From the Public Editor of the New York Times today:
Lately, these criticisms have been focused on The Times’s coverage of the Clinton Foundation, the $2 billion charity that is generously supported by foreign governments — sometimes with interests before the United States. Media critics and many readers complain that The Times has come up dry in looking at whether donors got special treatment from the Clinton State Department. Why would The Times overplay its hand? Under the false balance theory, to show that it’s equally tough on Clinton and Trump.From the New York Times, April 23, 2015:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium DealFrom the story:
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.I trust the public editor of the New York Times will correct her error -- and perhaps start reading the newspaper.
Or at least Google it.
Want more fun at the media's expense using real quotes? Read my new book, "Trump the Press: Don Surber's take on how the pundits blew the 2016 Republican race."
Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space. It is a subsidiary of Amazon.
The book also available in Kindle and as a paperback on Amazon.
Autographed copies area available. Email me at DonSurber@GMail.com for details.