Top 10 revelations from Shillary email dumps (so far...)

[hater]

10 "my daugher chelsea is a spoiled brat"


9 "most of my donors are from canada"


8 "thanks for the inside info on Bernie, Donna Fatzil"


7 "mah Billy Boy is losing his marbles" :lol


6 "a Syria no fly zone is impossible to accomplish now but Ill just keep repeating it to dumb americans"


5 "I know Saudi and Quatar are funding Al Qaeda, I could give 2 shits about it"


4 "Im in touch with Justice Dept and they tell me what the judges are up to in my cases"


3 "I have a separate public and private positions on issues. We dont want americans knowing our backroom deals"


2 "I love fracking. Always have"


1 "I hate everyday americans"

[clambake]

top 10?

c'mon you can do better.

[clambake]

ok, where is the "39 minutes" email? "you'll keep your job under a hillary presidency" narrative.

[ducks]

Media is in bed with clinton

[clambake]

the end of donalds speech just now..........they played "you can't always get what you want":lol

[101A]

Media is in bed with clinton

This has been the most chilling revelation to me. Who will be watching the hen house during a Clinton presidency?

[boutons_deux]

Fox insulting their viewers, who don't even realize that their "intelligence" :lol is being insulted

Fox Business Pushes Absurd Conspiracy Theory That Hacked Emails Prove Hillary Clinton Is “Bigoted”

Fox’s Stuart Varney Thinks It’s “A Big Deal” That Someone Sent Unsolicited Racist Emails To Clinton’s Campaign Chair

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/13/fox-business-pushes-absurd-conspiracy-theory-hacked-emails-prove-hillary-clinton-bigoted/213813?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MediaMattersForAmerica-CountyFair+%28Media+Matters+for+America+-+Blog%29

[boutons_deux]

The ‘Secret’ WikiLeaks Revealed About Clinton

These revealed a shocking and scandalous fact about the former Secretary of State: she is a politician.

Indeed, the documents represent one of the most reassuring moments of this calamitous campaign.

The overwhelming impression is of the candidate’s and her staff’s competence and sanity–and something more:

a refreshing sense of reality about the vagaries of politics.


http://www.pensitoreview.com/2016/10/13/the-secret-wikileaks-revealed-about-clinton/

[Splits]

http://www.lifesambrosia.com/wp-content/uploads/risotto-milanese.jpg

[baseline bum]

6 "a Syria no fly zone is impossible to accomplish now but Ill just keep repeating it to dumb americans"

Damn that's pretty sweet that she doesn't actually believe in that shit and won't do it. Her no fly zone comment in the second debate was thing that made me most nervous about casting a vote for her.

[hater]

Damn that's pretty sweet that she doesn't actually believe in that shit and won't do it. Her no fly zone comment in the second debate was thing that made me most nervous about casting a vote for her.

Cant disagree with this. Glad shes just lying to the american public and not walking in and starting WW3 :lol

[GB20]

Media is in bed with clinton
And Trump is in bed with Putin.

[Spurminator]

This has been the most chilling revelation to me. Who will be watching the hen house during a Clinton presidency?

What email in the leak suggests that *the media* is in bed with Hillary Clinton?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This has been the most chilling revelation to me. Who will be watching the hen house during a Clinton presidency?

Thank goodness there is Fox News, Breitbart, and their advertising tropes you are fond of parroting.

[Fabbs]

Thank goodness there is Fox News, Breitbart, and their advertising tropes you are fond of parroting.
Are the op 10 quotes verfied or is Faux/hater etc making them up?

[101A]

Thank goodness there is Fox News, Breitbart, and their advertising tropes you are fond of parroting.

Pay attention, please.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

And Trump is in bed with Putin.

and Hillary is in bed with the radical Sunni friends in Saudi, ISIS, Syria rebels, Qatar, etc.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pay attention, please.

The MSM being a liberal bastion is a Fox and Clear Channel marketing campaign, dim. I get that you don't understand what it is you are agreeing with but it remains what it is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are the op 10 quotes verfied or is Faux/hater etc making them up?

I haven't bothered googling it to see where he got the list from. I doubt very seriously he made that up on his own.

[Th'Pusher]

What email in the leak suggests that *the media* is in bed with Hillary Clinton?

I'm not sure, but there appears to be an email where a media operative emailed Hillary one of the questions prior to a town hall. Sorry to be light on then details. Heard it on NPR this afternoon, but wasn't fully paying attention.

[Spurminator]

I'm not sure, but there appears to be an email where a media operative emailed Hillary one of the questions prior to a town hall. Sorry to be light on then details. Heard it on NPR this afternoon, but wasn't fully paying attention.

I figured that was the one, but it's not uncommon for journalists to review articles/quotes with subjects they interview.

Even ignoring this, at worst this proves Hillary has a member of the media in bed with her, which shouldn't surprise anyone, because basically everybody with any power has shills for them in the media.

The idea that it proves the entirety of the Media is in bed with Hillary (as though the Media were some monolithic entity with a single political objective) is paranoid lunacy.

[pgardn]

The idea that it proves the entirety of the Media (as though the Media were some monolithic entity with a single political objective) is paranoid lunacy.

Just last night on Frontline (PBS in SA) they had a whole documentary concerning the situation with the Saudis and friends and our mistakes and problems with these guys. It's very complex and interestingly Turkey is a huge player in the current mess. Wtf do these idiots listen to or read? We have one of the most self critical press in the World.

You challenge these guys on what they consider legitimate sources to get news and they have no answer. There are so many " news" outlets to legitimize one's preconceived notions it's really very important to share sites, Yet I get nothing from these wackos.


Share your legit sites. I challenge you to get the PBS app and watch the Frontline documentary on our relationship with the Saudis. Then tell us what you think.

Or don't. Think.

[pgardn]

and Hillary is in bed with the radical Sunni friends in Saudi, ISIS, Syria rebels, Qatar, etc.

Do you have any idea how far back our relationship with the Saudis goes? And What ANY president will inherit from this mess?

[pgardn]

I'm not sure, but there appears to be an email where a media operative emailed Hillary one of the questions prior to a town hall. Sorry to be light on then details. Heard it on NPR this afternoon, but wasn't fully paying attention.

Good stuff. The media policing the media. This is exactly the kind of mechanism we have and should cherish.

[hater]

I figured that was the one, but it's not uncommon for journalists to review articles/quotes with subjects they interview.

Even ignoring this, at worst this proves Hillary has a member of the media in bed with her, which shouldn't surprise anyone, because basically everybody with any power has shills for them in the media.

The idea that it proves the entirety of the Media is in bed with Hillary (as though the Media were some monolithic entity with a single political objective) is paranoid lunacy.

Media is owned by for profit corporations. Do the math

[pgardn]

Media is owned by for profit corporations. Do the math

So what. Do you think people need reliable news and are willing to pay for it? People have jobs in this country that rely on accuracy.

You think media should be run by a government like RT news?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Media is owned by for profit corporations. Do the math

Who use a system of checks and balances through AP cross checking. They are competitors which promotes diligence.

Putin's intelligence services have editorial control and are the entirety of oversight for your preferred news outlets.

[hater]

Who use a system of checks and balances through AP cross checking. They are competitors which promotes diligence.

Putin's intelligence services have editorial control and are the entirety of oversight for your preferred news outlets.

Checks and balances? :lmao the same checks and balances that sold us the Iraq war? Or hides the attrocities commited in yemen? Or sold us the Iran deal? :lol checks and balances

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Checks and balances? :lmao the same checks and balances that sold us the Iraq war? Or hides the attrocities commited in yemen? Or sold us the Iran deal? :lol checks and balances

they weren't the source material, dim. Bush was a dumbfuck is the story here.

[dbreiden83080]

This is the first election that I am not voting. Both of these candidates are corrupt, have little to no morals, and the office is only about their huge egos. Trump is a racist, sexist egomaniac. The moron still hasn't learned to stop calling women ugly. The idiot said it again today at a rally, when denying he would want fuck his accusers. And Hillary is a power hungry bitch with about 300 skeletons in her closet. Michelle Obama gave a nice little speech today condemning Trump's treatment of women. One little problem. She wants you to vote for a woman, who's husband used to fuck women in the white house for kicks. Hillary tries to come off as this strong woman, meanwhile she stayed with this clown who publically embarrassed her time and again.. Hillary blamed the women for the affairs and not Bill. You can't make this shit up..

Not voting..

[TheSanityAnnex]

Who use a system of checks and balances through AP cross checking. They are competitors which promotes diligence.

Putin's intelligence services have editorial control and are the entirety of oversight for your preferred news outlets.
Which new sites are reputable now? Name 5.

[clambake]

I figured that was the one, but it's not uncommon for journalists to review articles/quotes with subjects they interview.

Even ignoring this, at worst this proves Hillary has a member of the media in bed with her, which shouldn't surprise anyone, because basically everybody with any power has shills for them in the media.

The idea that it proves the entirety of the Media is in bed with Hillary (as though the Media were some monolithic entity with a single political objective) is paranoid lunacy.
collusion is a dangerous entity.

i urge you to revisit

[Spurminator]

collusion is a dangerous entity.

i urge you to revisit

I'm happy to have a long discussion over the role of journalists and what constitutes collusion.

My point here is that this is common practice with politicians, athletes, celebrities, basically anyone who is interviewed for news content. So it's not much of a story as far as Hillary is concerned (though it will probably cast doubt on the neutrality of the journalist.)

[pgardn]

Which new sites are reputable now? Name 5.

The Economist
BBC
NPR
PBS
NY Times (foreign affairs very good IMO)

These are all go to for me. The NY Times is left leaning IMO, some of the others as well (by a staunch conservative)

I can add others

So now yours SA?

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Do you have any idea how far back our relationship with the Saudis goes? And What ANY president will inherit from this mess?

Saudi is best allies and donors of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, etc. and they enforce the same brand of radical Sharia law in Saudi Arabia, but the US turns a blind eye to that because they sell us relatively cheap oil.

Trump wants to stop feeding terrorism even if it means we might have to pay a little more in the short run before we find better trade partners. That's what I like.

[pgardn]

Saudi is best allies and donors of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, etc. and they enforce the same brand of radical Sharia law in Saudi Arabia, but the US turns a blind eye to that because they sell us relatively cheap oil.

Trump wants to stop feeding terrorism even if it means we might have to pay a little more in the short run before we find better trade partners. That's what I like.

Do this.

Go to PBS and watch the FRONTLINE documentary on this. It's far more complex right now than you make it.

You fail to mention HUGE players at PRESENT:

Iran
Russia
Turkey
The Kurds

And the past relationships influence the present situation.
Watch it.

Trump.... What Trump says? Are you F'N kidding? The guy is totally unaware of foreign affairs. You want simple pie because it's easy to swallow. Tough luck, this pie does not exist in any pantry you scour for food.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Do this.

Go to PBS and watch the FRONTLINE documentary on this. It's far more complex right now than you make it.

You fail to mention HUGE players at PRESENT:

Iran
Russia
Turkey
The Kurds

And the past relationships influence the present situation.
Watch it.

Trump.... What Trump says? Are you F'N kidding? The guy is totally unaware of foreign affairs. You want simple pie because it's easy to swallow. Tough luck, this pie does not exist in any pantry you scour for food.
Turkey government is also on Saudi and ISIS side.

Russia is probably the most reasonable to ally with because they do not fight over religion nor are they religious.

Iran is Shiite and I don't trust that government one second, I wish that other party had won in 2009 but the citizens are mostly secular and more reasonable, even the ones who do pray -- at least they hate ISIS, Saudi and the Sunnis

The Kurds are a weird player because they're moderately Sunni but hate Turkey and ISIS and try to be reasonable with the West. However, Russia and Assad lumps them in with the terrorists due to their ignorance, which is unfortunate.

