From the May 4 edition of Fox News' The Five:
Loading the player reg...
From the May 4 edition of CNN's CNN Newsroom With Carol Costello:
Loading the player reg...
Clinton Cash author and Republican activist Peter Schweizer acknowledged that, contrary to earlier reporting, there is no similar book in the works on the personal finances and policy decisions of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a claim journalists have previously cited to legitimize Schweizer's forthcoming book on the Clintons.
There are at least 20 documented errors, fabrications, and distortions in Schweizer's forthcoming book Clinton Cash, where the conservative author speculates about allegedly unethical ties between the Clinton Foundation and actions Hillary Clinton purportedly made as secretary of state. His allegations of impropriety by the Clintons and their family foundation have been picked apart by ABC News, BuzzFeed, MSNBC, NBC News, and ThinkProgress, among several other news agencies, and Schweizer has even been accused by one of his sources of taking comments "badly out of context" in hopes of slighting the Clinton family.
Bloomberg Politics reported on April 23 that in contrast to the "left-wing clamor that Schweizer is simply out to get Hillary Clinton," "Schweizer is working on a similar investigation of Jeb Bush's finances that he expects to publish this summer." Politico and CNN subsequently reported this would be a "book" on Bush.
But days later, Schweizer admitted that no similar book on Jeb Bush will be published. On the May 3 edition of Fox News' MediaBuzz, host Howard Kurtz asked about accusations that the book is "pursuing an agenda" based on his conservative political affiliations and activism. Schweizer acknowledged that while he's been researching Bush's finances, there are no plans to publish a book similar to Clinton Cash:
KURTZ: To be fair, you have been digging into Jeb Bush's finances --
KURTZ: -- So the Clintons aren't the only ones you're going to be looking at. But that's not going to result in a book, as I understand.
A spokesperson for Schweizer's current publisher, HarperCollins, previously told Media Matters that it has no plans to publish a book on Bush's complex finances. Instead, it expects Schweizer to issue a follow-up report at his far-right think tank, the Government Accountability Institute.
See the full segment here:
A Forbes.com contributor says he has resigned after an interview he posted with a women's rights leader was pulled from Forbes' website without his consent. The former contributor told Media Matters he "strongly disagrees" with the editors' reasons for the removal.
Tom Watson, who contributed paid columns each month to the Forbes.com Social Ventures blog, posted a column on Monday, April 27 with the headline, "Sexism And The Media: As Election Heats Up, Are We Nearer To Tipping Point For Equality?"
The center of the piece was an interview with Jamia Wilson, executive director of Women, Action & the Media, which Watson describes as "a nonprofit organization dedicated to 'building a robust, effective, inclusive movement for gender justice in media.'" Watson and Wilson discussed sexist media coverage of Hillary Clinton, the power of "Networked feminism," and "the need to create and improve newsroom standards about how sexual violence is discussed in the media."
"I think that the story, the interview with Jamia Wilson, was important, especially the timing of it given where we are," Watson told Media Matters on April 29. "I do think this is the most important feminist election cycle in U.S. history, win or lose, and I think it's important to step up and comment on that."
Watson said the column was posted at Forbes.com on Monday night, but removed the next morning. (A Google cache version shows the column on the Forbes site that evening.) He said editors informed him via email Tuesday that it had been pulled, but never asked for his consent.
"They took down a post of mine that I felt was worthy of my Social Ventures blog and I couldn't live with that so I resigned," Watson said. "They told me that they had done it [via email]. I was at a faculty meeting at Columbia University, where I teach part-time, and I saw it come in. It kind of wrecked my day."
Watson declined to reveal which editors informed him of the column's removal, but said he was told that "it was outside the parameters of my beat."
He described his beat as "covering social entrepreneurship, non-profits, philanthropy, start-ups and digital activism space."
Asked to comment on Watson's claims, Forbes Senior Manager of Corporate Communications Laura Daunis said via email, "Forbes felt the post was off topic and not aligned with the entrepreneurship channel's mission."
After Forbes.com pulled the column, it was posted on Medium, but with this tagline at the end announcing Watson's concerns and resignation:
Note: I have resigned as a contributor to Forbes.
Yesterday, I posted this interview with Jamia Wilson of Women, Action & the Media, a nonprofit organization dedicated to "building a robust, effective, inclusive movement for gender justice in media." I consider her work, and that of feminist organizers everywhere, to be vitally important to the field of social entrepreneurship and to public life.
