So they admit here that they choose journalists who are read by other journalists, who will then spread narratives within journalism, and that’s how they get everybody on the same page, with the same phraseology and the same take on everything. “We have a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico over the last year. We’ve had here tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed. While we should have a larger conversation in the future about a broad strategy for reengaging the beat press that covers [Hillary], for this we think that we can achieve our objective and do the most shaping by going to Maggie.”
And she’s just one of 65.
Oh, and she should be totally embarrassed! She should be livid at these people. She should be angry as hell for her reputation and her integrity now being called into question. And there’s no anger. By the way, this dinner invitation and the 65 journalists? It was out two or three weeks ago. That’s how long it’s been out. It didn’t cause a volcano. The journalists are not ashamed. They’re proud! The journalists are honored to have been on the guest list. But you’re right: They should all be livid that this has been exposed, that they’re not journalists, that they’re hacks.
So it’s conclusive beyond any doubt, folks, that, when you watch the news, you are watching the Clinton campaign. Here’s a list of the “Progressive Helpers” and “Columnists/Pundits” that the Clinton campaign has that they are considered friendly and will place narratives for them in columns and news stories. You want to hear some of the names? This is in the Podesta email dump from WikiLeaks. And, again, these people come from internal memos the Hillary campaign. These are the people that are sympathetic.
They’ve had them to dinner. They’ve been invited to Podesta’s house. These are the people who, if we need to get a narrative established about Trump or about Hillary, these people will do it for us. “Dan Balz,” Washington Post. “Wolf Blitzer,” CNN. “Gloria Borger,” CNN. “Mika Brezinski [sic],” MSNBC. “David Brooks,” New York Times. The “conservative columnist” for the New York Times is considered a great resource for the Clinton campaign to place a narrative. “Gail Collins,” New York Times.
“John Dickerson”, CBS. “EJ Dionne,” junior, Washington Post. “Maureen Dowd,” New York Times. “Ronan Farrow,” at the time MSNBC. “Howard Fineman,” MSNBC. “Ron Fournier.” Now, he’s at National Journal and a number of other places, but Fournier has been all over Hillary in the early stages of this campaign telling everybody that she’s gonna go nowhere if she doesn’t stop lying.
looks like she added something like a disclaimer to her last thread unroll - “my opinions, blah blah”..