistake.”

    I am wondering if ABC edited their response in the same way that they edited the George Zimmerman 911 call, removing a few words from the middle. ABC’s original response to Stephanopoulos may have been, “honestly, that was no mistake.” Edit out the middle 11 letters, and voila: “honest mistake.” Another example of completely changing the meaning without telling the audience that they edited the piece.

    Many times I will hear someone on radio say the phrase, “full disclosure,” right before they are going to talk about something. That is a phrase that Stephanopoulos should have used several times. Perhaps he just assumes that everyone realizes that he is so biased that his slant is practically horizontal.

    Come to think of it, my comment shows that I have, long ago, lost faith in ABC news’ credibility. A quarter century ago, it was ABC news that I turned to in order to watch the Berlin Wall fall. Now I don’t bother to watch them (or any TV news), even for comedy relief. They aren’t honest, though they pretend to be.

    As Karl, in “Casablanca,” said, “Honest? As honest as the day is long.” The only honest person in that scene was the guy asking the question about honesty. (2 minutes)

  • Cotour

    Talk about being stooges, does anyone want to comment on this massive military training operation? They seem to be training to subdue and control citizens, but what citizens are they training to subdue and control? Is this for when the no nonsense real deal, no bail out financial collapse happens?

    Sheltering the military in privates homes? I seem to recall something about that somewhere, but I can not place where. Oh, its probably not important.

  • A minor correction: It was NBC that edited the words of George Zimmerman to make it appear that he was racist, not ABC.

    Not that it matters. Neither is a legitimate source of news. Both are agents and propaganda wings of the Democratic Party.

  • Edward

    Stephanopoulos has apologized. He didn’t think his mistake was failing to disclose his conflict of interest, but for making the donation. He seems to believe that the conflict of interest, the extent of his undisclosed bias, is not a mistake for someone in his position as interviewer and as host of “This Week with David Brinkley.” Oops. Well, the show was reasonably good, way back then.

    He said that his mistake was making the donations to the Clinton’s Slush Fund — er — Global Foundation. Perhaps he has realized that the book he was hazing so badly, last month, was right all along, and that the donations that he made didn’t go “for the children,” as he reportedly intended, but to the Clinton family. The good news is that he actually made some disclosures on air — he must have, because he said, “I should have made additional disclosures on air when I covered the foundation.” Emphasis on the word “additional.”

    – Robert, sorry for getting ABC confused for NBC in my earlier post. It was an “honest mistake,” caused by insufficient research before hitting the Post Comment button, but admit it: it did make a better story (unless you like accurate stories, which you apparently do). As it is, that information is “a matter of public record” (to use Stephanopoulos’s phrase) and is on display in the local planning office, down in the cellar, where the lights are out (as are the stairs), in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard.”

    Oh, wait. Those are the public records of donations by Democrat operatives. A simple Google search would have revealed the NBC connection.

  • Cotour

    People in the media seem to be talking about this like they had no idea that he worked for the president and that every story or interview that he produced or participated in he was so obviously towing the Clinton and the Liberal line as well as covering or spinning for them. I never saw him as an objective “reporter” or “journalist”.

    Is it just me?

  • joe

    No Cotour, its not just you, any one with any recent knowledge of history knows Stephanopoulos worked for the Clinton administration and was a democratic party lackey, most people seem to ignore that which is right in front of their nose, most people want to be entertained, not educated about what is going on.

  • Cotour

    You bring out a good point Joe, those with “recent knowledge of history” are becoming out numbered by the younger voter and it remains to be seen how the younger voter tends to see these blatant political operatives hiding in plane sight as being objective.

    They may tend to see Stephanopolis (and the many others, the media IS the message) as an objective reporter just doing his job to get to the bottom of the issues of the day when nothing further from the truth is going on.

    In our politics the political operatives whether they be former presidents or former employees of presidents, or Speakers, or Whips, or Congressmen, or Senators etc. have access to power and are compensated either before the desired event or after the desired event, there is no longer any shame or attempt to really hide it.

    What is the reality of a former president with a wife who has the aspiration to become president who on the road to that end becomes Secretary Of State? On the back end the president may be being rewarded (may be? $500K speaking fees?) by business or a foreign power for actions taken previously while in office and rewarded on the now front end via a tax advantaged charitable foundation for access to power to his wife in the future. What a brilliant racket, a racket that has created an organization under cover of being a charitable foundation where as I understand it aprox. 15% goes to the causes and 85% goes to overhead. 15% may be being generous.

    And to top it all off they have an inside proactive former employee who is also an active big cash contributor sitting in one of the premiere media “news” show seats that is plastered all over main street media, covering and spinning for his former bosses. Conspiracy? This is a plainly organized system of access to power, both from the past and more importantly they, and those who want access, are playing the odds on access to the future.

    At the minimum they all need to be cast aside and relegated to private life in shame at the minimum and possibly some government sponsored vacation time in the many facilities that the people contribute their mostly hard earned money to support.

    I will say again, if Hillary is allowed by the people to continue this charade and becomes the president that is the evidence that We The People have become the property of those who would pay for that access and those who would sell it.

  • Edward

    Cotour asked, “Is it just me?”

    Although it is not just you, Cotour, ABC has been trying to pass off Stephanopoulos as an unbiased reporter. Many people know better, but when his behavior belies the myth his employer is trying to spread, well, we just have to point out the problem. Plus it gives me a chance to come up with a good story (although it may turn out to be inaccurate, but then *I* as a private commentator need not be honest with my victim, but staying honest would keep my credibility higher than Stephanopoulos’s).

    Further, there was an irony in Stephanopoulos’s first question to author Peter Schweizer, whether Schweizer was unbiased in his book. First, there was no suggestion that he is or should be unbiased, and second, it is usually the interviewer who should attempt to be less hostile (maybe even favorable) to the book that the station or network is publicizing through an interview. If his intention was to prevent people from buying or reading Schweizer’s book, then this may be one of the greatest backfires of the decade.

    The points you and Joe make about younger people not knowing the close connection with the Clintons in the 1990s (and apparently more recently, too) is also relevant. They may not realize that the moderator of “This Week” has a tremendous bias (or maybe it shows; I wouldn’t know, having not watched for several years). Can he remain as moderator there? One would certainly hope that the moderators of the Sunday political shows would be neutral in their presentation (or at the very least emulate neutrality). Or is fair and balanced only on Fox News?

  • Cotour

    As a part of an attained status and political payment your allowed to do as you please and operate your game as though all was right with the world as long as you do not shoot yourself in the foot with your own arrogance, stupidity and hubris. Human nature in the long run will reveal all, but there must be appropriate consequences meted out in a timely manner.

    It does no one any good to find these things out 50 years after they are perpetrated when no consequences can be applied.

    Let them all pay the appropriate consequences, in a timely manner, the Clintons have gotten a pass for much, much too long. Lets be thankful for human arrogance, stupidity and hubris.

Leave a Reply

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