Patterico's Pontifications

5/17/2015

“Dear ABC News PR: Tell Us You Didn’t Shaft The Washington Free Beacon”

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:19 am



[guest post by Dana]

Eric Wemple of the Washington Post slammed ABC News for apparently shopping the Stephanopoulos-Clinton Foundation story to Politico in hopes of receiving a more favorable report rather than risk letting the conservative Washington Free Beacon break the story.

Every journalist lives in fear of a certain scenario: You have a news story, quite possibly an exclusive, on a significant public figure. You Google the keywords and a jumble of old links pops up; no one has written it! So you take your revelations to the public figure’s PR rep and ask whether your reporting is true and real. In making that inquiry, you relinquish a bit of control over your investigation; now someone outside of your news organization — a PR official — knows what you have. You have no choice but trust that the official doesn’t play any games with a prospective scoop.

Games may have been played yesterday in connection with the week’s resounding media story…

In short:

On Thursday morning, Dylan Byers of Politico broke the story about Stephanopoulos’s $50,000 $75,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation .

However, reporter Andrew Stiles of the Washington Free Beacon had already uncovered the donation (before 3:30 pm, Wednesday) and tweeted about having asked ABC for a statement:

✔@AndrewStilesUSA

I contacted ABC News last night for statement on Stephanopoulos donation to Clinton Foundation.
6:40 AM – 14 May 2015

Stiles had already emailed Washington Free Beacon’s editor-in-chief Matthew Continetti who had directed Stiles to “move on the story” and “directed a researcher to check whether Stephanopoulos had seeded any of his on-air work with disclosures about the donations.” However, turning up no evidence that Stephanopoulos had ever made a disclosure about the donation, the story was given a green light.

In response to Stiles’ inquiry, ABC News spokeswoman Heather Riley e-mailed him after 9 p.m., promising him “something.” She then wanted to know what time he was posting: “I want to make sure I get it to you in time.”

So Stiles and Continetti continued to wait for Riley’s statement.

Wemple notes:

Hear this, knee-jerk detractors of modern web journalism: Absent a comment from ABC News, Continetti & Co. decided to let the matter sit overnight. They just waited.

As there was still no statement from Riley, the Free Beacon was ready to post the next morning. Unfortunately, so was Dylan Byers of Politico:

When the Washington Free Beaconers put their heads together Thursday morning, there was still no comment from ABC News. “I say, ‘Let’s begin to move this story,’” recalls Continetti. The piece wasn’t complicated: A network news anchor had contributed to a charity run by the first family of the Democratic party and hadn’t told viewers when that charity emerged in news coverage. What was complicated was its landing. “Literally as we were about to hit ‘post,’ we are alerted to the Dylan Byers piece that just went up,” says Continetti, who moved to publish their piece without the ABC News statements. Those arrived later.

Wemple himself made inquiry to both ABC News and Dylan Byers at Politico:

Could Byers have simply converged on the same story at the same time as the Washington Free Beacon? Sure, but he’s not saying anything. “I can’t discuss sourcing,” he responds to the Erik Wemple Blog via e-mail.

Nor has ABC News responded to inquiries from the Erik Wemple Blog. Nor did ABC News respond to Politico media commentator Jack Shafer, who asked about the matter. Nor did ABC News respond to inquiries from the Washington Free Beacon[.]

So that makes three separate sets of questions to ABC News PR that ABC News PR has failed to answer. Answering questions is the job of ABC News PR.

What could possibly account for the network’s slow-walking approach to the Washington Free Beacon? Absent a response from ABC News, the Erik Wemple Blog would be forced to speculate about how the network perhaps wanted to retain greater control over the story; or speculate about how ABC News has an allergy to working with a conservative news site; or speculate about any number of other things. And we don’t speculate.

Continetti expressed concern for the bigger, long-term picture for conservative journalists:

“I’m trying to instill the value of reporting to a new generation of conservative reporters,” says Continetti. “What lesson do they draw when they do their due diligence and some hack PR agent goes to another outlet in order to control the story?”

Wemple concludes:

Silence is unacceptable here. ABC News has to do one of two things: Either apologize to the Washington Free Beacon for whatever precisely it did or explain how its actions meet the commonly acknowledged standards of the industry. Today Stephanopoulos issued his second apology for his evasions in the Clinton Foundation case, so that story may ebb in the coming weeks. Yet the Erik Wemple Blog is committed to keeping this unfinished business about the Washington Free Beacon in play until the network resolves it.

