NY Times & Fox News Secure Access to Anti-Hillary Opposition Research (CBA, ABC WaPost Passed)

[big_dog]

The New York Times report on a new anti-Hillary Clinton book points out that the Times and Fox News have both secured deals to gain access to the author’s wealth of anti-Clinton opposition research. Peter Schweizer‘s Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich is an extensive investigation into the controversial donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities. Schweizer is a conservative writer who serves as president of the Government Accountability Institute and is a fellow at the Hoover Institution.

The book, due out May 5, 2015 through Harper publishing, asserts that some of the foreign benefactors received favors or preferential treatment from Clinton’s State Department in return for their generous donations. While previous anti-Clinton books have been easily dismissed by her camp as “propaganda” — one from Edward Klein and another from National Review‘s Daniel Halper — the Times noted that Clinton Cash has gained traction with major media outlets considered ideological opposites:

“Clinton Cash” is potentially more unsettling, both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book. Politico media reporter Dylan Byers followed up on that lead and discovered that several major outlets also passed up on access to Schweizer’s research: [T]he Times’ decision to partner with a partisan researcher has raised a few eyebrows in that paper’s newsroom, where some reporters view the agreement as unusual, sources there said. Still others defended the agreement, noting that it was no different from using a campaign’s opposition research to inform one’s reporting — so long as that research is fact-checked and vetted.

On Monday, a source with knowledge of the arrangements told the On Media blog that The Washington Post did not have an exclusive arrangment [sic] with Schweizer, and had turned down such an offer. The same source said that CBS’ “60 Minutes” and ABC News also turned down offers for similar exclusive access to portions of the book’s contents. Spokespeople from the Post, ’60 Minutes’ and ABC did not immediately respond to requests for comment. One of the big secrets of the media business is that many major stories and tips come via opposition researchers.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/ny-times-and-fox-news-secure-access-to-clinton-opposition-research/

[leftofcool]

1. And the sky is blue.

[QuestionAlways]

2. The Clinton Foundation is a CHARITY

[Kingofalldems]

3. Author is a right winger who makes things up.

Apparently OK with you though, since this is your 2nd OP referencing this book.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141071094

[JoePhilly]

4. Whitewater by another name. meh.

[karynnj]

5. Interesting that 60 minutes turned this down - they were the media that gave credibility to his

insider trading by Congress. That "analysis" led to the insider trading bill for congress that really did very little -- however the entire story damaged the already bad image of Congress.


It sounds like his "analysis" on this is similar to his analysis then. For instance, he called any Congressperson/Senator on any set of transactions where they bought a healthcare stock in 2009 AND sold it in 2010 for a profit. I don't think I need to link a graph of the DJIA to prove that profits made on anything bought in 2009 and sold in 2010 are not really a surprise! (This before pointing out that even in fall 2009 there was no certainty of a bill passing - much less what would be in it. (He did the same with purchases of drug/healthcare stocks in 2003 (when Bush passed the drug benefit part of Medicare. On both of these, he went mostly after Democrats arguing that they were the ones creating the plan -- even though in 2003, the Republicans controlled both Houses and the Presidency.

What he also had was a thin veneer of things that really did look like insider trading - especially by one Republican Congressman. Many legislators, many with their stocks in blind trusts, put out statements, but none got anywhere near the attention of the book itself.

This book, like the Corsi books on both Obama and Kerry, seem to operate on the same principle - usually stated as "where there is smoke, there is fire". The idea that there is enough there to write an entire book on impresses some. It also means that the book can function as a cluster bomb - setting off hundreds of attacks simultaneously. The reaction of both teams was actually quite similar. In both cases, within a day of the book coming out, each issued long (more than 30 pages) lists of lies or mistakes. The response of the media ended up being key. You would expect that, if the target, can prove, as they did, that there are a large numbers of "errors", that the entire source would be discredited.

In Kerry's case, it was media laziness (or complicity) because the official NAVY record backed Kerry 100% - and instead of asking the liars for any proof, they demanded JK disprove things made up - and as his team did, they simply highlighted the next 10 or so charges. It seemed no amount of proven lies were enough. The truism that the truth is the best defense was clearly not adequate when the media was enjoying playing with the colorful SBVT.

In Obama's case, he had the advantage that by 2008, in the mainstream it was pretty accepted that JK had been lied about, even as they never admitted their own role. That Corsi, a coauthor of the book on Kerry, was the author of this piece of trash, helped Obama limit its effectiveness. (Sadly, in both cases, there are STILL a small group of RW people who swear by those stories) Not to mention, in that case, they went after his birth certificate - something everyone understands easily.

Here, the question will be what the Washington Post and NYT opt to do with the material. It is very good that many of Sweitzer's other works are being debunked now. The sad thing is that - to my knowledge - there was not a good take down on the Insider Trading book that 60 minutes gave credibility to. That unfortunately is the work that in many ways is the most similar to this.

Part of the problem was that on both the right and the left the idea that Congressmen/Senators would use their position to make money is credible. Remember that even President Obama added a call for a bill against this in his SOTU speech. I remember that there was outrage here - not against the book, but against Congress. For EVERYONE, the best response was to make a definitive law against something that many already thought illegal -- which was then watered down by the Republican House. So, this means that they can claim that the book and the 60 minutes alerted the public and the response was a call to clean this up - and a bill was passed.

I suspect that this will be something that will do little to damage Hillary Clinton. I suspect that this will seem "old news". I suspect that, true or not, many Republicans will believe it and add it to the list they already have of where they claim the Clintons cut corners ethically. However, these are the people she was not likely to have had more than a 1% chance of winning over -- anymore than any of us could be won over by Scott Walker!

For Democrats, I suspect many will consider it just another in a long list of smears and others will consider it Clinton baggage, but consider that having HRC is worth it. Her primary race (if you can even call it a race) is unlikely to be greatly impacted by this. Consider that we certainly knew even in the early primaries the baggage Bill Clinton had and he still became the nominee and that was in a close contest where the nominee was not set until June.

I do think that it is obvious that, like the insider trading charge, this will simultaneously be out as a "scholarly" (!) book and "explained" in some of the most trusted parts of the media. I hope that HRC stayed well within the lines of the agreement she made before becoming Secretary of State. If so, that agreement and her compliance with it may be her best defense - in which case thanks is due for Obama's team requiring it.

[davidpdx]

9. I think 60 Minutes may have turned it down because they got bitten in the ass by their own

political reporting and decided it wasn't worth it. If so, it was a good decision. Their credibility was shot to shit after the Laura Logan story on Benghazi.

[karynnj]

10. that was what I was implying

60 minutes got huge credit for their insider trading show and it led to legislation. However it was based on shoddy research and gave credibility where it was not due. I was wondering if they might think they dodged a bullet there due to the fact most people already believed there was a problem.

[yellowcanine]

6. "controversial donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities."

Ah, the catch all word "controversial." Can't argue with it, because after all, we are talking about it, which makes it "controversial." Investigate the "controversy!"

[Persondem]

7. I am curious as to how much Schweizer is getting for these exclusives?

I'd be willing to bet he's getting a pile of Schweizer cash.

[Sunlei]

8. whats new? fox has always had to buy 'news' from others or say what republicans allow.