Suuuuuuuuuuuulzberger, you got some splainin' to do!
Posted on 06/09/2015 3:46:46 AM PDT by elhombrelibre
The New York Times is clamming up about the specific date Bill and Hillary Clinton contributed $100,000 to the paper’s charity group in 2008, but denies the donation played a role in its coverage and endorsement of Clinton in the Democratic primaries that year.
The Washington Free Beacon reported on Sunday that the Clinton Family Foundation, a little-known philanthropic organization controlled by the Clintons, donated $100,000 to the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund in 2008. The charity is administered by the paper and run by top brass at the Times Company.
On Jan. 25, 2008, the Times endorsed Hillary Clinton over challengers Barack Obama and John Edwards. At the time there were reports that the editorial board had been leaning toward endorsing Obama but switched after then-publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. intervened in favor of Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
These “news” outlets aren’t even news outlets. They are literally propaganda machines for the left, and that is all.
The entire structure of a tyrannical country is IN place right now, and they are flexing their systems muscles.
Anyone that thinks the left will not disappear hundreds of people one day that speak the truth, and clamp down on all our freedoms while burning the constitution is delusional. They have their “magic” in place, right now. They are simply testing its effectiveness during this administration, and they will tweak it for the next chance they get.
Oh, come on! Ever look at the Times’ bottom line? If ever there was a charity case, it’s that rag.
Whoever the Times endorses,
Im voting against.
What does the NY Times have to hide?
Suuuuuuuuuuuulzberger, you got some splainin' to do!
clintoons use bribes as tax deductible donations from their “foundation”.... CRIMINAL FRAUD TAX EVASION BRIBERY
but the times is nothing but ussa PRAVDA to begin with.
A liberal RAG... pandering to the libtards...
Good. That free us to make any assumption we want.
Generally, if you go back and review history....the ‘news’ outlets have not been such in over 150 years. They’ve generally been propaganda devices for lobbyists and parties. The fact that you can get ninety-percent of your real news via the internet today....lessens the value of your state or regional newspaper. All are going bankrupt, and asking themselves why. Basically....you want raw news, which they can’t really give you (nor have they ever given you such).
Ministries of Socialist Propaganda. Perhaps Pravda will do an expose on them.
That’s not necessarily true. The left has been buying/lobbying, and getting friends and family into high positions in media for about 20 years now.
I remember when the news used to report on democrat crimes. Remember slick willy? He would not be impeached today , tell me why is that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.