As we’ve learned from the ongoing releases from Wikileaks, the media is truly another arm of the Hillary Clinton campaign. We know DNC chair Donna Brazile leaked questions to Hillary prior to her town hall debate with Bernie Sanders during the Democrat primary. We learned Clinton’s staff has held “off the record-cocktail parties” with reporters from CNN, NBC, CBS, NYT, MSNBC, and others. We also learned that in the past Hillary had been given veto power on a story about her in the New York Times, among other shady dealing with the Times. The Clinton camp also placed a story with the Times, and coordinated an attack strategy against Trump with them.
However it’s not just the Clinton campaign colluding with the media. Between scandal and FBI investigation, the Clinton Foundation is trying to keep control of the narrative as well. But they’re not having nearly as much success in that regard. As the Washington Examiner reported, Making their own claims of media bias, the Clinton Foundation has lashed out at the millennial news site Fusion for running a sharply critical investigative story about Bill Clinton’s lackluster efforts in Colombia, charging that the reporter doesn’t like the Clintons.
But in an unexpected rebuff, the website backed by pro-Clinton Univision and one that features Donald Trump critic Jorge Ramos as a columnist, refused to back down and kill the Monday story headlined, “The Clinton Foundation left a toxic legacy in Colombia.”
In a letter to Fusion and Univision executives, provided to Secrets, the Foundation slapped reporter Ken Silverstein as anti-Clinton and demanded the story be pulled down.
“We’re asking Fusion to remove this story, at least until your own editors have had a chance to fact check it, or make it clear that this is an opinion piece and provide us the opportunity to respond with our own opinion piece,” wrote Craig Minassian of the Foundation.
The investigation into Clinton’s dealings in Colombia was funded by the American Media Institute. It documented how the Foundation’s promises to help small businesses and the poor fell far short.
It also detailed how Bill Clinton opened doors for a Foundation mega-donor in the country where he and Hillary Clinton knew many leaders.
“As you may know, Ken Silverstein, the author of this story has a long, public record of anti-Clinton bias, vulgar tweets, unfounded attacks against the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family that violate the most basic standards of unbiased journalism,” wrote Minassian, who attacked some of the reporter’s tweets.
After the letter was received, Fusion kept the story up and added a simple line at the beginning: “This article is being updated to include comments that Fusion received from the Clinton Foundation after it was first published.”
The headline to the article has since been revised to “The Clinton Foundation left a toxic legacy in Columbia, critics say.” Who else but critics would’ve said such things in the first place? There’s a reason why the Foundation couldn’t be bothered to actually reference any factual inaccuracies, and instead requested that the article be removed.
[Note: This post was written by The Analytical Economist]