When dealing with George Stephanopoulos, conservatives should simply follow the acronym WWDD (What Would Democrats Do?). If Megyn Kelly had provided a softball interview of Jeb Bush and we found out that she contributed to the Bush Foundation; how quickly would the left demand Fox fire Kelly? Even MSNBC suspended Keith Olberman for contributing to leftist candidates even though it was recognized he was partisan and his show pushed leftist ideals.
George Stephanopoulos should be suspended if not fired. At worst, he should no longer be the political journalist at ABC and resign as Host of “This Week” while being move to status as liberal pundit. He can’t no longer be trusted as a journalist.
Stephanopoulos interviewed Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, and played the inquisitor in defending the Clinton’s Foundation. Unknown to the viewers, George Stephanopoulos contributed to the Clinton Foundation and participated in its functions. Stephanopoulos also worked for the Clinton’s Administration in the 1990’s so viewers weren’t informed of Stephanopoulos present involvement with the Clintons. Many voters may not have been aware or remembered Stephanopoulos’ role in the Clinton’s Administration.
During the interview, George Stephanopoulos acted as if he was a Clinton operative as opposed to a serious journalist. However, now know he is a Clinton’s operative with a byline. If nothing else, we see the corruption of much of what we call the mainstream media.
ABC’s failure to act is just another example of how much of the media are simply operating as a front for the political left as they allowed a mealy mouth apology from Stephanopoulos. (He stated he would not participate in Republican debates. Of course why the Republicans would even consider a former Clinton’s operative to monitor their debate is incredulous but that is another story.)
Which brings us back to the Clintons. A recent study on why corrupt politicians get elected concluded that “Less informed voters are found to significantly vote for incumbents accused of corruption to clean incumbents than their well-informed counterparts.” This explains the Clinton’s strategy of not meeting with the media. The less Hillary speaks to the issues, the more likely she can get the “less informed” voters to support her. This strategy is aided because the majority of the media are leftist and are less likely to report Clinton’s weaknesses. George Stephanopoulos is a prime example of that.
Hotair noted about a recent poll, “The majority of Democratic poll respondents also claimed that they had heard nothing – nothing at all – about the scandals involving the former secretary of state that have dominated coverage of her candidacy.” So how do voters from a major political party not even know that their leading candidates foundation has been involved in a possible scandal? Could it be the news organizations they depend upon are not reporting this? And with reporters like George Stephanopoulos considered a serious journalist, how could the average American be well informed?