The Washington Free Beacon’s story published May 14, 2015 9:36 am: “ABC News Anchor George Stephanopoulos Donated $75,000 to Clinton Foundation”.

Politico’s story published May 14, 2015 9:24 am: “George Stephanopoulos discloses $75,000 contribution to Clinton Foundation”.

–Dana

41 Responses to ““Dear ABC News PR: Tell Us You Didn’t Shaft The Washington Free Beacon””

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. Disney and georgie fapfapoulos, they’re sleazy and unethical whores for Hillary Clinton and her nasty albeit potential historic old lady boobies

    i couldn’t be more disgusted

    happyfeet (831175)

  3. Funny how Stephanopoulos is as chitty-chatty as ever on this morning’s show like he hasn’t a care in the world. And Mitch McConnell is taking questions from him like nothing is up…

    Dana (86e864)

  4. Dylan Byers is a low-life, four-flushing gimp. If he even suspects that ABC has pulled this stuff he should be asking ABC to come clean. But he won’t, as it’s not in his self-interest.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  5. and, if he had a clue, Byers should be embarrassed that he was chosen to put this out there in the usual slanted, leftwing style that gives the benefit of ANY doubt to Steponpoupolous.

    But liberals don’t embarrass easy.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  6. They are not trustworthy. Neither the Democrats or their media wing. also referred to as the “Mainstream media.”

    Why ask ABC ? Get Stephanopolis or make that part of the story.

    ABC is already known for toadying to the Clintons with “The Path to 9/11.”

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  7. In my opinion, Dylan Byers looks far worse and less professional–showing a combination of being both gullible, and yet cunning –than even ABC news PR does. I mean ABC voluntarily dropping dime, a negative “scoop” on their own franchise star out of the blue? Gee, Dylan, you must be so proud. What a lucky lucky dog you are to be ” the one” they picked and knew they could count on to manage and cover their poo.

    elissa (76aa93)

  8. Interestingly, it wasn’t just the donation lack of disclosure that Stephanopoulos was involved with, but far, far more, and none of which ABC News nor Stephanopoulos himself disclosed, nor even felt obligated to:

    What ABC News’ top anchor has done is far different than the “honest mistake” ABC called it in a statement earlier this week.

    I asked ABC News about the fact that this information was yet to be disclosed to ABC viewers, and mostly they avoided my questions, releasing a statement that reads in full, “Yes, George made us aware that he was moderating these panels and that is absolutely within our guidelines. We know that he would be listed as a member — as all moderators are. He is in good company of scores of other journalists that have moderated these panels.”

    That, however, is not at all what the Clinton Foundation website says about CGI membership. Read for yourself. Whether ABC News will ultimately punish Stephanopoulos is unclear.


    If you believe there is no obligation, nor any thing untoward about involvements like this, why not err on the side of caution and be transparent lest anyone question it? Especially from a news organization which prides itself on honest and unbiased reporting.

    Dana (86e864)

  9. I bet poor little Ezra is silently crying foul that he didn’t get “the call” to serve the narrative.

    elissa (76aa93)

  10. ABC News should be shunned by every GOP candidate in the coming election cycle until Stephanopoulos is removed from any coverage of the 2016 elections.

    Sean (69ccc8)

  11. #10… yes… if THEY had a clue.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  12. Funny how Stephanopoulos is as chitty-chatty as ever on this morning’s show like he hasn’t a care in the world. And Mitch McConnell is taking questions from him like nothing is up…

    Our society has become so desensitized to what’s inappropriate, unethical or dishonest — and the MSM has grown so blatantly comfortable with all its biases (and is fully aware that the public knows about those biases, yet still loyally tunes into the TV news or flips open the printed page) — that the response of Bill-Clintonism from all corners of the nation (stretching from a Stephanopoulous to a McConnell) is now a given and to be expected.

    How much further the various forms of socio-political corruption will reach is anyone’s guess.

    Mark (cc1c30)

  13. It would have been so easy for Stephanopoulos to have protected himself at the outset of the interview with a throwaway line disclosing his contributions and ongoing association with the Clintons. It may have occasioned some criticism or raised a few eyebrows in light of his partisan bullying, but nothing like the stink attached to his non-disclosure.

    He’s certainly smart enough and politically savvy enough to have weighed the possible negative consequences of both approaches, yet he chose to take a very dangerous chance, one which could damage his credibility and reinforce the narrative of pervasive corruption surrounding all things Clinton.