The editors found it inappropriate for the section of Forbes I have contributed my Social Ventures column to for the last three years and they removed it this morning. I strongly disagree with their decision and we have parted ways.
Despite this, I appreciate the audience and platform Forbes provided, and am grateful for the opportunity to write about social entrepreneurship, citizens movements, new nonprofit models, and philanthropy. That conversation will continue elsewhere.
Thank you all for supporting my work, it is deeply appreciated.
For a press corps that's often been critical of Hillary Clinton for not detailing her White House campaign "rationale" -- for lacking a compelling "message"-- the media's response to Clinton's first major speech since officially announcing her candidacy seemed very strange: Most journalists simply ignored it or buried it under co-called 'scandal' coverage.
The event took place late last week at the Women in the World Summit in New York City where Clinton delivered a 25-minute, campaign-style speech in which she detailed America's priorities and castigated her Republican opponents.
It was by far her most specific recitation of her still-early campaign priorities, which certainly made the event newsworthy. The Associated Press, one of the few outlets that covered the event, noted that it "wasn't supposed to be a campaign event. But it might as well have been."
But if you didn't hear about the speech you weren't alone. Most news consumers were left in the dark, which raises the question, If pundits are going to insist that candidates deliver substance, what's the media's excuse when that substance is buried? Or are journalists completely committed to documenting only campaign process and optics? And, is there a media double standard on this for Clinton?
The oddity about the Summit omission is that the political press has at times treated Clinton more like a celebrity than a politician campaigning for the future. The press seems obsessed with covering trivial pursuits that surround her. For instance, who can forget the absurdist scene from Iowa on April 14, when a herd of campaign reporters nearly trampled themselves trying to track down Clinton's "Scooby Van" as it swung behind a community college in Iowa for a campaign visit?
Indeed, it's certainly a campaign oddity that Clinton's mundane visit to a Chipotle restaurant in Ohio earlier this month triggered an avalanche of news coverage, while her first 25-minute campaign-like speech mostly prompted media shrugs. There were actual 'think pieces' written about the political significance of Clinton's lunchtime stop at Chipotle. As for extended analysis of what Clinton's Women in the World Summit speech meant to her campaign and to her possible presidency? Those pieces were hard to find.
Was Clintons' speech last week newsworthy? Absolutely.
Peter Schweizer is backtracking on his false allegation that the decision to exempt the telecommunications industry from Iranian sanctions while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state was connected to Bill Clinton's speaking fees from a Swedish telecommunications company, now admitting that there is no "evidence of a quid pro quo in that case."
Schweizer tried to link Swedish telecommunications company Ericsson's payment to former President Bill Clinton for a speech in November 2011 with the exemption of the telecommunications industry from sanctions against Iran, which does business with Ericsson, during an April 24 Fox News special, The Tangled Clinton Web. Host Bret Baier and Schweizer highlighted allegations from Schweizer's upcoming book, Clinton Cash, that attempts to link donations to the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees earned by Bill Clinton to decisions made by the State Department during Hillary Clinton's tenure in the Obama administration.
The author's speculation is baseless, as the Iran sanctions in question actually took the form of executive actions from President Obama, and not State Department initiatives.
Schweizer is now admitting that there's no evidence of a connection between Clinton's speaking fee and the Iran sanctions decision, walking back his false allegation during an appearance on the April 28 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe. Schweizer claimed that he was "not implying" a link between the decision to exclude the telecommunications industry from sanctions against Iran and Clinton's Ericsson speech and conceded, "Is there evidence of a quid pro quo in that case? No."
Indeed, when Yahoo News reviewed the chapter of Clinton Cash featuring this allegation, they noted that there was "no smoking gun" connecting the speech and the sanctions. Yahoo News further noted that a Clinton aide pointed out that telecommunications manufacturers like Ericsson have not been added to the sanctions since Clinton left the State Department, casting doubt on the suggestion of a connection between the 2011 Bill Clinton speech and U.S. sanctions policy.
Serial misinformer Peter Schweizer falsely claimed on Fox News Sunday that Hillary Clinton had unilateral power to veto the Uranium One deal as part of the nine-agency review panel that oversees such proposals. But members of the review panel only have power to make recommendations to the president, not unilaterally veto them.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough suggested that the State Department under former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton removed Algeria from a list of state sponsors of terror because the nation donated money to the Clinton Foundation, a baseless charge given that Algeria has never been on the State Department's list of terror sponsors.