[CosmicCowboy]

Turkey government is also on Saudi and ISIS side.

Russia is probably the most reasonable to ally with because they do not fight over religion nor are they religious.

Iran is Shiite and I don't trust that government one second, I wish that other party had won in 2009 but the citizens are mostly secular and more reasonable, even the ones who do pray -- at least they hate ISIS, Saudi and the Sunnis

The Kurds are a weird player because they're moderately Sunni but hate Turkey and ISIS and try to be reasonable with the West. However, Russia and Assad lumps them in with the terrorists due to their ignorance, which is unfortunate.

Kurds have been shit on by everyone. They were pretty much ignored on the arbitrary split of the Ottoman Empire after WWI and have been fucked over by Iraq ,Turkey, and Syria ever since.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Y'all should watch "Hot Shots! Part Deux (1993)" ... one of my favorite war comedy movies as a pre-teen... I like Trump partly because he's a lot like Tug Benson, the US President character in the movie... should really watch it though, it's a great laugh.

As an easter egg, all of the women's middle names in the movie are "Rodham" as shown in the end credits. Lmfao.

[pgardn]

Turkey government is also on Saudi and ISIS side.

Russia is probably the most reasonable to ally with because they do not fight over religion nor are they religious.

Iran is Shiite and I don't trust that government one second, I wish that other party had won in 2009 but the citizens are mostly secular and more reasonable, even the ones who do pray -- at least they hate ISIS, Saudi and the Sunnis

The Kurds are a weird player because they're moderately Sunni but hate Turkey and ISIS and try to be reasonable with the West. However, Russia and Assad lumps them in with the terrorists due to their ignorance, which is unfortunate.

Your just scraping the surface. Turkey's role depends a great deal on what the Kurds are allowed to do. We armed the Kurds and Turkey prevented us from using their airbase thereby letting ISIS take territory and murder thousands as the Kurds were given no air cover to prevent a slaughter. Turkey watched. The Kurds also have terrorist elements they can't control.

Seriously. Sometimes you gotta read or listen to some news that spans more than the present. Documentaries are good for that. And there is so much more. You have to understand from all the players perspectives. You make simplistic blanket conclusions like Trump would expect.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Your just scraping the surface. Turkey's role depends a great deal on what the Kurds are allowed to do. We armed the Kurds and Turkey prevented us from using their airbase thereby letting ISIS take territory and murder thousands as the Kurds were given no air cover to prevent a slaughter. Turkey watched. The Kurds also have terrorist elements they can't control.

Seriously. Sometimes you gotta read or listen to some news that spans more than the present. Documentaries are good for that. And there is so much more. You have to understand from all the players perspectives. You make simplistic blanket conclusions like Trump would expect.
So there are indeed Kurdish terrorists?

[Splits]

The Economist
BBC
NPR
PBS
NY Times (foreign affairs very good IMO)

These are all go to for me. The NY Times is left leaning IMO, some of the others as well (by a staunch conservative)

I can add others

So now yours SA?

Stormfront
Breitbart
AR15.com
vdare.com
DailyCaller

[pgardn]

So there are indeed Kurdish terrorists?

Absolutely.

They have set up bombs in Ankara targeting and killing civilians. It's in a way expected when a people are constantly getting assaulted and can't match military might. There is a pretty standard method of raising a terrorist from childhood. We have contributed to this brew in the ME.

[hater]

Its obviously very hard to prove corporate media is colluding most times. They do it very sneakily by ommiting certain facts, repeating government statements as facts and of course topping it out with their "opinion" pieces or editorials.

All we can go by is trends in a set timeframe to help us decide if there is a smear campaign or collusion.

For example, the Russia is doing the hacking and they are doing it to influence the campaign in favor of Trump is one of the mowt blatant corporate media colousion vehicles in recent history. There is no definite proof whatsoever that Russian government ordered the hacking, much less as to why they are doing it. Yet most media is reporting this as fact.

Another example is the "news" circulated in most media outlets:
"Putin ally warns US to elect Trump or face nuclear war"


In what world is that "news" piece unbiased and responsible??? The Putin "ally" is nothing but a Russian olygarch. Sure he might be friendly with Putin. But does that mean his statement is anything but 1 simple guys opinion???


Yet that "news" has been circulated by most media outlets.


Blatant

[pgardn]

Its obviously very hard to prove corporate media is colluding most times. They do it very sneakily by ommiting certain facts, repeating government statements as facts and of course topping it out with their "opinion" pieces or editorials.

All we can go by is trends in a set timeframe to help us decide if there is a smear campaign or collusion.

For example, the Russia is doing the hacking and they are doing it to influence the campaign in favor of Trump is one of the mowt blatant corporate media colousion vehicles in recent history. There is no definite proof whatsoever that Russian government ordered the hacking, much less as to why they are doing it. Yet most media is reporting this as fact.

Another example is the "news" circulated in most media outlets:
"Putin ally warns US to elect Trump or face nuclear war"


In what world is that "news" piece unbiased and responsible??? The Putin "ally" is nothing but a Russian olygarch. Sure he might be friendly with Putin. But does that mean his statement is anything but 1 simple guys opinion???


Yet that "news" has been circulated by most media outlets.


Blatant

The timing of the Russian hacking and who they are hacking is relevant. Conclusions beyond that are mostly editorial.
Do you understand the difference between a reporter and editorial columnist?

[CosmicCowboy]

Its obviously very hard to prove corporate media is colluding most times. They do it very sneakily by ommiting certain facts, repeating government statements as facts and of course topping it out with their "opinion" pieces or editorials.

All we can go by is trends in a set timeframe to help us decide if there is a smear campaign or collusion.

For example, the Russia is doing the hacking and they are doing it to influence the campaign in favor of Trump is one of the mowt blatant corporate media colousion vehicles in recent history. There is no definite proof whatsoever that Russian government ordered the hacking, much less as to why they are doing it. Yet most media is reporting this as fact.

Another example is the "news" circulated in most media outlets:
"Putin ally warns US to elect Trump or face nuclear war"


In what world is that "news" piece unbiased and responsible??? The Putin "ally" is nothing but a Russian olygarch. Sure he might be friendly with Putin. But does that mean his statement is anything but 1 simple guys opinion???


Yet that "news" has been circulated by most media outlets.


Blatant

Exactly. This is another 'Benghazi was caused by a video". The colluding media was still sucking that dick weeks after it was obvious it was a ile.

[hater]

Here are some initial observations from the latest leak:

More “quid pro quo”? – the Campaign was aware of emails being released by State prior to actual event, including direct link to them: Link.


Did the Clinton campaign collude with Dianne Feinstein — even though she’s concerned about classified info: Link
“… she wants to be a surrogate on Benghazi. Senate Intel did a bipartisan report while she was chair finding no wrongdoing. She also talked to IC IG yesterday who repeated no criminal referral but said he was still concerned about classified info on the thumb drive and possibly the server. Diane later talked to HRC and reiterated offer to help.”
David Kendall interaction that leads to phone call: Link
What was the “vulnerability meeting”?: Link


Strategist Tom Cosgrove suggests giving Goldman money to Children’s defense fund as “it gives her a legitimate opportunity to get the public to appreciate her long history of social justice in a way that just talking about it or advertising it doesn’t.”: Link


Clinton campaign was inspired by Jeb Bush’s stance on the economy, praising Bush’s “message” for attracting “half of african americans and democrats and two thirds of latinos.” … “Some thought it ended too harsh. But the perspective on the economy has really worked. Now we didn’t tell people this was from bush.


But its a warning,” reads the mail from Lake Research to Clinton advisor Minyon Moore: Link
Neera Tander is not a fan of Harvard professor Larry Lessig, who announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president in August 2015, is harshly criticized in an email by Neera Tanden.
“I f*cking hate that guy. Like I’d like to kick the sh*t out of him on twitter…but I know that is dumb,” Tanden writes to Podesta. Link

[boutons_deux]

"There is no definite proof whatsoever that Russian government ordered the hacking"

How do we, you, KNOW that?

[ducks]

"There is no definite proof whatsoever that Russian government ordered the hacking"

How do we, you, KNOW that?


prove it HOW DO YOU KNOW NOT

[ducks]

I am sure it the democrats planned to say it was along just like them planning violence at trump rallies

[FuzzyLumpkins]

collusion is a dangerous entity.

i urge you to revisit

I'm sorry but this collusion narrative just seems rife with recency bias and completely obtuse to the reality that the former GOP media director and speechwriter for Dick Nixon created then micromanaged Fox News for 30 years. Fox News used to routinely take unedited GOP video productions and simply play them.

A pundit of CNN sharing with her former campaign debate questions certainly raises and issue of fairness. Has the GOP gotten something similar? If not then she should be fired in my view but that is a bit different than the CEO coordinating rhetoric/content with the executive council of the GOP. His proteges now run it.

GOP has been dominating the Fox News executive hen house since it started.

There is also a media culture that is obsessed with entertainment mostly in the form of sex, violence, and emotions. They propelled Donald Trump to the GOP nomination mostly on the strength of previous exposure on CBS's the Apprentice. Now they have turned on Trump? Or could it be a dozen women coming forward following a tape of Trump describing how and why he gropes women is very appealing to the US audience as opposed to 10 emails of mostly minutiae a day?

[TheSanityAnnex]

I'm sorry but this collusion narrative just seems rife with recency bias and completely obtuse to the reality that the former GOP media director and speechwriter for Dick Nixon created then micromanaged Fox News for 30 years. Fox News used to routinely take unedited GOP video productions and simply play them.

A pundit of CNN sharing with her former campaign debate questions certainly raises and issue of fairness. Has the GOP gotten something similar? If not then she should be fired in my view but that is a bit different than the CEO coordinating rhetoric/content with the executive council of the GOP. His proteges now run it.

GOP has been dominating the Fox News executive hen house since it started.

There is also a media culture that is obsessed with entertainment mostly in the form of sex, violence, and emotions. They propelled Donald Trump to the GOP nomination mostly on the strength of previous exposure on CBS's the Apprentice. Now they have turned on Trump? Or could it be a dozen women coming forward following a tape of Trump describing how and why he gropes women is very appealing to the US audience as opposed to 10 emails of mostly minutiae a day?
Glenn Greenwald disagrees.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Glenn Greenwald disagrees.

In part, maybe; he doesn't weight the relative political bias at any point which was my central point. I said if both sides didn't get the same advantage she should be fired. I imagine he would agree considering his discussion of ' media impropriety.'

As for wikileaks, considering Greenwald made his name reporting on Snowden his interest here is obvious. I do think its funny insisting on one particular issue when elections stopped being about issues and policy 30 years ago. It's why Trump is trying harder on the Bill Clinton sex scandals instead. He gets it. He just doesn't get that it elicits just as much sympathy for Hillary as it does ire for Bill which is a net benefit for the one actually running for office. She also ignores it and looks unflappable in doing so.

If it makes you feel better its becoming more and more a lock as time creeps on that the Dems are going to also take the senate with a margin. The RNC has been panic spending in house races amid concerns they might lose ground there.

[hater]

Yeah there is no collusion :rolleyes

Emails have proven 4 out of the 7 biggest US media outlets are in the bag for the Clintazis: Washclinton Post, ClintlerNewsNetwork, Wall Street Clintournal, New York Times of Clintler

We end up with 2 relatively neutral
Abc news, usa today

And one in the bag against Clintler:
Fox

All those media outlets account for pretty much 99% americans. Only 1 percent of retard americans read anythilg else


Yeah. No collusion an all :lmao


:lol thinking 2 party corporate puppet system is a democracy :lol

[clambake]

this is how they all operate and they can squeeze through tight spots because they're all greasy pigs.

