Kellyanne Conway massacres Todd!


Profiles in lack of competence:
Ever since the 1960s, Americans have heard repeated claims concerning press corps bias.

It's a perfectly sensible type of discussion. Individual journalists can exhibit, or can seem to exhibit, various types of bias. All too often, the mainstream press corps has exhibited apparent types of bias collectively, as a group.

We often hear complaints about bias. Much less frequently, we see discussions of press corps competence.

That said, major journalists often display a remarkable lack of basic intellectual / journalistic skill. For starters, consider the remarkable recent column by the New York Times' new public editor.

The column, by public editor Liz Spayd, appeared on Sunday, September 11. The column has been widely criticized but not, we think, quite enough.

Spayd's column dealt with complaints from readers. Those readers allege that the Times has been exhibiting "false balance" in its treatment of Candidates Clinton and Trump.

Whatever one thinks of that allegation, Spayd's analysis was remarkable. She offered a rather fuzzy definition of that term, then offered this remarkable dismissal of the complaints she has received from readers of the Times:
SPAYD (9/11/16): The problem with false balance doctrine is that it masquerades as rational thinking. What the critics really want is for journalists to apply their own moral and ideological judgments to the candidates. Take one example. Suppose journalists deem Clinton’s use of private email servers a minor offense compared with Trump inciting Russia to influence an American election by hacking into computers—remember that? Is the next step for a paternalistic media to barely cover Clinton’s email so that the public isn’t confused about what’s more important? Should her email saga be covered at all? It’s a slippery slope.
Good lord! In those highlighted sentences, Spayd dismisses all these complaints on the basis that the complaints were driven by partisan motives. She turns the complaints into a "doctrine"—a doctrine driven by partisan preference for Candidate Clinton.

She then suggests that the readers who have complained are completely irrational. If they think Trump's transgressions have been under-covered, that must mean that they don't want Clinton's emails mentioned at all! Spayd doesn't quote any example in which a reader actually said such a thing. She simply imagines this request, using it as a way to dismiss all "false balance" complaints.

When we read that column, we were amazed to think that the person who wrote it has risen so high in the press corps. Today, Spayd holds a high-profile post at the New York Times. In her previous two incarnations, she was managing editor of the Washington Post, then served as editor and publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review!

How could a person with that resume possibly write a column like that? Let's put that a different way: How could a person with that level of skill possibly have attained such posts in the upper-end press corps?

In fairness, everyone can have a bad day. That said, Spayd's sneering column helps highlight the lack of intellectual skill commonly seen in the press corps.

Then too, there's the lack of journalistic skill. On Sunday's Meet the Press, Chuck Todd put that shortfall on startling display as he tried to interview Donald Trump's campaign chairman.

Todd attempted to interview Kellyanne Conway about Candidate Trump's five years as king of the birthers. Conway responded by chopping Todd to bits and leaving him for dead.

Conway's reaction to every question was perfectly predictable. She spent two or three seconds pivoting away from Todd's questions about Candidate Trump, then delivered critical orations concerning Candidate Clinton.

At some point, an interviewer has to tell such a guest to stop. He has to insist that she stop discussing the other guy and answer his actual questions about the person she represents.

Chuck Todd never did that. He kept letting Conway ignore the behavior of Candidate Trump while making accusations about Candidate Clinton, some of which were perhaps less than thoroughly accurate.

How bad was Todd's performance? In this, the very first exchange, we see one of the worst journalistic performances in the long, sometimes undistinguished history of the "Sunday shows:"
TODD (9/18/16): All right. Let me start with Friday's news first. How and when did Donald Trump conclude that the president was born in the United States?

CONWAY: You will have to ask him that. That's a personal decision. But we heard very clearly the three things he said on his own timeline in his own terms on Friday:

Number one, that associates of the Clinton campaign started this birtherism question in 2007. Mark Penn in a famous memo questioning President—Senator Obama's American roots.

The Iowa volunteer coordinator and, then, of course, as the McClatchy D.C. bureau chief at the time, now former, Chuck, has confirmed that Sid Blumenthal, big Clinton confidant, on the payroll for The Clinton Foundation, went and told him that president—oh, Senator Obama was born in Kenya. And in fact, they sent somebody to Africa to check it out. So this—

You know, Donald Trump was not running for president against Barack Obama in a very bruising, vicious primary in 2008. That was Hillary Clinton.

Number two, Donald Trump said he put this to rest. Hillary Clinton couldn't close it, get the information he did.

And number three, you heard him say that President Obama was born in this country, period. And he is moving on to all the things he talked about this week, tax reform, child care tax credits. We got the endorsement of the FOP, the Fraternal Order of Police, huge endorsement. They did not endorse anybody four years ago.

They endorsed the more popular, more likable Clinton in 1996. And so we're very happy with developments like that.

TODD: I guess— What I'm curious about, though, is who cares about the Clinton incident?

Donald Trump, for five years, perpetuated this. This has been arguably part of his political identity for the last five years. So what difference does it make whether Clinton does it? Why do two wrongs make a right in this case?

Let's talk about— Forget the Clinton incident for a minute. Why did he perpetuate it for five years after some associates from Hillary Clinton in your words?
Good God! Journalistically, that exchange is stunning. For the full transcript, click here.

As noted, Conway spent about two seconds on the rather obvious question she had been asked. She said she didn't know how the candidate she represents reached the new conclusion he had just announced.