On the April 27 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Scarborough used recent media criticism of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation stemming from the right-wing opposition research book Clinton Cash to suggest the likelihood of illegal coordination between donors to her family's charitable foundation and policy decisions she made as secretary of state. Scarborough claimed that when the Algerian government "wanted to be taken off the terror list in the State Department" the government "wr[o]te a check" to the Clinton Foundation:
SCARBOROUGH: I think it was Algeria maybe that had given a donation that went unreported at a time when they wanted to be taken off of the terror list in the State Department. They write the check, they get taken off the terror list. Now can you?-- at the same time, and then it goes unreported by the Clinton Foundation. Is there a quid pro quo there? I don't know, that's really hard to tell.
This is pretty simple stuff. So Algeria is on the terror list, they want off the terror list, the State Department is making a decision to do it, they write a check for what? How much? How many million dollars do they write a check for? I don't know, but Algeria writes a check ... they write a really big check to the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation takes the check, and then just, out of nowhere the State Department then decides, well, they are going to take Algeria off the list. Now why did Algeria write a big check to the Clinton Foundation at the time they want something from the State Department?
But the allegations of a quid pro quo relationship hinted at in Scarborough's questions are baseless, because Algeria was not listed as a state-sponsor of terror at any point during Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state -- or at any other point. Currently, the list includes only Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria, although Cuba's status is being reviewed. According to NPR, the only nations ever to be removed from this official list are Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and South Yemen.
In fact, Algeria remains a key U.S. ally and partner in the global fight against terrorism in North Africa, according to a State Department report published in 2014, long after Clinton left her post.
Algeria did make a donation to the Clinton Foundation during Clinton's tenure there, in the form of $500,000 to help with relief in Haiti after an earthquake ravaged the nation. According to a February 25 report in The Washington Post, Algeria was "spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues" around the same time. The Clinton Foundation admitted to improperly failing to disclose this donation.
From the April 26 edition of ABC News' This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
Loading the player reg...
The New York Times is urging the Clinton Foundation to reinstitute a ban that never existed on accepting donations from foreign governments.
The Times editorial board wrote on April 23 that now that Hillary Clinton is running for president, the international nonprofit "needs to reinstate the ban on donations from foreign governments for the rest of her campaign -- the same prohibition that was in place when she was in the Obama administration." Likewise, an April 23 Times news article stated that the Foundation recently "limited donations from foreign governments," but that the new policy "stops short of Mrs. Clinton's agreement with the Obama administration, which prohibited all foreign government donations while she served as the nation's top diplomat."
In fact, the 2008 memorandum of understanding entered into by the Clinton Foundation and then-President-Elect Barack Obama did not ban foreign government donations. Instead, it stated that if Hillary Clinton were confirmed as secretary of state, the Foundation would "continue to perform" its activities "on behalf of existing foreign country contributors and in fulfillment of existing and on-going commitments."
The Clinton Foundation's board agreed earlier this month to return to a similar policy given Clinton's run for president. They will "permit donations from Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the U.K. -- countries that support or have supported Clinton Foundation programs on health, poverty and climate change," according to the Wall Street Journal.
From the April 23 edition of MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes
Loading the player reg...
From the April 23 edition of MSNBC's The Ed Show:
Loading the player reg...
Media outlets are poking holes in the allegations of Clinton Cash, an anti-Hillary Clinton book authored by a Republican activist and strategist whose history of reporting is marked by errors and retractions. Reporters who reviewed portions of the book have undermined Schweizer's claims that foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation influenced Hillary Clinton's decision-making as secretary of state with regard to the Russian purchase of a mining company and a trade agreement, asserting that Schweizer offers "little evidence" for his claims and overlooks key facts.
James Carville is a guest contributor to Media Matters.
On March 12, I posted on Media Matters to discuss what I called the Clinton Rule. The Clinton Rule is as follows: There shall be one standard for covering everyone else in public life, and another standard for Hillary and Bill Clinton.