    It’s a major miscalculation, based either on his expectation of Democrat noblesse oblige in the establishment media, or on the vaunted secrecy of the Clinton Foundation’s donor list.

    ropelight (4906c0)

  14. That is the major question , ins’t it? why didn’t Stephanopoulos just simply disclose
    before asking the question. Which really makes me wonder how many other conflicts-of-interest he has and the MSM (and all cable news) have.

    seeRpea (81fcfe)

  15. nice snark from JOM here, http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2015/05/alessandra-stanley-and-the-line-between-analysts-and-apologist.html

    Also, wasn’t there a blogger who got into trouble with the Federal gov’t for not disclosing
    a connection to something blogged about?

    seeRpea (81fcfe)

  16. If Mitch had any stones he would have cancelled at the last minute and dropped him in the poop. Every Rep should do that. But they won’t, of course.

    Gazzer (c1d25a)

  17. Keep in mind this story is set against the backdrop of Brian Williams and NBC News. Or a situation illustrating that standards have become so dumbed down that a news anchor (or merely even a glorified teleprompter reader) is caught lying through his teeth, but the way he should be dealt with continues to be up in the air. In today’s era, perhaps if Williams had murdered someone, NBC’s top brass might have felt they had no choice but to fire him.

    Mark (cc1c30)

  18. Good strategy, Gazzer. McConnell is too inadequate to act in that manner. That would mean punching back, putting them on notice and would be a good way for him to demonstrate that he understands what’s at stake and that he recognizes an opportunity when it presents itself… and Lord knows it wouldn’t ever occur to him.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  19. I dissent somewhat. Not about Stephy…but ABC is under absolutely no obligation to the Free Beacon to tell them anything.
    This was the PR office. It is there job to make ABC look good. So you are attacking them for doing their job.

    If this was the legal counsel of ABC…but even they would be free to disclose to whom they wished. This is not a government inquiry.

    [Any unnecessary grumpiness can be blamed on US Airways. I am currently hanging around Richmond Airport because they canceled my flight this morning. Have to cross my fingers that I make the new connection to Miami.]

    kishnevi (adea75)

  20. Sean @10 – Did you feel that ABC should be shunned when it didn’t fire George Will for helping coach Reagan for his debate with Carter in 1980? Should Newscorp or Newsmax refuse to cover the Clinton campaign because both corporations donated to the Clinton Foundation? Or should Newscorp refuse to cover the Bush campaign because it donated to the GWB Institute?

    Jonny Scrum-half (b89836)

  21. Scrotology… let’s get it ALL aired out… OpenSecrets…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  22. Every single founding member of Politico was also a charter member of Ezra Klein’s email propaganda cabal “Journolist,” which was designed to “manage” the news by agreeing in secret how to cover stories so that “bare facts” would not “confuse” readers who might then get the right idea about Obama specifically and Democrats and leftists generally. Klein admitted the list never really went away. This is why you still see the same exact terms and phrases in stories appearing in different publications or websites: the fix is (still) in.

    Politico itself is only able to meet payroll by selling a “news digest” to the White House and several other Executive branch agencies for six figures annually each. IOW, they send summaries of the days news stories and links, and get paid outrageously for them. No wonder their coverage of All Things Obama is so favorable!

    So anyone who takes anything offered by Politico at face value is credulous and gullible at best.

    – –

    Notice that even in his “apology,” Stephanopoulos disclosed only what was already known to us; he still didn’t mention his greater involvement, which was detailed in a column by Schweizer yesterday as including being an exclusive Foundation “Member” for years, attending numerous functions, moderating several panels, and even judging a contest with Chelsea.

    This was not just some “charity” he gave money. His involvement is long-standing and very deep, and there is no way he can cover any aspect of the presidential race impartially.

