CNN Stops Even TRYING To Pretend They Are Un-Biased - Goes 'All In' For Hillary

[320 Years of History]

Why would anyone ask now, a year after the book was debunked and several years after the author's integrity was found grossly wanting, what sources were used to do so? The hotly anticipated book that was the GOP's hope for campaign collapsing scandal for Mrs. Clinton was a non-starter even before the book was published. The book's been out for a year.

Do anyone in their right mind really think the GOP would not have been harping incessantly about its claims for that whole year were they to think the book and its author credible? Noooo....it took Donald Trump and his fascination with empty innuendo to do so. No surprise seeing as he often doesn't know what he's talking about or what he's getting himself (and everyone else) into.

• 'Clinton Cash' publisher corrects '7 or 8' inaccurate passages
  
• Twenty-Plus Errors, Fabrications, And Distortions In Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash
  
• Hannity Says Clinton Cash Book "Was Never Debunked," One Day After His Fox Colleague Debunked It
  
• Clinton Allies Knock Down Donor Allegations, New Questions Pop Up
• Clinton Cash Author Peter Schweizer's Long History Of Errors, Retractions, And Questionable Sourcing

Schweizer has had at least 10 serious issues where fact-checkers and media outlets have founds ignificant errors questionable sourcing, or have forced retractions of his work. Among them:

• “Bears a fatal shortcoming in Journalism 101” — In 2013, Schweizer falsely claimed that President Obama and then Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, held zero one-on-one meetings. The Washington Post said Schweizer’s story “bears a fatal shortcoming in Journalism 101.”

• “Bogus” — In 2012, The Washington Post fact-checker deemed Schweizer’s claim that President Obama skipped more than half of his intelligence briefings “bogus.” Furthermore, he said, “we had nearly given this data four pinocchios and in retrospect we were perhaps too generous with three. It turns out, presidents receive intelligence briefings in different formats that Schweizer did not consider. By Schweizer’s standards, President Reagan would have missed 99 percent of his briefings.”

• “Partisan Source” — In 2012, Schweizer was exposed for his inflated allegations that President Obama’s major donors received loan guarantees from the Department of Energy. FactCheck.Org excoritated his data saying, “We find that figure is both inflated and from a partisan source that Crossroads obscures with deceptive attribution.”

• “Incorrect” — In 2011, Schweizer was forced to retract his insider trading charge against Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. The Providence Journal noted “numerous factual problems with Schweizer’s allegations, including that Whitehouse wasn’t a member of the committee in question at the time.”

• “Inaccurate”— In 2010, USA Today was forced to issue a correction on Schweizer’s op-ed. “Peter Schweizer inaccurately stated that former vice president Al Gore receives royalties from a zinc mine on his property in Tennessee despite his environmental advocacy. He no longer does, as the mine was closed in 2003.”

• “The facts don’t fit Schweizer’s claim” – In 2006, KGO TV in San Francisco investigated Schweizer’s claim against Nancy Pelosi and found “the facts don’t fit Schweizer’s claim.”

• ‘Clinton Cash’ Full Of Crap
• Gene Lyons gets to the heart of 'Clinton Cash'

Read the refutations of the book; they are on the Internet, but to be sure, they won't much appear on the sites of folks who are predisposed to wanting to accept them. One can't look to one's allies and darlings and expect to get the opposing point of view.

 

[BULLDOG]

I've never seen the level of media bias that's been shown over the last few weeks! In a nation that leans slightly center-right, we now have a main stream media that is dominated by liberals...liberals who now have no qualms at all about throwing their support behind Clinton!

It will be amusing to watch those same media outlets cover a Hillary Clinton Presidency if that occurs. What will they use as an excuse for the next round of Clinton sleaziness? The "vast right wing conspiracy"?

The media's job isn't to present every thought as if they are all equal. Some thoughts are just dumb, and it's their job to tell you that and why. They had become nothing more that repeaters, repeating everything everybody said, and not informing their viewers whether it aligned with the facts or not. I want them to give the facts associated with all the statements made. Trump is a scam artist, and the media should make that clear.