Well this week we got the ultimate proof of the Clinton Rule when The New York Times got its hands on a copy of Clinton Cash, a forthcoming book which purportedly claims that the State Department received favors from foreign entities that donated to The Clinton Foundation. Now, I wasn't the least bit surprised that the conservative media echo chamber immediately reverberated with cries of the "very damning" "bombshell," of a book that "could threaten [Hillary's] campaign." And I say purportedly because almost no one has read the book yet.
Here's the thing that did surprise me:
Never have we seen a more instant classic for followers of the Clinton Rule than with this latest tome. The book isn't even slated to be released for several weeks and yet The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Fox News are in cahoots with the author -- reporting on what might be inside. I'll run you through the playbook.
Let's start with the facts. The star of this latest instance of the Clinton Rule is the author, Peter Schweizer. He's a discredited fringe conservative activist and former political aide to the likes of George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Bobby Jindal. That's a trifecta that pays a high dollar for pushing right wing conspiracies. Schweizer has worked for such "reputable" publications as Breitbart.com -- the same Breitbart.com that once called gun safety advocate Gabby Giffords a "human shield" for the gun safety movement. His right wing bona fides don't end there. Schweizer is even listed as a contributor to one of former Fox News host Glenn Beck's books.
Speaking of Schweizer's work -- back in 1998 he took on the "gay subculture" that was "blossoming" at Walt Disney World. In Disney: The Mouse Betrayed -- which is not listed on Schweizer's website with his other works -- he attacked the "gay activism" at the theme park, with special attention for the annual Gay Day at the Magic Kingdom. "There is a lot of openly displayed affection during the event -- holding hands, kissing, and the like," Schweizer wrote. God forbid.
Here's the deal, Peter Schweizer's new book out May 5 is likely to have serious problems -- one embarrassing error has reportedly already been found. As Media Matters noted this week, Schweizer has been called out at least ten times by journalists and independent fact checkers for getting his facts wrong in his previous articles and books. His past work has been called "incorrect," "bogus," and "a fatal shortcoming in journalism 101." In short, he's a SERIAL MISINFORMER.
Yet, The New York Times, Washington Post, and Fox News have all made exclusive agreements with Schweizer for early access to pursue "the story lines found in the book." I'm not shocked that Fox News took the shady deal here since Harper Collins, which is publishing Schweizer's book, is also owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and is the sister company of Fox News' parent company 21st Century Fox. But I'm hard pressed to find any reason why The New York Times and The Washington Post would do the same except for the Clinton Rule.
The rule where every piece of nonsense the press can grab onto about the Clintons gets headline after headline.
But here's the thing, friends. The last time I remember a major media outlet hyping a right wing book this much was when CBS' 60 Minutes got duped by a guy whose tall tale included him scaling a 12 foot wall on the side of the diplomatic compound in Benghazi and dispatching a terrorist with his rifle butt. We all know how that ended: a book pulled from publication, a 60 Minutes report retracted, and a "journalistic review" which ended with a CBS reporter and producer taking a leave of absence.
All I'm saying here folks is this: The bottom line is that mainstream media must be up for the challenge. To all the reporters wanting to push the limits and take an advance look into the claims of a guy whose history of reporting is marked by errors and retractions, I say it's time to break the Clinton Rule. But in this case, I'm afraid the smarter bet is that we are going to see the same playbook over and over again.
Again, let me repeat what the Clinton Rule is: There shall be one standard for covering everyone else in public life, and another standard for the Clintons. After the latest antics on the part of The New York Times I am forced to add to the Clinton Rule. At The New York Times when it comes to the Clintons, there are no rules.
ABC News reported that it "uncovered errors" in Peter Schweizer's upcoming anti-Clinton book, Clinton Cash. Schweizer has a long history of sloppy research and reporting -- earlier this week, ThinkProgress revealed that the conservative author cites a hoax press release in the book.
On April 23, ABC News explained that their independent review of the source material used for Clinton Cash "uncovered errors in the book, including an instance where paid and unpaid speaking appearances were conflated." The book purports to reveal connections between Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state, donations to the Clinton Foundation, and paid speeches given by the Clintons, but Schweizer reportedly admits in the book he cannot prove his allegations.
According to ABC, Schweizer "said the errors would be corrected." The book is due for release on May 5; it is unclear whether the errors will be corrected before the first publication.
Media Matters identified ten previous instances in which Schweizer made serious factual errors, issued retractions, or relied on questionable sourcing.