    Estragon (ada867)

  23. The fact that the media still refer to the Clinton Foundation as a charity is despicable and diminishes every true charity out there.
    Like I said on the other thread, if a smart guy like George really, truly wants to fight deforestation he’d research the issue and find a group just down the street from him that puts 90% of donations into key points in that fight. http://www.give.org/charity-reviews/national/environment/rainforest-alliance-in-new-york-ny-2096 Instead he gave money that goes to pay for Bill to make a trip down to Brazil where Bill can tell some Brazilian models that he can get them in touch with the people repping Victoria’s Secret.
    He raises awareness by saying the word “deforestation two or three times to the media before retiring to his 5 star hotel suite to help the young ladies with their careers

    steveg (fed1c9)

  24. ==I dissent somewhat. Not about Stephy…but ABC is under absolutely no obligation to the Free Beacon to tell them anything. This was the PR office. It is there job to make ABC look good. So you are attacking them for doing their job.==

    Kishnevi, I might agree with you about this were it not for the fact that ABC PR DID respond to WFB, and said they’d get back to them and promised them “something”, and even asked for their publish time. This overture and feint by ABC kept the WFB from publishing first with a what would have been a perfectly legitimate “ABC did not respond as of publication time” caveat. What ABC did is not considered (you’ll forgive me) “kosher” behavior by companies which have received a formal media inquiry. They either 1. ignore the inquiry completely, or 2. answer the inquiry with spin. They don’t stall and then feed the scoop to some other media organ. I’ve been involved in a number of “on deadline” media inquiries at my company, and Wemple is spot on with his criticism of ABC for not comporting themselves under industry standard here.

    elissa (76aa93)

  25. Johnny half-sack – that was cute.

    JD (3b5483)

  26. as pointed out by my friend, ABC is not alone in this:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/05/fly_specks_on_the_debate_commission_table.html

    narciso (ee1f88)

  27. Funny how Stephanopoulos is as chitty-chatty as ever on this morning’s show like he hasn’t a care in the world. And Mitch McConnell is taking questions from him like nothing is up…

    The thread should have ended right there. This is why we can’t have nice things.

    Gazzer (c1d25a)

  28. the GOPe’s need those shock collars like in that Star Trek episode, of course the glutton for punishment would likely be fatal, but those are the breaksm

    narciso (ee1f88)

  29. Turns out Riley worked for three years in the WH during the Clinton era. It’s a revolving door between federal civil service and the media. http://freebeacon.com/politics/abc-news-spokesperson-at-center-of-stephanopoulos-scandal-worked-in-clinton-white-house/

    Dave (e1f266)

  30. “Heather Riley, spokeswoman for ABC News programs Good Morning America and This Week, worked in the White House press office from 1997 to 2000, according to her LinkedIn profile, and is a member of the Facebook group “(Bill) Clinton Administration Alumni.” White House records show that Riley’s duties included serving as a press contact for then-First Lady Hillary Clinton.

    Prior to joining ABC News, Riley worked at MSNBC, CNN, and as a senior director of brand communications for Rodale, Inc., the publishing company best known for wellness magazines such as Men’s Health. Rodale also published former Vice President Al Gore’s best-selling global warming book, An Inconvenient Truth.”

    JD (3b5483)

  31. “…or explain how its actions meet the commonly acknowledged
    standards of the industry.” They have standards? What a surprise!
    (Not to be confused with ethics, I assume.)

    GKH (fed5a3)

  32. @ kishnevi,

    I dissent somewhat. Not about Stephy…but ABC is under absolutely no obligation to the Free Beacon to tell them anything.

    This was the PR office. It is there job to make ABC look good. So you are attacking them for doing their job.

    If this was the legal counsel of ABC…but even they would be free to disclose to whom they wished. This is not a government inquiry.

    Coupled with Elissa’s thoughtful response at 24, I would add that if they were looking for a favorable report, doesn’t that then confirm biased reporting, not just from Stephanopoulos (which no one should be surprised by) but also by ABC News and company in its entirety? If they shopped it to get a soft-pedal and knew Politico would respond accordingly, then they’ve also confirmed the bias of Politico. Again, no real surprise, but I don’t think we should be cavalier and decide oh, well, they’re just doing their job without further acknowledgement of their ignoring industry standards and possbly unethical behaviors.

    Dana (86e864)

  33. And there is this:

    During the 15 years we worked for ABC News we remember that we had to sign a yearly disclosure of gifts worth more than $25 and contributions. Perhaps these documents no longer exist in the muddled world of TV news. We have frequently written about ethical standards, or lack thereof, in the media. After The Rolling Stone and NBC debacles, we emphasized the need for accuracy and transparency rather than objectivity, fairness, balance and neutrality. For more details, see here. We hope the contribution story has legs. It’s time we look behind the curtain.