 

[Oldstyle]

I've never seen the level of media bias that's been shown over the last few weeks! In a nation that leans slightly center-right, we now have a main stream media that is dominated by liberals...liberals who now have no qualms at all about throwing their support behind Clinton!

It will be amusing to watch those same media outlets cover a Hillary Clinton Presidency if that occurs. What will they use as an excuse for the next round of Clinton sleaziness? The "vast right wing conspiracy"?

The media's job isn't to present every thought as if they are all equal. Some thoughts are just dumb, and it's their job to tell you that and why. They had become nothing more that repeaters, repeating everything everybody said, and not informing their viewers whether it aligned with the facts or not. I want them to give the facts associated with all the statements made. Trump is a scam artist, and the media should make that clear.

The role of journalists used to be to report the news in as unbiased a fashion as possible and allow the general public to decide what to make of that. Now they've decided that their job is to tell you what you should think.

 

[BULLDOG]

I've never seen the level of media bias that's been shown over the last few weeks! In a nation that leans slightly center-right, we now have a main stream media that is dominated by liberals...liberals who now have no qualms at all about throwing their support behind Clinton!

It will be amusing to watch those same media outlets cover a Hillary Clinton Presidency if that occurs. What will they use as an excuse for the next round of Clinton sleaziness? The "vast right wing conspiracy"?

The media's job isn't to present every thought as if they are all equal. Some thoughts are just dumb, and it's their job to tell you that and why. They had become nothing more that repeaters, repeating everything everybody said, and not informing their viewers whether it aligned with the facts or not. I want them to give the facts associated with all the statements made. Trump is a scam artist, and the media should make that clear.

The role of journalists used to be to report the news in as unbiased a fashion as possible and allow the general public to decide what to make of that. Now they've decided that their job is to tell you what you should think.

Their job is to tell you the pertinent facts so you can make up your own mind. It's not to just repeat what ever is said giving bat shit crazy claims the same validity as a factual statement. If a politician lies, it's the reporter's obligation to present the facts along with the quote.

 

[Care4all]

None of the networks are unbiased.

true but it is still sickening

I notice npr's hourly news updates also paint hiLIARy in a good light no matter what the headline

Clinton's Speaking Fees -- No Corruption, She's Generous

 

[Dot Com]

Clinton's Speaking Fees -- No Corruption, She's Generous

Care4all Stop justifying

 

[Valerie]

poor dot



Hillary Clinton has given $17.6 million of her speaking fees to charity (see below). That’s 26 times as much as she made on her three Goldman Sachs speeches combined, or 50% more than she made on her 51 speeches in 2014 and 2015. Before presenting the details, let me summarize.

1. Her fees were not the least bit unusual given her stature.
2. Over 100 lesser known Americans are also in the $200,000+ category.
3. The Goldman Sachs fees were below her average fee.
4. She gave $17.6 million of her speaking fees to charity.
5. Charging Goldman Sachs less would have just meant more profits for them and less for charity.

There is simply no evidence, or logic, supporting the idea that she would sell out her whole career and deceive her huge base of supporters with a fake proposal to rein in Wall Street (a proposal that Elizabeth Warren supports). That she would do all this in return for three below-average fees from Goldman Sachs is beyond absurd.

Now take a quick look at a talk at Goldman Sachs, or at civil-rights-leader John Lewis talking with the CEO of Goldman, or the CEO of the NAACP or LGBT Professionals speaking at Goldman. Obviously Goldman hopes for good publicity and the speakers hope to influence Goldman. If you’re looking for conspiracies, this is a very silly place to look for them.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Why would anyone ask now, a year after the book was debunked and several years after the author's integrity was found grossly wanting, what sources were used to do so? The hotly anticipated book that was the GOP's hope for campaign collapsing scandal for Mrs. Clinton was a non-starter even before the book was published. The book's been out for a year.

Do anyone in their right mind really think the GOP would not have been harping incessantly about its claims for that whole year were they to think the book and its author credible? Noooo....it took Donald Trump and his fascination with empty innuendo to do so. No surprise seeing as he often doesn't know what he's talking about or what he's getting himself (and everyone else) into.

