Read time: 4 minutes

How Corporate Media Plans To Cash In On 'Clinton Cash' Scandal Book

This isn't about Clinton. It's about journalism, and what little integrity is left.
How Corporate Media Plans To Cash In On 'Clinton Cash' Scandal Book

There's another Clinton scandal book coming out in a few weeks, and the Villagers are all a-flutter. The New York Times gave it the star treatment today in a piece by lazy Times journalist Amy Chozick (she of the similarly spotty Hillary Clinton emails story).

Now look. I don't care what you think about Hillary Clinton, because this is about something much larger: namely, that the media wants to decide elections, and they will use anything against Democrats they can find. It's up to us to hold them to some kind of standard:

Here are the things you need to know:

Author Peter Schweizer is a fellow at the wingnut Hoover Institution, and the founder and president of the Government Accountability Institute. Via Wikipedia Sourcewatch:

The GAI has several ties to right-wing groups such as Citizens United, the American Conservative Union, Young America's Foundation, and the Hoover Institution, through its key staff and board members:

Last year, Bannon was gifted with $2 million from Donor's Trust (a slush fund to launder big contributions for right wing donors). God only know what he's getting this year!

The only reference to Breitbart in the story is that the author "has contributed" to Breitbart.com.

“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.


↓ Story continues below ↓

His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.

In the long lead up to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign announcement, aides proved adept in swatting down critical books as conservative propaganda, including Edward Klein’s “Blood Feud,” about tensions between the Clintons and the Obamas, and Daniel Halper’s “Clinton Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine.”

But “Clinton Cash” is potentially more unsettling, both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book.

"Exclusive agreements" to pursue story lines from the book? I don't think they've paid him, but it sure seems like they're hitching their wagons to these "stories." Even if they didn't, this means they're unlikely to be impartial. Even if nothing's there, they will pursue it because they are invested, just like they did with Whitewater.

It's important to contact these organizations and tell them this kind of compromised journalism is unacceptable. No "exclusive agreements," full transparency about the subjects of national stories.

Margaret Sullivan, Public Editor: public@nytimes.com.
Reader Representative: readers@washpost.com

UPDATE: The National Memo, Little Green Footballs, Talking Points Memo and Media Matters are on the story.

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.