For years, Hillary Clinton has blamed the “vast right-wing conspiracies” for everything from her abysmal health care plan to Bill’s affairs. But little did we know that there appears to be a vast left-wing conspiracy called the mainstream media (MSM). For a while now, it has been abundantly clear that the MSM has given Mrs. Clinton a pass during this election year. Some media outlets, like the Huffington Post, have gone to extreme measures; the Observer reported that they recently fired contributor David Seaman and even deleted all his columns simply because he linked to a video questioning Hillary’s health (a video that has millions of views). In another example, Dr. Drew’s popular HLN show, on the air for years, was canceled eight days after he made an on-air negative assessment of Clinton’s health. Coincidentally, HLN is owned by a Time Warner division (the same parent company that owns CNN). CNN has claimed media reports about her health to be both a conspiracy and sexist. Even PBS is in on the game—“Newshour” reporter Judy Woodruff interviewed Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, only to have negative comments edited out, which a Stein supporter discovered by comparing the FaceBook Live version with the broadcast and YouTube versions.
We are all now very aware, thanks to the story initially reported by AP, that more than half (85 of 154) of the people Clinton met with as secretary of state gave donations or pledges to the Clinton Foundation. The MSM has done their best to downplay stories about the Clinton Foundation, and even censor negative stories in many cases. Why do media companies like Google, CNN, PBS and The New York Times all seem to be squarely in Hillary’s corner? Answer: they’ve donated to the Clinton Foundation.
As the saying goes, just follow the money. Politico revealed the donor list, with some media outlets giving as much as $5 million. The New York Times largest shareholder, Carlos Slim, donated between $1 and $5 million, as did Thomson Reuters and, surprisingly, Newsmax conservative media. Time Warner is CNN’s parent company and donated between $50K-$100K. Even media outlets like NBC, AOL, Twitter, HBO and the Hollywood Foreign Press have kicked in thousands of dollars. ABC’s chief political correspondent and former Clinton staffer George Stephanopoulos donated $75K and is now being scrutinized for non-disclosure of that donation while continuing to report on the Clinton Foundation.
After seeing these staggering amounts of money, do we really wonder why Clinton has received special treatment by the media? Not only did Google donate between $500K and $1 million, Wikileaks has shown that Google’s involvement went even deeper when they teamed with Clinton’s State Department to get involved in Syrian-U.S. government issues and utilization of social media and the Internet to pursue diplomatic agendas across the globe—clearly a role that Google should not have any part in. Google’s involvement is so questionable that Oracle Corporation has created the Google Transparency Project (GTP) to determine the extent of Google’s relationship with Clinton and Obama. One of GTP’s first reports reveals that 18 former State Department officials later became Google executives, and vice versa, five Google officials later obtained senior State Department positions.
Naturally, this pay-to-play revelation set off a firestorm, and what happens in a firestorm? (a) Everyone in the media writes about it (just as I am doing now), and (b) people search the Internet for news. The Observer story mentioned above does a great job showing how Bing and Google appear to be suppressing searches related to the Clinton Foundation; interestingly, top results are stories from left wing publications discrediting the AP story. And censorship and skewing take other forms as well; the day after the AP story broke, there was no mention of it in The New York Times at all–that day and for several more days. And Sunday’s CNN “Reliable Sources” host, Brian Stelter, attacked the AP editor for publishing the “misleading” story, with no mention of Clinton’s apparent misconduct. A Media Research Center study shows that the three big networks have devoted a total of four minutes and 24 seconds this entire year to the Clinton charity fraud storyline. Amazing.