    Dana (86e864)

  34. the point of ABC News is to promote Democratic talking points

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2014/01/24/abc-reports-al-qaedas-resurgance-iraq-ignores-obamas-brag-they-were-path

    you can also look at Brian Ross, who ‘burned’ our black sites, where we hiding AQ detainees,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  35. basically it’s her shtick

    http://newsbusters.org/journalists/martha-raddatz

    narciso (ee1f88)

  36. @ gazer,

    If Mitch had any stones he would have cancelled at the last minute and dropped him in the poop. Every Rep should do that. But they won’t, of course they won’t


    I think they should go on and take full advantage of the air time and say something like, “Thank you for having me on this morning, George, but I would like to make one thing perfectly clear: I want your audience to know that you are not an objective reporter and that there is a built-in bias to your work and therefore cannot be relied upon as plain truth. Having been Clinton’s right hand was one thing, but undisclosed donations to the foundation and being on the board speak to an ongoing preference and conflict of interest in reporting on matters of politics. “

    Dana (86e864)

  37. Remember, he only ‘fessed up because he was found out. Just like his previous boss. He learned at the feet of the master.

    Dana (86e864)

  38. Dana, that right there is prolly why Ted Cruz, or Rubio for that matter, will never be invited on Georgie’s little show. Sadly.

    Gazzer (c1d25a)

  39. 29. Turns out Riley worked for three years in the WH during the Clinton era. It’s a revolving door between federal civil service and the media. http://freebeacon.com/politics/abc-news-spokesperson-at-center-of-stephanopoulos-scandal-worked-in-clinton-white-house/

    Dave (e1f266) — 5/17/2015 @ 4:27 pm

    She was never in the civil service. She was a political operative. She still is a political operative. It’s really a revolving door between a Democratic campaign/WH staff and the media.

    And outside of a few articles at small news outlets you have to get your news from the British press.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3083620/George-Stephanopoulos-s-ABC-spokeswoman-Clinton-employee-Network-VP-center-donation-crisis-worked-Bill-s-White-House-press-office.html#ixzz3aTqQHWy1

    Because all the other people in the US LHMFM are political operatives and Clinton campaign workers.

    https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/599291141515710464

    David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog

    ex-Clinton staffer sez ex-Clinton staffer’s donation to Clintons won’t bias coverage of Clinton campaign run by ex-Clinton staffer’s staffer

    Steve57 (fb1453)

  40. 16. …This was the PR office. It is there job to make ABC look good. So you are attacking them for doing their job…

    kishnevi (adea75) — 5/17/2015 @ 12:24 pm

    No, her job is to respond to media inquiries. That’s actually in her job description.

    Heather Riley is a vice president of communications at the network, in charge of handling media requests for ‘This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ‘Good Morning America,’ ‘World News Tonight’ ‘Nightline’ and ’20/20.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3083620/George-Stephanopoulos-s-ABC-spokeswoman-Clinton-employee-Network-VP-center-donation-crisis-worked-Bill-s-White-House-press-office.html#ixzz3aVqgdOw2
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    That’s why she responded initially and said she would get the Washington Free Beacon “something.” Her job is make ABC news look as good as possible, to be strategic in her communications, but to also to build trust with her public. In this case her public is the media.

    I have friends who got out of journalism and went into PR, and they had to manage communications with the media in the course of real disasters. And what you can not do is simply lie and stonewall the press.

    Unless you think making your organization look like a bunch of lying, corrupt crapweasels is making them “look good.”

    That’s exactly what Heather Riley did in this case. And if ABC doesn’t fire her then that means that the management at ABC are a bunch of lying, corrupt crapweasels. That means they approved of her actions before she demonstrated she’s just as unethical as Stephanopolous himself.

    Eric Wemple gets it.

    Silence is unacceptable here. ABC News has to do one of two things: Either apologize to the Washington Free Beacon for whatever precisely it did or explain how its actions meet the commonly acknowledged standards of the industry.

    You have a strange understanding of what it means to “make ABC look good,” kishnevi. I wouldn’t think my PR person was doing her job if she made me look like a hypocritical s***heel who doesn’t live up to the ethical standards of my profession.

    Steve57 (fb1453)

  41. Dana @36, I agree wholeheartedly. If I were a Republican candidate I’d go on with him every chance I got and make the interview entirely about his dishonesty, conflicts of interest, that he’s still a Democratic party operative working for Hillary!, and her corruption.

    I wouldn’t let ABC bury this, as they’re clearly trying to do, so anybody who watches their show will go to the polls as a LIV.

    Steve57 (fb1453)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0901 secs.