[pgardn]

Yeah there is no collusion :rolleyes

Emails have proven 4 out of the 7 biggest US media outlets are in the bag for the Clintazis: Washclinton Post, ClintlerNewsNetwork, Wall Street Clintournal, New York Times of Clintler

We end up with 2 relatively neutral
Abc news, usa today

And one in the bag against Clintler:
Fox

All those media outlets account for pretty much 99% americans. Only 1 percent of retard americans read anythilg else


Yeah. No collusion an all :lmao


:lol thinking 2 party corporate puppet system is a democracy :lol

Total bullshit as usual.

From the poster who relies on a Russian government run newsite.

[boutons_deux]

"revelations" all ankle-biting trivia, but all y'all rightwingnuts keep up your fantasy that you've convicted Hillary of major crimes.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Total bullshit as usual.

From the poster who relies on a Russian government run newsite.

Regardless of who is your chosen – or least favorite – presidential candidate, independent minds should be concerned about the latest revelations in the news media’s unseemly relationships with government and political actors. While there are many responsible journalists working today, inside documents and leaks have exposed serious lapses constituting the most far-reaching scandal our industry has known. It’s our very own Newsgate.
Compromised reporting has always existed as a result of covert collaborations between reporters and political officials—Democrats and Republicans alike. For example, in my new book out next year, The Smear, I’ll report on instances of improper collusion that surfaced during the Bush administration. The most recent available evidence is heavy on Democrat-ties due to the nature of the available documents and leaks.
It can be argued that some individual accounts can be rationalized and are not serious breaches of ethics. But taken as a whole, it’s easy to see how we as journalists have done a poor job protecting ourselves from being co-opted by organized interests, often ones that are paid and politically-motivated. Whether we realize it or not, they’ve figured out how to exploit the media and use us to publish their propaganda. It implies a broad and growing trend that has seriously undermined the credibility of the news industry.
Opinion reporters and those who work for obviously ideological news groups are entitled to publish party propaganda. It’s one matter to provide viewpoint journalism. But it’s quite another for us to act as a tool of any interest, publishing narratives or talking points upon suggestion or demand, without disclosing we’ve done just that.
The Players
The following accounts come from human sources, Freedom of Information Act documents and Wikileaks emails. Obviously, this is just a small sampling of the behind the scenes dealings going on between reporters and their sources. Those mentioned below, to the extent they’ve offered comment, have denied doing anything improper or unethical. Some of the reporters have explained that the reason they provided advance drafts of stories to their news subjects, or allowed the subjects to make editorial choices—moves that are generally considered unethical—was to be responsible, as part of a fact check. Some have commented their actions reflect common practice.
The Associated Press (AP)
The State Department considered AP reporters Matt Lee and Bradley Klapper “friendlies,” and planned to “place” Hillary Clinton email stories with them and dictate the timing of their release. The goal was to blunt the June 2015 news that Clinton had failed to provide Congress certain required emails. Clinton campaign press officer Nick Merrill coordinated directly with the State Department (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272) on the plan to use AP to “lay this out before the [Republican] majority on the committee has a chance to realize what they have and distort it.” Merrill posited, “It would be good to frame this a little and frankly to have it break tomorrow when we’ll likely be close or in the midst of a [Supreme Court] decision taking over the news hyenas.” AP published a story the following day.
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it “placed” negative stories about Jeb Bush with AP and other news outlets.
(Also, see Dilanian below under LA Times)
[B]The Atlantic
Marc Ambinder from The Atlantic, asked a Hillary Clinton aide for advance text of a speech (http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-coverage-she-wants-1758019058). The aide dictated “conditions,” including “1) You in your own voice describe [Hillary’s words] as ‘muscular’,” to which Ambinder agreed (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2707953-Marc-Ambinder-Philippe-Reines-Emails.html). Ambinder formerly worked for ABC, CBS and National Journal.
CNBC
CNBC anchor John Harwood, who moderated a presidential debate between Trump and Clinton, appears to have offered helpful thoughts (http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/10/nyt-john-harwood-lavishes-praise-on-hrc/) and analyses to the Clinton campaign (http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/nytcnbcs-john-harwood-advises-clinton-campaign-gloats-about-provoking-trump-at-debate/).
CNN
The Clinton campaign emailed (http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-campaign-boasts-media-every-single-interviewer/) that CNN politics producer Dan Merica and Clinton were “basically courting each other.”
In an email, Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile (then a CNN contributor) said she obtained an advance presidential debate question (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/11/donna_brazile_may_have_fed_clinton_campaign_town_h all_question.html) and passed it on to the Hillary campaign. The question was later asked in a March 13 Democratic presidential town hall including Democrat Bernie Sanders and co-hosted by CNN. Brazile says she didn’t do what she allegedly said she did in the email.
CNN political commentator Maria Cardona emailed Democratic National Committee officials a draft of her opinion piece that attacked Bernie Sanders prior to the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. She invited the DNC’s editorial input and made changes accordingly, asking the DNC, “Is this better?”
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it “placed” negative stories about Jeb Bush with CNN and other news outlets.
American Bridge also claimed that a report it produced against the conservative Koch Brothers (billionaire donors) resulted in “a high-profile CNN story.”
(See also Stelter under New York Times)
Daily Kos
A source for the pro-Hillary Clinton smear group Media Matters named Daily Kos as one of several news outlets that are helpful in getting out the Media Matters agenda, according to Daily Caller.
Huffington Post
“The [Huffington Post] guys were good, Sam and Nico,” said a Media Matters source to Daily Caller, speaking of reporters who will report what Media Matters puts out. The comment apparently refers to Nico Pitney and Sam Stein.
Los Angeles Times
Ken Dilanian, who covered the CIA for the LA Times, explicitly promised positive news coverage and sometimes sent the CIA press office entire story drafts (https://theintercept.com/2014/09/04/former-l-times-reporter-cleared-stories-cia-publication/) for review prior to publication, according to the Intercept, which obtained internal CIA emails and called Dilanian “the CIA’s mop-up man.” Dilanian now works for AP.
Jim Rainey of the LA Times “took a lot of our stuff,” a Media Matters source told Daily Caller.
MSNBC

“Media Matters staff had the direct line of MSNBC president Phil Griffin, and used it,” a Media Matters source told Daily Caller. “If we published something [negative] about Fox in the morning, [MSNBC would] have it on the air that night verbatim. We were pretty much writing their prime time. But then, virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff.”
New York Times
“Brian Stelter at the New York Times [now at CNN] was helpful,” in publishing the Media Matters narrative, a source told Daily Caller.
New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich gave Hillary Clinton the opportunity to approve or veto her quotes (http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/new-york-times-gave-hillary-veto/). He later explained that was because he agreed to make the original interview on-the-record and required her approval to use selected pieces of it.
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it placed negative stories about Jeb Bush with the New York Times and other news outlets.
(See also Haberman under Politico)
Politico
Staffers at Media Matters say they “knew they could dump stuff to Ben Smith [formerly of Politico now editor-in-chief at Buzzfeed.com],” according to Daily Caller. “Ben Smith will take stories and write what you want him to write.”
Politico chief investigative reporter Ken Vogel emailed soon-to-be-published story to Democratic National Committee official Mark Paustenbach “per agreement (https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808)” and invited his “thoughts.” Paustenbach gave the draft to the DNC’s head of communications, Luis Miranda. “Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn’t share it,” Paustenbach told Miranda.
In his effort to get an interview with Chelsea Clinton, Mike Allen, Politico’s chief political reporter offered to provide questions (http://gawker.com/emails-show-politico-s-mike-allen-promised-positive-cov-1744201426) in advance, “precisely” agreed upon with a Hillary Clinton aide. “The interview would be ‘no-surprises’: I would work with you on topics, and would start with anything she wants to cover or make news on. Quicker than a network hit, and reaching an audience you care about with no risk,” Allen wrote the aide. After the email became public, Allen apologized and said he would never do what he offered to do in his email.
Hillary Clinton staffers described Maggie Haberman, then of Politico, as an ideal “friendly journalist (http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/10/09/maggie-haberman-friendly-journalist-hillary-clinton-campaign/)” with whom to place stories. “We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed,” writes one staffer in an email. Haberman now works for the New York Times. The emails were first reported in The Intercept.
Read the Intercept article by Glenn Greenwald and Lee Fang (https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/)
Salon
A Media Matters source told Daily Caller that Salon proved to be a “helpful” news outlet for getting its message across.
San Francisco Chronicle
A Media Matters source told Daily Caller that Joe Garofoli at the Chronicle “took a lot of our stuff.”

The Wall Street Journal
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it placed negative stories about Jeb Bush with the Wall Street Journal and other news outlets.
The Washington Post
Democratic National Committee officials discussed “placing” a story (https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6436) with the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent to put a positive spin on some bad news for Hillary Clinton. The goal was “to make sure the first story out of the gate is as helpful as possible,” according to a DNC official (https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12450). “But, the specific reporter is not as important as getting it to an outlet before the news breaks so we can help control the narrative on the front end. Otherwise this may likely get spun in a not-so-helpful way. We should also get Rep. [Elijah] Cummings on the phone with that reporter.” The email continues, “…can we please consider giving Sargent the first bite to get a good first story out there? Can I have him call you? We had been working him for weeks in general on writing up something positive, we think he’d play ball.”

Staffers at Media Matters counted on the liberal Plum Line, Sargent’s Washington Post blog, according to a source who spoke to Daily Caller. “Greg Sargent will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff,” claimed the source. “If you can’t get it anywhere else, Greg Sargent’s always game.”
“We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post],” the Media Matters source told Daily Caller.
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it placed negative stories about Jeb Bush with the Washington Post and other news outlets.
The Strategy
A window into how political interests, including super PACs, work to influence and manipulate the news is found in an internal Clinton campaign memo published on Wikileaks this month. In it, the Hillary Clinton super PAC “Correct The Record” boasts it had placed 21 “strategic memos” with the media that “led to stories in a number of news outlets including National Journal, Politico, USA Today, MSNBC and The Hill.” Correct The Record has joined other pro-Hillary Clinton groups founded by Clinton surrogate David Brock, including Media Matters and the American Bridge super PAC, in attacking Clinton’s opponents. Correct The Record’s targets have included Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republican Donald Trump.


Correct The Record president Brad Woodhouse has repeatedly appeared in news interviews without the disclosure that he operates a Hillary Clinton super PAC that coordinates openly with the campaign, unlike any other super PAC.

Among other functions, the Correct The Record memo says it “arms more than 300 surrogates with facts and talking points to spread the message and the facts on cable and other news” and “deploy products targeted to specific audiences.”


One of the “products” is “pushback documents” distributed to “members of the media, key surrogates, pundits, opinion leaders” to refute “false information” about Clinton. The documents include “research analyses,” “talking points” and “blog-style posts made specifically for the web.” Other products are “media statements” and “positive media relations with Clinton beat reporters, producers and editors…Our communications team is constantly in touch with the media and provide, whether in our own voices or in the voices of surrogates, a constant stream of statements to the press on all things Clinton related. And because media relations isn’t just going on the record, some of our team’s most important work is killing bad stories before they ever get written.”



Under “Metrics,” the Correct The Record memo cites its mailing list of 960 members of the national media and 10,756 regional reporters in 28 states. It sends talking points and memos regularly to 369 televisions producers and bookers. It says its work has “impacted the framework for dialogue about 2016, Clinton, and her competitors.” The group says it has “engaged trusted names” to write opinion editorials for newspapers across the country. “Correct The Record has placed 132 op-eds nationally and in strategic local markets” and, since May 15, “helped write and place 36 op-eds across the country in a number of publications including Politico, Times Union, Huffington Post, CNN, Washington Blade, and New Jersey’s Bergen Record.”–Correct The Record internal memo



Correct The Record also says it’s conducted “over 900 on-the-record and off-the-record media interviews” and “identified 372 surrogates including influential and frequent pundits on broadcast and cable news for Presidential 2016 politics and provided them around 80 sets of talking points, background materials and briefings on topical issues” to defend Clinton and her record.