• 'Clinton Cash' publisher corrects '7 or 8' inaccurate passages
  
• Twenty-Plus Errors, Fabrications, And Distortions In Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash
  
• Hannity Says Clinton Cash Book "Was Never Debunked," One Day After His Fox Colleague Debunked It
  
• Clinton Allies Knock Down Donor Allegations, New Questions Pop Up
• Clinton Cash Author Peter Schweizer's Long History Of Errors, Retractions, And Questionable Sourcing

Schweizer has had at least 10 serious issues where fact-checkers and media outlets have founds ignificant errors questionable sourcing, or have forced retractions of his work. Among them:

• “Bears a fatal shortcoming in Journalism 101” — In 2013, Schweizer falsely claimed that President Obama and then Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, held zero one-on-one meetings. The Washington Post said Schweizer’s story “bears a fatal shortcoming in Journalism 101.”

• “Bogus” — In 2012, The Washington Post fact-checker deemed Schweizer’s claim that President Obama skipped more than half of his intelligence briefings “bogus.” Furthermore, he said, “we had nearly given this data four pinocchios and in retrospect we were perhaps too generous with three. It turns out, presidents receive intelligence briefings in different formats that Schweizer did not consider. By Schweizer’s standards, President Reagan would have missed 99 percent of his briefings.”

• “Partisan Source” — In 2012, Schweizer was exposed for his inflated allegations that President Obama’s major donors received loan guarantees from the Department of Energy. FactCheck.Org excoritated his data saying, “We find that figure is both inflated and from a partisan source that Crossroads obscures with deceptive attribution.”

• “Incorrect” — In 2011, Schweizer was forced to retract his insider trading charge against Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. The Providence Journal noted “numerous factual problems with Schweizer’s allegations, including that Whitehouse wasn’t a member of the committee in question at the time.”

• “Inaccurate”— In 2010, USA Today was forced to issue a correction on Schweizer’s op-ed. “Peter Schweizer inaccurately stated that former vice president Al Gore receives royalties from a zinc mine on his property in Tennessee despite his environmental advocacy. He no longer does, as the mine was closed in 2003.”

• “The facts don’t fit Schweizer’s claim” – In 2006, KGO TV in San Francisco investigated Schweizer’s claim against Nancy Pelosi and found “the facts don’t fit Schweizer’s claim.”

• ‘Clinton Cash’ Full Of Crap
• Gene Lyons gets to the heart of 'Clinton Cash'

Read the refutations of the book; they are on the Internet, but to be sure, they won't much appear on the sites of folks who are predisposed to wanting to accept them. One can't look to one's allies and darlings and expect to get the opposing point of view.

All of your sources are liberal leaning which gives them no credibility in their claims. Their goal is to obfuscate the truth rendering them untrustworthy.

 

[Dot Com]

Riiight ValeCare4all.. If she didn't get $275,000/speech from the owners of Capitol Hill. it wouldnt be proper

Put down the paid- DNC poster kool aid

 

[320 Years of History]

Why would anyone ask now, a year after the book was debunked and several years after the author's integrity was found grossly wanting, what sources were used to do so? The hotly anticipated book that was the GOP's hope for campaign collapsing scandal for Mrs. Clinton was a non-starter even before the book was published. The book's been out for a year.

Do anyone in their right mind really think the GOP would not have been harping incessantly about its claims for that whole year were they to think the book and its author credible? Noooo....it took Donald Trump and his fascination with empty innuendo to do so. No surprise seeing as he often doesn't know what he's talking about or what he's getting himself (and everyone else) into.

• 'Clinton Cash' publisher corrects '7 or 8' inaccurate passages
  
• Twenty-Plus Errors, Fabrications, And Distortions In Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash
  
• Hannity Says Clinton Cash Book "Was Never Debunked," One Day After His Fox Colleague Debunked It
  
• Clinton Allies Knock Down Donor Allegations, New Questions Pop Up
• Clinton Cash Author Peter Schweizer's Long History Of Errors, Retractions, And Questionable Sourcing

Schweizer has had at least 10 serious issues where fact-checkers and media outlets have found significant errors questionable sourcing, or have forced retractions of his work. Among them:

• “Bears a fatal shortcoming in Journalism 101” — In 2013, Schweizer falsely claimed that President Obama and then Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, held zero one-on-one meetings. The Washington Post said Schweizer’s story “bears a fatal shortcoming in Journalism 101.”

