Honest journalism is dead indeed. Their grave lies beside the honest, open politicians.
It seems the only way The New York Times can get interviews with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is if they offer up veto power on any of their articles concerning the Hillz.
According to Lifezette.com:
Hillary Clinton spent time in summer 2015 with The New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich and made a crack about 2008 Republican presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
But the remark didn’t make it into the long profile. Leibovich agreed to give the Clinton campaign veto power over the statements she made.
The revelation comes in Part III of a massive email release from WikiLeaks.
Leibovich evidently gave the campaign the ability to ax quotes as part of a deal for access…
…In the 42nd paragraph of the 54-paragraph story, Leibochich explained the deal: “In early July, after much back and forth with the campaign and reluctance on my part, I decided to take the campaign up on its offer of an off-the-record conversation with Clinton. I figured I would use the opportunity at Bretton Woods to ask Clinton directly for an interview or at least to let me do part of our conversation on the record. She chose the latter.”
But the disclosure did not exactly specify Clinton and her team would be allowed to determine, retroactively, which parts of the conversation were on or off the record.
The Clinton camp, specifically communications director Jennifer Palmieri, objected to Leibochich using some of Hillary’s quotes ranging from Sarah Palin to gay rights.
The liberal media has stood with the Clinton campaign during the presidential run and polished her image as best they can.
This surely will not stop if she is elected.
How much more egregious will the behavior of the liberal media become?
Will favors for the Clinton campaign like polishing up her character and dismissing inappropriate quotes be upgraded to censorship and criminal corruption if the Hillz wins?
(via: The Federalist Papers)