American Bridge

More information on how super PACs manipulate the news media is found in an internal memo written by Brock’s pro-Hillary American Bridge super PAC. It was also published by Wikileaks.
The opposition research group set up “war rooms” for the first time on site in states where its trackers were monitoring Republican candidates to “interact with reporters on site, and to cut and move footage more efficiently so we can break news before anyone else.” In other words, American Bridge uses its formidable resources to do one-sided investigative work and then peddles the product as “news” to reporters.


Apparently, it works. The American Bridge memo said its on-site war room in Wisconsin collected negative clips about Senator Ron Johnson and got them covered by Talking Points Memo, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, The Capital Times, The Hill, and Roll Call.


In the memo, American Bridge also bragged that CNN was receptive to its outreach. “CNN recently ran a feature story on our use of livestream technology.” Examples of the group’s rapid response efforts getting picked up by the press included “Jeb Bush’s comments on privatizing Social Security (June 2015), his comment that “all lives matter” (July 2015), Chris Christie jumping on Jeb Bush’s ‘work longer hours’ bandwagon (July 2015), and Rick Perry slamming Jeb’s economic growth record in Florida (July 2015).”


“Several of these were clipped, cut, and shared on social media and/or by press release while the candidates were still delivering the same speech,” read the American Bridge memo.
American Bridge said it “placed” negative stories about Bush with CNN, Washington Post, the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and several key Florida outlets. “Our tracking operation has also been key in undermining Jeb through a constant barrage of rapid response attacks.”


One month after the 2014 midterm elections, American Bridge released a “primer” to “define the field before the prospective candidates could define themselves for the electorate.” The group took credit for successfully marketing a negative media narrative on Scott Walker, leading to his downfall. “We developed a powerful narrative of cronyism, outsourcing, and looking out for the interests of big business over middle class families, which undercut his economic message,” said the group’s memo. It also took credit for “forcing the Kochs [conservative billionaire donors]…out of the shadows” and said an American Bridge report against the Kochs resulted in “a high-profile CNN story.”


These activities appear to be within the law. But these are just two of many groups working to influence the news. The breadth and scope of their operations confirms how important it is for news organizations to set up policies and systems to retain their independence.


More on all of this in my upcoming book, The Smear (https://www.amazon.com/Smear-Shady-Political-Operatives-Control/dp/0062468162/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=).

https://sharylattkisson.com/newsgate-2016/

[DMC]

I long for the day when the word "gate" isn't automatically tied to every scandal.

[hater]

And yet morons here still dont see the collusion :lmao

[pgardn]

Regardless of who is your chosen – or least favorite – presidential candidate, independent minds should be concerned about the latest revelations in the news media’s unseemly relationships with government and political actors. While there are many responsible journalists working today, inside documents and leaks have exposed serious lapses constituting the most far-reaching scandal our industry has known. It’s our very own Newsgate.
Compromised reporting has always existed as a result of covert collaborations between reporters and political officials—Democrats and Republicans alike. For example, in my new book out next year, The Smear, I’ll report on instances of improper collusion that surfaced during the Bush administration. The most recent available evidence is heavy on Democrat-ties due to the nature of the available documents and leaks.
It can be argued that some individual accounts can be rationalized and are not serious breaches of ethics. But taken as a whole, it’s easy to see how we as journalists have done a poor job protecting ourselves from being co-opted by organized interests, often ones that are paid and politically-motivated. Whether we realize it or not, they’ve figured out how to exploit the media and use us to publish their propaganda. It implies a broad and growing trend that has seriously undermined the credibility of the news industry.
Opinion reporters and those who work for obviously ideological news groups are entitled to publish party propaganda. It’s one matter to provide viewpoint journalism. But it’s quite another for us to act as a tool of any interest, publishing narratives or talking points upon suggestion or demand, without disclosing we’ve done just that.
The Players
The following accounts come from human sources, Freedom of Information Act documents and Wikileaks emails. Obviously, this is just a small sampling of the behind the scenes dealings going on between reporters and their sources. Those mentioned below, to the extent they’ve offered comment, have denied doing anything improper or unethical. Some of the reporters have explained that the reason they provided advance drafts of stories to their news subjects, or allowed the subjects to make editorial choices—moves that are generally considered unethical—was to be responsible, as part of a fact check. Some have commented their actions reflect common practice.
The Associated Press (AP)
The State Department considered AP reporters Matt Lee and Bradley Klapper “friendlies,” and planned to “place” Hillary Clinton email stories with them and dictate the timing of their release. The goal was to blunt the June 2015 news that Clinton had failed to provide Congress certain required emails. Clinton campaign press officer Nick Merrill coordinated directly with the State Department (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272) on the plan to use AP to “lay this out before the [Republican] majority on the committee has a chance to realize what they have and distort it.” Merrill posited, “It would be good to frame this a little and frankly to have it break tomorrow when we’ll likely be close or in the midst of a [Supreme Court] decision taking over the news hyenas.” AP published a story the following day.
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it “placed” negative stories about Jeb Bush with AP and other news outlets.
(Also, see Dilanian below under LA Times)
[B]The Atlantic
Marc Ambinder from The Atlantic, asked a Hillary Clinton aide for advance text of a speech (http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-coverage-she-wants-1758019058). The aide dictated “conditions,” including “1) You in your own voice describe [Hillary’s words] as ‘muscular’,” to which Ambinder agreed (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2707953-Marc-Ambinder-Philippe-Reines-Emails.html). Ambinder formerly worked for ABC, CBS and National Journal.
CNBC
CNBC anchor John Harwood, who moderated a presidential debate between Trump and Clinton, appears to have offered helpful thoughts (http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/10/nyt-john-harwood-lavishes-praise-on-hrc/) and analyses to the Clinton campaign (http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/nytcnbcs-john-harwood-advises-clinton-campaign-gloats-about-provoking-trump-at-debate/).
CNN
The Clinton campaign emailed (http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-campaign-boasts-media-every-single-interviewer/) that CNN politics producer Dan Merica and Clinton were “basically courting each other.”
In an email, Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile (then a CNN contributor) said she obtained an advance presidential debate question (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/11/donna_brazile_may_have_fed_clinton_campaign_town_h all_question.html) and passed it on to the Hillary campaign. The question was later asked in a March 13 Democratic presidential town hall including Democrat Bernie Sanders and co-hosted by CNN. Brazile says she didn’t do what she allegedly said she did in the email.
CNN political commentator Maria Cardona emailed Democratic National Committee officials a draft of her opinion piece that attacked Bernie Sanders prior to the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. She invited the DNC’s editorial input and made changes accordingly, asking the DNC, “Is this better?”
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it “placed” negative stories about Jeb Bush with CNN and other news outlets.
American Bridge also claimed that a report it produced against the conservative Koch Brothers (billionaire donors) resulted in “a high-profile CNN story.”
(See also Stelter under New York Times)
Daily Kos
A source for the pro-Hillary Clinton smear group Media Matters named Daily Kos as one of several news outlets that are helpful in getting out the Media Matters agenda, according to Daily Caller.
Huffington Post
“The [Huffington Post] guys were good, Sam and Nico,” said a Media Matters source to Daily Caller, speaking of reporters who will report what Media Matters puts out. The comment apparently refers to Nico Pitney and Sam Stein.
Los Angeles Times
Ken Dilanian, who covered the CIA for the LA Times, explicitly promised positive news coverage and sometimes sent the CIA press office entire story drafts (https://theintercept.com/2014/09/04/former-l-times-reporter-cleared-stories-cia-publication/) for review prior to publication, according to the Intercept, which obtained internal CIA emails and called Dilanian “the CIA’s mop-up man.” Dilanian now works for AP.
Jim Rainey of the LA Times “took a lot of our stuff,” a Media Matters source told Daily Caller.
MSNBC

“Media Matters staff had the direct line of MSNBC president Phil Griffin, and used it,” a Media Matters source told Daily Caller. “If we published something [negative] about Fox in the morning, [MSNBC would] have it on the air that night verbatim. We were pretty much writing their prime time. But then, virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff.”
New York Times
“Brian Stelter at the New York Times [now at CNN] was helpful,” in publishing the Media Matters narrative, a source told Daily Caller.
New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich gave Hillary Clinton the opportunity to approve or veto her quotes (http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/new-york-times-gave-hillary-veto/). He later explained that was because he agreed to make the original interview on-the-record and required her approval to use selected pieces of it.
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it placed negative stories about Jeb Bush with the New York Times and other news outlets.
(See also Haberman under Politico)
Politico
Staffers at Media Matters say they “knew they could dump stuff to Ben Smith [formerly of Politico now editor-in-chief at Buzzfeed.com],” according to Daily Caller. “Ben Smith will take stories and write what you want him to write.”
Politico chief investigative reporter Ken Vogel emailed soon-to-be-published story to Democratic National Committee official Mark Paustenbach “per agreement (https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808)” and invited his “thoughts.” Paustenbach gave the draft to the DNC’s head of communications, Luis Miranda. “Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn’t share it,” Paustenbach told Miranda.
In his effort to get an interview with Chelsea Clinton, Mike Allen, Politico’s chief political reporter offered to provide questions (http://gawker.com/emails-show-politico-s-mike-allen-promised-positive-cov-1744201426) in advance, “precisely” agreed upon with a Hillary Clinton aide. “The interview would be ‘no-surprises’: I would work with you on topics, and would start with anything she wants to cover or make news on. Quicker than a network hit, and reaching an audience you care about with no risk,” Allen wrote the aide. After the email became public, Allen apologized and said he would never do what he offered to do in his email.
Hillary Clinton staffers described Maggie Haberman, then of Politico, as an ideal “friendly journalist (http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/10/09/maggie-haberman-friendly-journalist-hillary-clinton-campaign/)” with whom to place stories. “We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed,” writes one staffer in an email. Haberman now works for the New York Times. The emails were first reported in The Intercept.
Read the Intercept article by Glenn Greenwald and Lee Fang (https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/)
Salon
A Media Matters source told Daily Caller that Salon proved to be a “helpful” news outlet for getting its message across.
San Francisco Chronicle
A Media Matters source told Daily Caller that Joe Garofoli at the Chronicle “took a lot of our stuff.”

The Wall Street Journal
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it placed negative stories about Jeb Bush with the Wall Street Journal and other news outlets.
The Washington Post
Democratic National Committee officials discussed “placing” a story (https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6436) with the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent to put a positive spin on some bad news for Hillary Clinton. The goal was “to make sure the first story out of the gate is as helpful as possible,” according to a DNC official (https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12450). “But, the specific reporter is not as important as getting it to an outlet before the news breaks so we can help control the narrative on the front end. Otherwise this may likely get spun in a not-so-helpful way. We should also get Rep. [Elijah] Cummings on the phone with that reporter.” The email continues, “…can we please consider giving Sargent the first bite to get a good first story out there? Can I have him call you? We had been working him for weeks in general on writing up something positive, we think he’d play ball.”