• “Bogus” — In 2012, The Washington Post fact-checker deemed Schweizer’s claim that President Obama skipped more than half of his intelligence briefings “bogus.” Furthermore, he said, “we had nearly given this data four pinocchios and in retrospect we were perhaps too generous with three. It turns out, presidents receive intelligence briefings in different formats that Schweizer did not consider. By Schweizer’s standards, President Reagan would have missed 99 percent of his briefings.”

• “Partisan Source” — In 2012, Schweizer was exposed for his inflated allegations that President Obama’s major donors received loan guarantees from the Department of Energy. FactCheck.Org excoritated his data saying, “We find that figure is both inflated and from a partisan source that Crossroads obscures with deceptive attribution.”

• “Incorrect” — In 2011, Schweizer was forced to retract his insider trading charge against Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. The Providence Journal noted “numerous factual problems with Schweizer’s allegations, including that Whitehouse wasn’t a member of the committee in question at the time.”

• “Inaccurate”— In 2010, USA Today was forced to issue a correction on Schweizer’s op-ed. “Peter Schweizer inaccurately stated that former vice president Al Gore receives royalties from a zinc mine on his property in Tennessee despite his environmental advocacy. He no longer does, as the mine was closed in 2003.”

• “The facts don’t fit Schweizer’s claim” – In 2006, KGO TV in San Francisco investigated Schweizer’s claim against Nancy Pelosi and found “the facts don’t fit Schweizer’s claim.”

• ‘Clinton Cash’ Full Of Crap
• Gene Lyons gets to the heart of 'Clinton Cash'

Read the refutations of the book; they are on the Internet, but to be sure, they won't much appear on the sites of folks who are predisposed to wanting to accept them. One can't look to one's allies and darlings and expect to get the opposing point of view.

All of your sources are liberal leaning which gives them no credibility in their claims. Their goal is to obfuscate the truth rendering them untrustworthy.

Schweizer's claims might be worth considering were they based on something other than innuendo, but they are not. Innuendo and reality are not the same things. Reality and facts do not become less real, less factual, more real, or more factual because of who states them. The fact that I didn't cite the facts from a non-partisan site doesn't mean non-partisan ones haven't discerned and asserted the same truths. Facts are not biased; they are merely facts. And the facts that give the lie to Schweizer's claims re: the Russian uranium deal are just that. Have you seen any conservatively biased website actually note them? I haven't.

• No ‘Veto Power’ for Clinton on Uranium Deal -- Three selected conclusive statements from the essay are below. Read the essay for the details that give rise to the conclusions noted below.
  • Schweizer is wrong when he says that Clinton had “veto power” and “could have stopped the deal.”
    
  • Schweizer is trafficking in speculation.
    
  • Schweizer simply goes too far when he says Clinton had “veto power” and “could have stopped” the uranium deal.
• 'Clinton Cash' author: Hillary Clinton changed positions on India nuclear deal
  • As a senator, Hillary Clinton flip-flopped on a nuclear deal with India -- swayed by donations to her family’s foundation. At least that’s what Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer asserts.
    
    We know Clinton voted for several amendments on [the] Indian nuclear deal-related legislation in 2006. The 2008 legislation, however, had just one amendment, and the vote was not recorded. Because we don’t know how she voted, and she did not make any public statements about it, it’s impossible to know her position on the 2008 amendment. Additionally, the 2008 amendment was fundamentally different than any of the amendments the Senate considered in 2006. Even if we knew whether she supported the 2008 amendment, it wouldn’t necessarily show a change in position.
    
    We rate Schweizer’s claim False.

The fact that you chide and attempt to discredit my assertion -- Clinton Cash's claims and its author have been debunked -- shows clearly you didn't bother to find out whether whether the partisan nature of the sites may or may not have had anything to do with the nature of their presentation/content re: Clinton Cash. It's likely that the partisan nature of the sites educed their zeal to highlight the inaccuracy of Schweizer's claims, but the facts that make his claims inaccurate are nonetheless the facts, facts that Schweizer and the conservative cabal of observers and critics have conveniently chosen to ignore.