Staffers at Media Matters counted on the liberal Plum Line, Sargent’s Washington Post blog, according to a source who spoke to Daily Caller. “Greg Sargent will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff,” claimed the source. “If you can’t get it anywhere else, Greg Sargent’s always game.”
“We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post],” the Media Matters source told Daily Caller.
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it placed negative stories about Jeb Bush with the Washington Post and other news outlets.
The Strategy
A window into how political interests, including super PACs, work to influence and manipulate the news is found in an internal Clinton campaign memo published on Wikileaks this month. In it, the Hillary Clinton super PAC “Correct The Record” boasts it had placed 21 “strategic memos” with the media that “led to stories in a number of news outlets including National Journal, Politico, USA Today, MSNBC and The Hill.” Correct The Record has joined other pro-Hillary Clinton groups founded by Clinton surrogate David Brock, including Media Matters and the American Bridge super PAC, in attacking Clinton’s opponents. Correct The Record’s targets have included Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republican Donald Trump.


Correct The Record president Brad Woodhouse has repeatedly appeared in news interviews without the disclosure that he operates a Hillary Clinton super PAC that coordinates openly with the campaign, unlike any other super PAC.

Among other functions, the Correct The Record memo says it “arms more than 300 surrogates with facts and talking points to spread the message and the facts on cable and other news” and “deploy products targeted to specific audiences.”


One of the “products” is “pushback documents” distributed to “members of the media, key surrogates, pundits, opinion leaders” to refute “false information” about Clinton. The documents include “research analyses,” “talking points” and “blog-style posts made specifically for the web.” Other products are “media statements” and “positive media relations with Clinton beat reporters, producers and editors…Our communications team is constantly in touch with the media and provide, whether in our own voices or in the voices of surrogates, a constant stream of statements to the press on all things Clinton related. And because media relations isn’t just going on the record, some of our team’s most important work is killing bad stories before they ever get written.”



Under “Metrics,” the Correct The Record memo cites its mailing list of 960 members of the national media and 10,756 regional reporters in 28 states. It sends talking points and memos regularly to 369 televisions producers and bookers. It says its work has “impacted the framework for dialogue about 2016, Clinton, and her competitors.” The group says it has “engaged trusted names” to write opinion editorials for newspapers across the country. “Correct The Record has placed 132 op-eds nationally and in strategic local markets” and, since May 15, “helped write and place 36 op-eds across the country in a number of publications including Politico, Times Union, Huffington Post, CNN, Washington Blade, and New Jersey’s Bergen Record.”–Correct The Record internal memo



Correct The Record also says it’s conducted “over 900 on-the-record and off-the-record media interviews” and “identified 372 surrogates including influential and frequent pundits on broadcast and cable news for Presidential 2016 politics and provided them around 80 sets of talking points, background materials and briefings on topical issues” to defend Clinton and her record.

American Bridge

More information on how super PACs manipulate the news media is found in an internal memo written by Brock’s pro-Hillary American Bridge super PAC. It was also published by Wikileaks.
The opposition research group set up “war rooms” for the first time on site in states where its trackers were monitoring Republican candidates to “interact with reporters on site, and to cut and move footage more efficiently so we can break news before anyone else.” In other words, American Bridge uses its formidable resources to do one-sided investigative work and then peddles the product as “news” to reporters.


Apparently, it works. The American Bridge memo said its on-site war room in Wisconsin collected negative clips about Senator Ron Johnson and got them covered by Talking Points Memo, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, The Capital Times, The Hill, and Roll Call.


In the memo, American Bridge also bragged that CNN was receptive to its outreach. “CNN recently ran a feature story on our use of livestream technology.” Examples of the group’s rapid response efforts getting picked up by the press included “Jeb Bush’s comments on privatizing Social Security (June 2015), his comment that “all lives matter” (July 2015), Chris Christie jumping on Jeb Bush’s ‘work longer hours’ bandwagon (July 2015), and Rick Perry slamming Jeb’s economic growth record in Florida (July 2015).”


“Several of these were clipped, cut, and shared on social media and/or by press release while the candidates were still delivering the same speech,” read the American Bridge memo.
American Bridge said it “placed” negative stories about Bush with CNN, Washington Post, the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and several key Florida outlets. “Our tracking operation has also been key in undermining Jeb through a constant barrage of rapid response attacks.”


One month after the 2014 midterm elections, American Bridge released a “primer” to “define the field before the prospective candidates could define themselves for the electorate.” The group took credit for successfully marketing a negative media narrative on Scott Walker, leading to his downfall. “We developed a powerful narrative of cronyism, outsourcing, and looking out for the interests of big business over middle class families, which undercut his economic message,” said the group’s memo. It also took credit for “forcing the Kochs [conservative billionaire donors]…out of the shadows” and said an American Bridge report against the Kochs resulted in “a high-profile CNN story.”


These activities appear to be within the law. But these are just two of many groups working to influence the news. The breadth and scope of their operations confirms how important it is for news organizations to set up policies and systems to retain their independence.


More on all of this in my upcoming book, The Smear (https://www.amazon.com/Smear-Shady-Political-Operatives-Control/dp/0062468162/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=).

https://sharylattkisson.com/newsgate-2016/

The strength of our system is that if this is a legit problem it will be exposed. It behooves trusted news organizations to be correct. And if they are not, and worse, try to hide any collusion, you will hear about it most legitimately from competitors. Not RT news.

Part of the F'N problem is the press is stuck on voter fraud/rigged elections claims by Trump. If he would shut his yapper we could get some more coverage. And by the time we get down to any alleged collusion, Hillary will already be elected making it less popular to read. Just like the possible Russian intereference. It takes a while to accurately reveal these things.

[HI-FI]

I long for the day when the word "gate" isn't automatically tied to every scandal.
Nixon must be rolling over in his grave at the shit Obama and the Clintons have gotten away with.

[pgardn]

Nixon must be rolling over in his grave at the shit Obama and the Clintons have gotten away with.

More like nodding with approval.

[Phenomanul]

Regardless of who is your chosen – or least favorite – presidential candidate, independent minds should be concerned about the latest revelations in the news media’s unseemly relationships with government and political actors. While there are many responsible journalists working today, inside documents and leaks have exposed serious lapses constituting the most far-reaching scandal our industry has known. It’s our very own Newsgate.
Compromised reporting has always existed as a result of covert collaborations between reporters and political officials—Democrats and Republicans alike. For example, in my new book out next year, The Smear, I’ll report on instances of improper collusion that surfaced during the Bush administration. The most recent available evidence is heavy on Democrat-ties due to the nature of the available documents and leaks.
It can be argued that some individual accounts can be rationalized and are not serious breaches of ethics. But taken as a whole, it’s easy to see how we as journalists have done a poor job protecting ourselves from being co-opted by organized interests, often ones that are paid and politically-motivated. Whether we realize it or not, they’ve figured out how to exploit the media and use us to publish their propaganda. It implies a broad and growing trend that has seriously undermined the credibility of the news industry.
Opinion reporters and those who work for obviously ideological news groups are entitled to publish party propaganda. It’s one matter to provide viewpoint journalism. But it’s quite another for us to act as a tool of any interest, publishing narratives or talking points upon suggestion or demand, without disclosing we’ve done just that.
The Players
The following accounts come from human sources, Freedom of Information Act documents and Wikileaks emails. Obviously, this is just a small sampling of the behind the scenes dealings going on between reporters and their sources. Those mentioned below, to the extent they’ve offered comment, have denied doing anything improper or unethical. Some of the reporters have explained that the reason they provided advance drafts of stories to their news subjects, or allowed the subjects to make editorial choices—moves that are generally considered unethical—was to be responsible, as part of a fact check. Some have commented their actions reflect common practice.
The Associated Press (AP)
The State Department considered AP reporters Matt Lee and Bradley Klapper “friendlies,” and planned to “place” Hillary Clinton email stories with them and dictate the timing of their release. The goal was to blunt the June 2015 news that Clinton had failed to provide Congress certain required emails. Clinton campaign press officer Nick Merrill coordinated directly with the State Department (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272) on the plan to use AP to “lay this out before the [Republican] majority on the committee has a chance to realize what they have and distort it.” Merrill posited, “It would be good to frame this a little and frankly to have it break tomorrow when we’ll likely be close or in the midst of a [Supreme Court] decision taking over the news hyenas.” AP published a story the following day.
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it “placed” negative stories about Jeb Bush with AP and other news outlets.
(Also, see Dilanian below under LA Times)
[B]The Atlantic
Marc Ambinder from The Atlantic, asked a Hillary Clinton aide for advance text of a speech (http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-coverage-she-wants-1758019058). The aide dictated “conditions,” including “1) You in your own voice describe [Hillary’s words] as ‘muscular’,” to which Ambinder agreed (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2707953-Marc-Ambinder-Philippe-Reines-Emails.html). Ambinder formerly worked for ABC, CBS and National Journal.
CNBC
CNBC anchor John Harwood, who moderated a presidential debate between Trump and Clinton, appears to have offered helpful thoughts (http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/10/nyt-john-harwood-lavishes-praise-on-hrc/) and analyses to the Clinton campaign (http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/nytcnbcs-john-harwood-advises-clinton-campaign-gloats-about-provoking-trump-at-debate/).
CNN
The Clinton campaign emailed (http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-campaign-boasts-media-every-single-interviewer/) that CNN politics producer Dan Merica and Clinton were “basically courting each other.”
In an email, Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile (then a CNN contributor) said she obtained an advance presidential debate question (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/11/donna_brazile_may_have_fed_clinton_campaign_town_h all_question.html) and passed it on to the Hillary campaign. The question was later asked in a March 13 Democratic presidential town hall including Democrat Bernie Sanders and co-hosted by CNN. Brazile says she didn’t do what she allegedly said she did in the email.
CNN political commentator Maria Cardona emailed Democratic National Committee officials a draft of her opinion piece that attacked Bernie Sanders prior to the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. She invited the DNC’s editorial input and made changes accordingly, asking the DNC, “Is this better?”
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it “placed” negative stories about Jeb Bush with CNN and other news outlets.
American Bridge also claimed that a report it produced against the conservative Koch Brothers (billionaire donors) resulted in “a high-profile CNN story.”
(See also Stelter under New York Times)
Daily Kos
A source for the pro-Hillary Clinton smear group Media Matters named Daily Kos as one of several news outlets that are helpful in getting out the Media Matters agenda, according to Daily Caller.
Huffington Post
“The [Huffington Post] guys were good, Sam and Nico,” said a Media Matters source to Daily Caller, speaking of reporters who will report what Media Matters puts out. The comment apparently refers to Nico Pitney and Sam Stein.
Los Angeles Times
Ken Dilanian, who covered the CIA for the LA Times, explicitly promised positive news coverage and sometimes sent the CIA press office entire story drafts (https://theintercept.com/2014/09/04/former-l-times-reporter-cleared-stories-cia-publication/) for review prior to publication, according to the Intercept, which obtained internal CIA emails and called Dilanian “the CIA’s mop-up man.” Dilanian now works for AP.
Jim Rainey of the LA Times “took a lot of our stuff,” a Media Matters source told Daily Caller.
MSNBC

“Media Matters staff had the direct line of MSNBC president Phil Griffin, and used it,” a Media Matters source told Daily Caller. “If we published something [negative] about Fox in the morning, [MSNBC would] have it on the air that night verbatim. We were pretty much writing their prime time. But then, virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff.”
New York Times
“Brian Stelter at the New York Times [now at CNN] was helpful,” in publishing the Media Matters narrative, a source told Daily Caller.
New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich gave Hillary Clinton the opportunity to approve or veto her quotes (http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/new-york-times-gave-hillary-veto/). He later explained that was because he agreed to make the original interview on-the-record and required her approval to use selected pieces of it.
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it placed negative stories about Jeb Bush with the New York Times and other news outlets.
(See also Haberman under Politico)
Politico
Staffers at Media Matters say they “knew they could dump stuff to Ben Smith [formerly of Politico now editor-in-chief at Buzzfeed.com],” according to Daily Caller. “Ben Smith will take stories and write what you want him to write.”
Politico chief investigative reporter Ken Vogel emailed soon-to-be-published story to Democratic National Committee official Mark Paustenbach “per agreement (https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808)” and invited his “thoughts.” Paustenbach gave the draft to the DNC’s head of communications, Luis Miranda. “Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn’t share it,” Paustenbach told Miranda.
In his effort to get an interview with Chelsea Clinton, Mike Allen, Politico’s chief political reporter offered to provide questions (http://gawker.com/emails-show-politico-s-mike-allen-promised-positive-cov-1744201426) in advance, “precisely” agreed upon with a Hillary Clinton aide. “The interview would be ‘no-surprises’: I would work with you on topics, and would start with anything she wants to cover or make news on. Quicker than a network hit, and reaching an audience you care about with no risk,” Allen wrote the aide. After the email became public, Allen apologized and said he would never do what he offered to do in his email.
Hillary Clinton staffers described Maggie Haberman, then of Politico, as an ideal “friendly journalist (http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/10/09/maggie-haberman-friendly-journalist-hillary-clinton-campaign/)” with whom to place stories. “We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed,” writes one staffer in an email. Haberman now works for the New York Times. The emails were first reported in The Intercept.
Read the Intercept article by Glenn Greenwald and Lee Fang (https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/)
Salon
A Media Matters source told Daily Caller that Salon proved to be a “helpful” news outlet for getting its message across.
San Francisco Chronicle
A Media Matters source told Daily Caller that Joe Garofoli at the Chronicle “took a lot of our stuff.”

The Wall Street Journal
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it placed negative stories about Jeb Bush with the Wall Street Journal and other news outlets.
The Washington Post
Democratic National Committee officials discussed “placing” a story (https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6436) with the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent to put a positive spin on some bad news for Hillary Clinton. The goal was “to make sure the first story out of the gate is as helpful as possible,” according to a DNC official (https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12450). “But, the specific reporter is not as important as getting it to an outlet before the news breaks so we can help control the narrative on the front end. Otherwise this may likely get spun in a not-so-helpful way. We should also get Rep. [Elijah] Cummings on the phone with that reporter.” The email continues, “…can we please consider giving Sargent the first bite to get a good first story out there? Can I have him call you? We had been working him for weeks in general on writing up something positive, we think he’d play ball.”

Staffers at Media Matters counted on the liberal Plum Line, Sargent’s Washington Post blog, according to a source who spoke to Daily Caller. “Greg Sargent will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff,” claimed the source. “If you can’t get it anywhere else, Greg Sargent’s always game.”
“We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post],” the Media Matters source told Daily Caller.
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it placed negative stories about Jeb Bush with the Washington Post and other news outlets.
The Strategy
A window into how political interests, including super PACs, work to influence and manipulate the news is found in an internal Clinton campaign memo published on Wikileaks this month. In it, the Hillary Clinton super PAC “Correct The Record” boasts it had placed 21 “strategic memos” with the media that “led to stories in a number of news outlets including National Journal, Politico, USA Today, MSNBC and The Hill.” Correct The Record has joined other pro-Hillary Clinton groups founded by Clinton surrogate David Brock, including Media Matters and the American Bridge super PAC, in attacking Clinton’s opponents. Correct The Record’s targets have included Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republican Donald Trump.


Correct The Record president Brad Woodhouse has repeatedly appeared in news interviews without the disclosure that he operates a Hillary Clinton super PAC that coordinates openly with the campaign, unlike any other super PAC.

Among other functions, the Correct The Record memo says it “arms more than 300 surrogates with facts and talking points to spread the message and the facts on cable and other news” and “deploy products targeted to specific audiences.”


One of the “products” is “pushback documents” distributed to “members of the media, key surrogates, pundits, opinion leaders” to refute “false information” about Clinton. The documents include “research analyses,” “talking points” and “blog-style posts made specifically for the web.” Other products are “media statements” and “positive media relations with Clinton beat reporters, producers and editors…Our communications team is constantly in touch with the media and provide, whether in our own voices or in the voices of surrogates, a constant stream of statements to the press on all things Clinton related. And because media relations isn’t just going on the record, some of our team’s most important work is killing bad stories before they ever get written.”



Under “Metrics,” the Correct The Record memo cites its mailing list of 960 members of the national media and 10,756 regional reporters in 28 states. It sends talking points and memos regularly to 369 televisions producers and bookers. It says its work has “impacted the framework for dialogue about 2016, Clinton, and her competitors.” The group says it has “engaged trusted names” to write opinion editorials for newspapers across the country. “Correct The Record has placed 132 op-eds nationally and in strategic local markets” and, since May 15, “helped write and place 36 op-eds across the country in a number of publications including Politico, Times Union, Huffington Post, CNN, Washington Blade, and New Jersey’s Bergen Record.”–Correct The Record internal memo



Correct The Record also says it’s conducted “over 900 on-the-record and off-the-record media interviews” and “identified 372 surrogates including influential and frequent pundits on broadcast and cable news for Presidential 2016 politics and provided them around 80 sets of talking points, background materials and briefings on topical issues” to defend Clinton and her record.

American Bridge

More information on how super PACs manipulate the news media is found in an internal memo written by Brock’s pro-Hillary American Bridge super PAC. It was also published by Wikileaks.
The opposition research group set up “war rooms” for the first time on site in states where its trackers were monitoring Republican candidates to “interact with reporters on site, and to cut and move footage more efficiently so we can break news before anyone else.” In other words, American Bridge uses its formidable resources to do one-sided investigative work and then peddles the product as “news” to reporters.


Apparently, it works. The American Bridge memo said its on-site war room in Wisconsin collected negative clips about Senator Ron Johnson and got them covered by Talking Points Memo, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, The Capital Times, The Hill, and Roll Call.


In the memo, American Bridge also bragged that CNN was receptive to its outreach. “CNN recently ran a feature story on our use of livestream technology.” Examples of the group’s rapid response efforts getting picked up by the press included “Jeb Bush’s comments on privatizing Social Security (June 2015), his comment that “all lives matter” (July 2015), Chris Christie jumping on Jeb Bush’s ‘work longer hours’ bandwagon (July 2015), and Rick Perry slamming Jeb’s economic growth record in Florida (July 2015).”


“Several of these were clipped, cut, and shared on social media and/or by press release while the candidates were still delivering the same speech,” read the American Bridge memo.
American Bridge said it “placed” negative stories about Bush with CNN, Washington Post, the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and several key Florida outlets. “Our tracking operation has also been key in undermining Jeb through a constant barrage of rapid response attacks.”


One month after the 2014 midterm elections, American Bridge released a “primer” to “define the field before the prospective candidates could define themselves for the electorate.” The group took credit for successfully marketing a negative media narrative on Scott Walker, leading to his downfall. “We developed a powerful narrative of cronyism, outsourcing, and looking out for the interests of big business over middle class families, which undercut his economic message,” said the group’s memo. It also took credit for “forcing the Kochs [conservative billionaire donors]…out of the shadows” and said an American Bridge report against the Kochs resulted in “a high-profile CNN story.”


These activities appear to be within the law. But these are just two of many groups working to influence the news. The breadth and scope of their operations confirms how important it is for news organizations to set up policies and systems to retain their independence.


More on all of this in my upcoming book, The Smear (https://www.amazon.com/Smear-Shady-Political-Operatives-Control/dp/0062468162/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=).

https://sharylattkisson.com/newsgate-2016/

Don't forget Univision and it's affiliates... their news broadcasts are tuned in by roughly 40-60 million of American households. They are blatantly pro-Hillary. The main anchor's (Jorge Ramos) daughter works with the Clinton Campaign. The owner of Televisa (Univision's parent company) is a multimillionaire donor to the Clinton foundation.

[pgardn]

Don't forget Univision and it's affiliates... their news broadcasts are tuned in by roughly 40-60 million of American households. They are blatantly pro-Hillary. The main anchor's (Jorge Ramos) daughter works with the Clinton Campaign. The owner of Televisa (Univision's parent company) is a multimillionaire donor to the Clinton foundation.

Imagine that...

Hispanics pro Clinton.

God what an idiot. Attacking the "Mexican" Indiana judge. So much buffoonery. We are living through a unique election.

But you are correct. There is every reason for Univision to be very pro Hillary.

[baseline bum]

Yeah there is no collusion :rolleyes

Emails have proven 4 out of the 7 biggest US media outlets are in the bag for the Clintazis: Washclinton Post, ClintlerNewsNetwork, Wall Street Clintournal, New York Times of Clintler

We end up with 2 relatively neutral
Abc news, usa today

And one in the bag against Clintler:
Fox

All those media outlets account for pretty much 99% americans. Only 1 percent of retard americans read anythilg else


Yeah. No collusion an all :lmao


:lol thinking 2 party corporate puppet system is a democracy :lol

LOL leaving Clear Channel off that list.

[Phenomanul]

Imagine that...

Hispanics pro Clinton.

God what an idiot. Attacking the "Mexican" Indiana judge. So much buffoonery. We are living through a unique election.

But you are correct. There is every reason for Univision to be very pro Hillary.

Funny that you believe Univision has been pro-Hillary for that reason alone. Does that incident factor in many Hispanics minds? Certainly - and that is Trump's fault and Trump's fault alone. Not to mention talk of the xenophobic wall etc... But Univision has been pro-Hillary long before Trump was ever a Presidential nominee... they never even gave Bernie Sanders the light of day or a platform to campaign against her. There was an actual Latino running for the Democratic nomination, he didn't even get a single mention on their network.

In short, Univision has been a Democratic party supporter for ages... In fact, they were pro-Obama in the last election cycle even though Mitt Romney was married to an actual Mexican and was very pro-Hispanic on many fronts.

[hater]

Agree 100% Uniwetbacksion is one of the most dangerous organizations for hispanics in the US.

Yes they are dangerous for hispanics because hispanics can barely speak the language and they are already grooming them to be sheep for Clinters and other thpes of Demonazis

I block that channel off my cable. Have done so for years. Only good thing it had was Don Francisco and that shit is over

[Splits]

Agree 100% Uniwetbacksion is one of the most dangerous organizations for hispanics in the US.

Yes they are dangerous for hispanics because hispanics can barely speak the language and they are already grooming them to be sheep for Clinters and other thpes of Demonazis

I block that channel off my cable. Have done so for years. Only good thing it had was Don Francisco and that shit is over

Dayummm, Trumpettes are losing their shit and we still have 3 weeks to go :lmao

[hater]

Cantinflas and chavo were good too on that channel
But that shits old and hasnt aged very well

Univision basically treats all hispanics like Mexican media treats the dog mexicans south of the border. Like fucking cattle.

[pgardn]

Funny that you believe Univision has been pro-Hillary for that reason alone. Does that incident factor in many Hispanics minds? Certainly - and that is Trump's fault and Trump's fault alone. Not to mention talk of the xenophobic wall etc... But Univision has been pro-Hillary long before Trump was ever a Presidential nominee... they never even gave Bernie Sanders the light of day or a platform to campaign against her. There was an actual Latino running for the Democratic nomination, he didn't even get a single mention on their network.

In short, Univision has been a Democratic party supporter for ages... In fact, they were pro-Obama in the last election cycle even though Mitt Romney was married to an actual Mexican and was very pro-Hispanic on many fronts.

So they are Fox for Hispanics. Great.
If Latinos voted in any numbers it might make a difference.

[DMC]

Odd, I hate Trump but I hate Hillary too. I also hate the 3rd and 4th party goobers. I guess I just hate politicians.

[angrydude]

Because everyone knows talk radio has more influence than every television station (besides Sean Hannity's show who obviously shills for Trump), every newspaper, and every widely circulated magazine.

[ElNono]

Regardless of who is your chosen – or least favorite – presidential candidate, independent minds should be concerned about the latest revelations in the news media’s unseemly relationships with government and political actors. While there are many responsible journalists working today, inside documents and leaks have exposed serious lapses constituting the most far-reaching scandal our industry has known. It’s our very own Newsgate.
Compromised reporting has always existed as a result of covert collaborations between reporters and political officials—Democrats and Republicans alike. For example, in my new book out next year, The Smear, I’ll report on instances of improper collusion that surfaced during the Bush administration. The most recent available evidence is heavy on Democrat-ties due to the nature of the available documents and leaks.
It can be argued that some individual accounts can be rationalized and are not serious breaches of ethics. But taken as a whole, it’s easy to see how we as journalists have done a poor job protecting ourselves from being co-opted by organized interests, often ones that are paid and politically-motivated. Whether we realize it or not, they’ve figured out how to exploit the media and use us to publish their propaganda. It implies a broad and growing trend that has seriously undermined the credibility of the news industry.
Opinion reporters and those who work for obviously ideological news groups are entitled to publish party propaganda. It’s one matter to provide viewpoint journalism. But it’s quite another for us to act as a tool of any interest, publishing narratives or talking points upon suggestion or demand, without disclosing we’ve done just that.
The Players
The following accounts come from human sources, Freedom of Information Act documents and Wikileaks emails. Obviously, this is just a small sampling of the behind the scenes dealings going on between reporters and their sources. Those mentioned below, to the extent they’ve offered comment, have denied doing anything improper or unethical. Some of the reporters have explained that the reason they provided advance drafts of stories to their news subjects, or allowed the subjects to make editorial choices—moves that are generally considered unethical—was to be responsible, as part of a fact check. Some have commented their actions reflect common practice.
The Associated Press (AP)
The State Department considered AP reporters Matt Lee and Bradley Klapper “friendlies,” and planned to “place” Hillary Clinton email stories with them and dictate the timing of their release. The goal was to blunt the June 2015 news that Clinton had failed to provide Congress certain required emails. Clinton campaign press officer Nick Merrill coordinated directly with the State Department (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272) on the plan to use AP to “lay this out before the [Republican] majority on the committee has a chance to realize what they have and distort it.” Merrill posited, “It would be good to frame this a little and frankly to have it break tomorrow when we’ll likely be close or in the midst of a [Supreme Court] decision taking over the news hyenas.” AP published a story the following day.
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it “placed” negative stories about Jeb Bush with AP and other news outlets.
(Also, see Dilanian below under LA Times)
[B]The Atlantic
Marc Ambinder from The Atlantic, asked a Hillary Clinton aide for advance text of a speech (http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-coverage-she-wants-1758019058). The aide dictated “conditions,” including “1) You in your own voice describe [Hillary’s words] as ‘muscular’,” to which Ambinder agreed (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2707953-Marc-Ambinder-Philippe-Reines-Emails.html). Ambinder formerly worked for ABC, CBS and National Journal.
CNBC
CNBC anchor John Harwood, who moderated a presidential debate between Trump and Clinton, appears to have offered helpful thoughts (http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/10/nyt-john-harwood-lavishes-praise-on-hrc/) and analyses to the Clinton campaign (http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/nytcnbcs-john-harwood-advises-clinton-campaign-gloats-about-provoking-trump-at-debate/).
CNN
The Clinton campaign emailed (http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-campaign-boasts-media-every-single-interviewer/) that CNN politics producer Dan Merica and Clinton were “basically courting each other.”
In an email, Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile (then a CNN contributor) said she obtained an advance presidential debate question (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/11/donna_brazile_may_have_fed_clinton_campaign_town_h all_question.html) and passed it on to the Hillary campaign. The question was later asked in a March 13 Democratic presidential town hall including Democrat Bernie Sanders and co-hosted by CNN. Brazile says she didn’t do what she allegedly said she did in the email.
CNN political commentator Maria Cardona emailed Democratic National Committee officials a draft of her opinion piece that attacked Bernie Sanders prior to the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. She invited the DNC’s editorial input and made changes accordingly, asking the DNC, “Is this better?”
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it “placed” negative stories about Jeb Bush with CNN and other news outlets.
American Bridge also claimed that a report it produced against the conservative Koch Brothers (billionaire donors) resulted in “a high-profile CNN story.”
(See also Stelter under New York Times)
Daily Kos
A source for the pro-Hillary Clinton smear group Media Matters named Daily Kos as one of several news outlets that are helpful in getting out the Media Matters agenda, according to Daily Caller.
Huffington Post
“The [Huffington Post] guys were good, Sam and Nico,” said a Media Matters source to Daily Caller, speaking of reporters who will report what Media Matters puts out. The comment apparently refers to Nico Pitney and Sam Stein.
Los Angeles Times
Ken Dilanian, who covered the CIA for the LA Times, explicitly promised positive news coverage and sometimes sent the CIA press office entire story drafts (https://theintercept.com/2014/09/04/former-l-times-reporter-cleared-stories-cia-publication/) for review prior to publication, according to the Intercept, which obtained internal CIA emails and called Dilanian “the CIA’s mop-up man.” Dilanian now works for AP.
Jim Rainey of the LA Times “took a lot of our stuff,” a Media Matters source told Daily Caller.
MSNBC

“Media Matters staff had the direct line of MSNBC president Phil Griffin, and used it,” a Media Matters source told Daily Caller. “If we published something [negative] about Fox in the morning, [MSNBC would] have it on the air that night verbatim. We were pretty much writing their prime time. But then, virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff.”
New York Times
“Brian Stelter at the New York Times [now at CNN] was helpful,” in publishing the Media Matters narrative, a source told Daily Caller.
New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich gave Hillary Clinton the opportunity to approve or veto her quotes (http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/new-york-times-gave-hillary-veto/). He later explained that was because he agreed to make the original interview on-the-record and required her approval to use selected pieces of it.
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it placed negative stories about Jeb Bush with the New York Times and other news outlets.
(See also Haberman under Politico)
Politico
Staffers at Media Matters say they “knew they could dump stuff to Ben Smith [formerly of Politico now editor-in-chief at Buzzfeed.com],” according to Daily Caller. “Ben Smith will take stories and write what you want him to write.”
Politico chief investigative reporter Ken Vogel emailed soon-to-be-published story to Democratic National Committee official Mark Paustenbach “per agreement (https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808)” and invited his “thoughts.” Paustenbach gave the draft to the DNC’s head of communications, Luis Miranda. “Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn’t share it,” Paustenbach told Miranda.
In his effort to get an interview with Chelsea Clinton, Mike Allen, Politico’s chief political reporter offered to provide questions (http://gawker.com/emails-show-politico-s-mike-allen-promised-positive-cov-1744201426) in advance, “precisely” agreed upon with a Hillary Clinton aide. “The interview would be ‘no-surprises’: I would work with you on topics, and would start with anything she wants to cover or make news on. Quicker than a network hit, and reaching an audience you care about with no risk,” Allen wrote the aide. After the email became public, Allen apologized and said he would never do what he offered to do in his email.
Hillary Clinton staffers described Maggie Haberman, then of Politico, as an ideal “friendly journalist (http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/10/09/maggie-haberman-friendly-journalist-hillary-clinton-campaign/)” with whom to place stories. “We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed,” writes one staffer in an email. Haberman now works for the New York Times. The emails were first reported in The Intercept.
Read the Intercept article by Glenn Greenwald and Lee Fang (https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/)
Salon
A Media Matters source told Daily Caller that Salon proved to be a “helpful” news outlet for getting its message across.
San Francisco Chronicle
A Media Matters source told Daily Caller that Joe Garofoli at the Chronicle “took a lot of our stuff.”

The Wall Street Journal
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it placed negative stories about Jeb Bush with the Wall Street Journal and other news outlets.
The Washington Post
Democratic National Committee officials discussed “placing” a story (https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6436) with the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent to put a positive spin on some bad news for Hillary Clinton. The goal was “to make sure the first story out of the gate is as helpful as possible,” according to a DNC official (https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12450). “But, the specific reporter is not as important as getting it to an outlet before the news breaks so we can help control the narrative on the front end. Otherwise this may likely get spun in a not-so-helpful way. We should also get Rep. [Elijah] Cummings on the phone with that reporter.” The email continues, “…can we please consider giving Sargent the first bite to get a good first story out there? Can I have him call you? We had been working him for weeks in general on writing up something positive, we think he’d play ball.”

Staffers at Media Matters counted on the liberal Plum Line, Sargent’s Washington Post blog, according to a source who spoke to Daily Caller. “Greg Sargent will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff,” claimed the source. “If you can’t get it anywhere else, Greg Sargent’s always game.”
“We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post],” the Media Matters source told Daily Caller.
The pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC American Bridge claimed it placed negative stories about Jeb Bush with the Washington Post and other news outlets.
The Strategy
A window into how political interests, including super PACs, work to influence and manipulate the news is found in an internal Clinton campaign memo published on Wikileaks this month. In it, the Hillary Clinton super PAC “Correct The Record” boasts it had placed 21 “strategic memos” with the media that “led to stories in a number of news outlets including National Journal, Politico, USA Today, MSNBC and The Hill.” Correct The Record has joined other pro-Hillary Clinton groups founded by Clinton surrogate David Brock, including Media Matters and the American Bridge super PAC, in attacking Clinton’s opponents. Correct The Record’s targets have included Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republican Donald Trump.


Correct The Record president Brad Woodhouse has repeatedly appeared in news interviews without the disclosure that he operates a Hillary Clinton super PAC that coordinates openly with the campaign, unlike any other super PAC.

Among other functions, the Correct The Record memo says it “arms more than 300 surrogates with facts and talking points to spread the message and the facts on cable and other news” and “deploy products targeted to specific audiences.”


One of the “products” is “pushback documents” distributed to “members of the media, key surrogates, pundits, opinion leaders” to refute “false information” about Clinton. The documents include “research analyses,” “talking points” and “blog-style posts made specifically for the web.” Other products are “media statements” and “positive media relations with Clinton beat reporters, producers and editors…Our communications team is constantly in touch with the media and provide, whether in our own voices or in the voices of surrogates, a constant stream of statements to the press on all things Clinton related. And because media relations isn’t just going on the record, some of our team’s most important work is killing bad stories before they ever get written.”



Under “Metrics,” the Correct The Record memo cites its mailing list of 960 members of the national media and 10,756 regional reporters in 28 states. It sends talking points and memos regularly to 369 televisions producers and bookers. It says its work has “impacted the framework for dialogue about 2016, Clinton, and her competitors.” The group says it has “engaged trusted names” to write opinion editorials for newspapers across the country. “Correct The Record has placed 132 op-eds nationally and in strategic local markets” and, since May 15, “helped write and place 36 op-eds across the country in a number of publications including Politico, Times Union, Huffington Post, CNN, Washington Blade, and New Jersey’s Bergen Record.”–Correct The Record internal memo



Correct The Record also says it’s conducted “over 900 on-the-record and off-the-record media interviews” and “identified 372 surrogates including influential and frequent pundits on broadcast and cable news for Presidential 2016 politics and provided them around 80 sets of talking points, background materials and briefings on topical issues” to defend Clinton and her record.

American Bridge

More information on how super PACs manipulate the news media is found in an internal memo written by Brock’s pro-Hillary American Bridge super PAC. It was also published by Wikileaks.
The opposition research group set up “war rooms” for the first time on site in states where its trackers were monitoring Republican candidates to “interact with reporters on site, and to cut and move footage more efficiently so we can break news before anyone else.” In other words, American Bridge uses its formidable resources to do one-sided investigative work and then peddles the product as “news” to reporters.


Apparently, it works. The American Bridge memo said its on-site war room in Wisconsin collected negative clips about Senator Ron Johnson and got them covered by Talking Points Memo, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, The Capital Times, The Hill, and Roll Call.


In the memo, American Bridge also bragged that CNN was receptive to its outreach. “CNN recently ran a feature story on our use of livestream technology.” Examples of the group’s rapid response efforts getting picked up by the press included “Jeb Bush’s comments on privatizing Social Security (June 2015), his comment that “all lives matter” (July 2015), Chris Christie jumping on Jeb Bush’s ‘work longer hours’ bandwagon (July 2015), and Rick Perry slamming Jeb’s economic growth record in Florida (July 2015).”


“Several of these were clipped, cut, and shared on social media and/or by press release while the candidates were still delivering the same speech,” read the American Bridge memo.
American Bridge said it “placed” negative stories about Bush with CNN, Washington Post, the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and several key Florida outlets. “Our tracking operation has also been key in undermining Jeb through a constant barrage of rapid response attacks.”


One month after the 2014 midterm elections, American Bridge released a “primer” to “define the field before the prospective candidates could define themselves for the electorate.” The group took credit for successfully marketing a negative media narrative on Scott Walker, leading to his downfall. “We developed a powerful narrative of cronyism, outsourcing, and looking out for the interests of big business over middle class families, which undercut his economic message,” said the group’s memo. It also took credit for “forcing the Kochs [conservative billionaire donors]…out of the shadows” and said an American Bridge report against the Kochs resulted in “a high-profile CNN story.”


These activities appear to be within the law. But these are just two of many groups working to influence the news. The breadth and scope of their operations confirms how important it is for news organizations to set up policies and systems to retain their independence.


More on all of this in my upcoming book, The Smear (https://www.amazon.com/Smear-Shady-Political-Operatives-Control/dp/0062468162/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=).

https://sharylattkisson.com/newsgate-2016/


I don't necessarily question the veracity of most of this stuff, but if this is as real as depicted, I have to question what the fuck is the GOP doing?

Are they asleep at the wheel? Are they doing it too and their emails don't leak? It's not like they don't have their own 'soros' in the likes of the Kochs and Adelsons...

This is utter political domination. Then again, maybe a lot of these outlets realized a long time ago that Trump is just another unelectable candidate and are hurrying to gain favor with the likely next administration.

[SnakeBoy]

I don't necessarily question the veracity of most of this stuff, but if this is as real as depicted, I have to question what the fuck is the GOP doing?

Are they asleep at the wheel? Are they doing it too and their emails don't leak? It's not like they don't have their own 'soros' in the likes of the Kochs and Adelsons...

This is utter political domination. Then again, maybe a lot of these outlets realized a long time ago that Trump is just another unelectable candidate and are hurrying to gain favor with the likely next administration.

They aren't asleep at the wheel. They are wandering around the parking lot, trying to figure out which car is theirs.

[DMC]

I don't necessarily question the veracity of most of this stuff, but if this is as real as depicted, I have to question what the fuck is the GOP doing?

Are they asleep at the wheel? Are they doing it too and their emails don't leak? It's not like they don't have their own 'soros' in the likes of the Kochs and Adelsons...

This is utter political domination. Then again, maybe a lot of these outlets realized a long time ago that Trump is just another unelectable candidate and are hurrying to gain favor with the likely next administration.

You see something that indicates group X is corrupt, so you are concerned about the corruption instead of group Y. I don't get it. Why not worry about group Y when you get some reports or evidence group Y has done something?

I mean, I get the likely symmetry of the two parties where corruption is concerned.

Media has a liberal bias and with Trump it's liberal bias on steroids because Trump represents an unknown with no party control over him. He's fucking dangerous as hell, and I think the media organizations realize it. Kicking a press member out because they wrote about you is a good way to endear yourself to the press.

Plus Hillary has spent her life sucking up to the media. Donald has spent his life sucking up to people like Hillary.

[ElNono]

You see something that indicates group X is corrupt, so you are concerned about the corruption instead of group Y. I don't get it. Why not worry about group Y when you get some reports or evidence group Y has done something?

I mean, I get the likely symmetry of the two parties where corruption is concerned.

Media has a liberal bias and with Trump it's liberal bias on steroids because Trump represents an unknown with no party control over him. He's fucking dangerous as hell, and I think the media organizations realize it. Kicking a press member out because they wrote about you is a good way to endear yourself to the press.

Plus Hillary has spent her life sucking up to the media. Donald has spent his life sucking up to people like Hillary.

My analysis is from the optics of a game to take over power. I don't doubt for a minute there's money exchanging hands, favors, made up bullshit, and a lot of the stuff mentioned in the article, and then some. The stakes are huge, only the naive would think either side won't do anything in their power, bordering the illegal, and if necessary even stepping through that line. I don't doubt it for a minute. The concern is probably more about what can come out and how it would look than actually the fact that was done.

I mentioned this before, but Shillary is such at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to trustworthiness and respectability, both as a politico and a person, I don't even think stories that try to further diminish her on that aspect hurt her anymore.

I'm actually pretty mad at the GOP for picking a guy that's probably one of the very few candidates that can actually manage to lose to her. And reading stories like this take me back to their 2012 election post-mortem, when they talked about building a serious IT department and digital infrastructure (and many other things they likely forgot about, like catering to women and minorities). I said a few years ago I wanted the GOP to win this election merely in the interest of democracy. Pendulum swings are healthy for it, it removes power entrenchment, but I continue to get baffled by the sheer incompetence of the GOP when it comes to something as basic as picking an electable candidate. Like I said before, stories like this also cast doubt if they actually listen or will ever learn from their own criticism. And that's really my concern. Barring major news, we're now looking at 12 years in the executive for the Dems, and I'm actually seriously wondering if the GOP is actually going to get their shit together for the next run, because 8 years of Shillary would be just too much.

(And BTW, the Democratic party should also be learning a lesson about this, even if they manage to win)

And apologies if this sounds like an empty take on media bias. I've talked about it before, and my opinion was always largely that media won't outright win you or lose you an election, if you have a solid candidate that hit the right notes (or you have a terrible incumbent that casts a long shadow over you or your party), those are probably way bigger tipping points in the overall, IMO. Now this election in particular, with the amazing suckitude and low bar of candidates, you could sell me that the media might be the tipping point.

[rmt]

Remember that the majority of Americans are not following the news the way this board is. Most probably don't even know who Pence and Kaine are and have just been tuning in these past few weeks (just in case for Trump's bad weeks :-)

IMO, government (both sides) has been so bad and so corrupt - you can see it as #1 fear in the other post - that's what has carried (an honest/sincere) Bernie and an outsider like Trump so in that sense it's not the repub establishment's fault - the voters just voted against them.

[mingus]

I'm happy to have a long discussion over the role of journalists and what constitutes collusion.

My point here is that this is common practice with politicians, athletes, celebrities, basically anyone who is interviewed for news content. So it's not much of a story as far as Hillary is concerned (though it will probably cast doubt on the neutrality of the journalist.)

I get athletes & celebrities but I can't believe you'd lump politics in there with them.

Also, IMO there's collusion whether intended or unintended on the part of politicians & "journalists" everywhere. Pundits on the left & right (usually far right/left) have their own bases that they regurgitate into the ass of their headless listeners/watchers, the Limbaughs, the Coulters, & too many to name on the left. The news media is supposed to make sense of the complexities of the world politics in this sense, but all it's doing is rendering it black & white.

[boutons_deux]

"GOP to win this election merely in the interest of democracy"

:lol holy shit :lol GOP? democracy? :lol

democracy is, has been totally dead in USA.

:lol holy shit :lol GOP? democracy? :lol

GOP is ripped now by its own decades-long cultivated, lied-to base of assholes who are REVOLTING because the GOP has not delivered what they want, "democratically" voted for.

[pgardn]

I get athletes & celebrities but I can't believe you'd lump politics in there with them.

Also, IMO there's collusion whether intended or unintended on the part of politicians & "journalists" everywhere. Pundits on the left & right (usually far right/left) have their own bases that they regurgitate into the ass of their headless listeners/watchers, the Limbaughs, the Coulters, & too many to name on the left. The news media is supposed to make sense of the complexities of the world politics in this sense, but all it's doing is rendering it black & white.

So you don't think any news outlet has any journalists that want to get an accurate story. You don't think there is any reason to attempt to give the most accurate description possible? I think you are wrong. In an age of information, it is a competitive advantage to give and seek accurate information. Everyone has some internal bias...But seeking accuracy,rather than an agenda, is a huge advantage. If you wish to be correct.

Even news outlets that have an agenda attempt to give accurate information that fits their agenda on occasion. Giving accurate information damning to the opposition is very useful.

This is one of many subjects that people wish to repeat because it is popular now. One candidate has tried to make the story of America falling apart and totally biased into a blanket theme that is hugely inaccurate. The other candidate has clearly tried to project power to hide her process of muscling a system. Of purposefully using lawyers to push boundaries of legality and feigning ignorance.

Many people are perfectly aware of the above but choose to emphasize one or another. And of course the paragraph above could use additions... They have been and will be supplied.

[DMC]

My analysis is from the optics of a game to take over power. I don't doubt for a minute there's money exchanging hands, favors, made up bullshit, and a lot of the stuff mentioned in the article, and then some. The stakes are huge, only the naive would think either side won't do anything in their power, bordering the illegal, and if necessary even stepping through that line. I don't doubt it for a minute. The concern is probably more about what can come out and how it would look than actually the fact that was done.

I mentioned this before, but Shillary is such at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to trustworthiness and respectability, both as a politico and a person, I don't even think stories that try to further diminish her on that aspect hurt her anymore.

I'm actually pretty mad at the GOP for picking a guy that's probably one of the very few candidates that can actually manage to lose to her. And reading stories like this take me back to their 2012 election post-mortem, when they talked about building a serious IT department and digital infrastructure (and many other things they likely forgot about, like catering to women and minorities). I said a few years ago I wanted the GOP to win this election merely in the interest of democracy. Pendulum swings are healthy for it, it removes power entrenchment, but I continue to get baffled by the sheer incompetence of the GOP when it comes to something as basic as picking an electable candidate. Like I said before, stories like this also cast doubt if they actually listen or will ever learn from their own criticism. And that's really my concern. Barring major news, we're now looking at 12 years in the executive for the Dems, and I'm actually seriously wondering if the GOP is actually going to get their shit together for the next run, because 8 years of Shillary would be just too much.

(And BTW, the Democratic party should also be learning a lesson about this, even if they manage to win)

And apologies if this sounds like an empty take on media bias. I've talked about it before, and my opinion was always largely that media won't outright win you or lose you an election, if you have a solid candidate that hit the right notes (or you have a terrible incumbent that casts a long shadow over you or your party), those are probably way bigger tipping points in the overall, IMO. Now this election in particular, with the amazing suckitude and low bar of candidates, you could sell me that the media might be the tipping point.

The majority of Americans never attend a rally. They get all of their information about a candidate from the media. Of course they can swing an election. Otherwise these candidates wouldn't spend years gathering funds to pay for advertising. When large media outlets paint a candidate in a negative or positive light more often than not, they are basically giving free political ads away for one candidate. After all, political ads are mostly bashing a competitor and elevating the candidate.

Hillary was the first lady, and that somehow qualified her for a State Department job and got her elected senator. She had enough free press over the past 30 years to not even need to campaign. Trump had his own show, a reality TV type thing, and he's a figure that is often in the press. Like Hillary he has basically zero qualifications to be the POTUS. No one knows who the 3rd and 4th party goobers are. That's because they get no press.