In all honesty, this first Q-and-A should have ended right there. A skillful interviewer would have asked Conway why she can't answer a basic question about a major announcement her candidate had just delivered.

Todd displayed no such skill. Instead, Conway proceeded to deliver an oration about the other candidate. Todd was willing to listen, then seemed to affirm what she said.

Sadly, the situation was worse than we have so far described. Conway's oration about Candidate Clinton was perhaps a bit fact-challenged, was perhaps even grossly misleading.

Whatever one thinks of Penn's "famous memo," it was a private document—and it said nothing about Obama's place of birth. The Iowa volunteer fleetingly mentioned by Conway was fired by the Clinton campaign.

Did Blumenthal do what Conway charged? One person says he did; Blumenthal says he didn't. But somehow, out of this rather thin stew, Conway created an oration in which she avoided the question Todd had asked and delivered an attack on Candidate Clinton, even taking the time to cite her lack of likability.

Technically, Conway started with an attack on some of Clinton's "associates." This is the specific charge with which her oration began:

"Associates of the Clinton campaign started this birtherism question in 2007."

As she began, Conway claimed that associates of Clinton started the birther movement. That claim is shaky enough, especially given Conway's flimsy "examples." But by the end of her speech, she had abandoned her initial attempts at nuance:

"That was Clinton," Conway said. Apparently, Clinton did it herself!

Conway had avoided Todd's question on Candidate Trump. Instead, she had delivered a fact-challenged attack on Candidate Clinton.

Conway's specific claims were misleading, unfounded, perhaps false. At no point did she cite anything that Clinton herself had ever said or done.

Readers, so what? When he reappeared on the scene, Todd challenged nothing Conway had said. Instead, he seemed to vouch for the accuracy of her account. In the process, he imposed The Reign of Moral Equivalence:

"Who cares about the Clinton incident?" Todd instantly said, thereby seeming to vouch for Conway's various statements. Then he made his most remarkable statement:
TODD: Donald Trump, for five years, perpetuated this. This has been arguably part of his political identity for the last five years. So what difference does it make whether Clinton does it? Why do two wrongs make a right in this case?
There you see the moderator creating The Realm of False Balance. Clinton did it, as did Trump! "Why do two wrongs make a right?" the pistol-whipped schoolboy now memorably said.

Conway continued schooling Todd throughout their interview. You see, Conway is highly skilled at what she does. Todd displayed almost no journalistic skill at all.

It's pretty much as we've always said. The more these TV performers get paid, the less skill you're likely to see them display. When people are being paid millions of dollars to maintain ratings and execute various corporate strategies, journalistic incompetence has been built into the system.

Career liberal journalists will perhaps look past Todd's performance. We've seen few of them mention this remarkable session. We're going to take a cynical guess:

Some of them may want to appear on Meet the Press! Such appearances are good for careers. Criticism of Todd is not.


  1. Todd deserved Conway's treatment. His question wasn't really a question. It amounted to a (valid) statement that Trump was wrong to advance the false notion that Obama was born abroad. Todd more or less implied (correctly) that Trump had been lying about this belief for political gain.

    OK, Todd made those points, and he was right. But, where do you go from there? Does he expect the Trump campaign to spend an entire show groveling?

    1. Where was Conway born? Inquiring minds want to know.

    2. I don't think it's a matter of groveling. It's about manning up and taking responsibility. Sadly, for Trump, this is a character issue.

    3. Why can't Trump or his surrogates explain why he got involved with Birtherism and pushed such a ludicrous idea for so many years? Everyone seems to assume he was cynically using it for his own benefit. I think he might have genuinely believed it to be true, or even, still believe it to be true, showing how utterly dumb and foolish he is.

    4. Both candidates have told numerous lies. But, Hillary's don't get pummeled like this.

      E.g., has anyone asked Hillary whether she actually thought she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia? (A "yes" answer might indicate mental problems.) Has the media gone on to ask when she discovered that there was no sniper fire? Have they asked when and why she changed her mind? Have they demanded that Hillary apologize for her false statement?

      Of course not, nor should they. It's enough for the media to point out that Hillary's boast was false.

    5. A "yes" answer might indicate mental problems.
      Really? You just decreed that, therefore it is so? On the other hand, it might indicate nothing. So, Hillary made a statement to puff up her image. Kind of like Trump saying that he is very successful (him believing that might indicate mental problems). On the other hand, Trump, for years, counter-factually and obnoxiously, insisted on something that was demonstrably false. It just isn't the same thing.

    6. The tale of dodging gunfire at the airport was a false memory. We all have them because memory is not like a tape recording. When Hillary was told that incident didn't happen that way, she immediately backed down and admitted she was wrong.
      She never repeated it over and over as did Brian Williams and Bill O'Reilly, with their tales of being under fire.

    7. The post is on Mr. False Equivalence, Chuck Todd, and his false equivalence. Along comes the commentariat's own lying troll who proclaims without any attributation that "both candidates have told numerous lies."


    8. This is the kind of pathetic tedious false equivalence that DinC, the resident Troll, fixates on. The sniper fire story. As though the press didn't slam her 8 fucking years ago about it. Are you just a fucking jackass David? Are you the only one on the planet that thinks this is still an issue?

      " Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said she "misspoke" when she said she had landed under sniper fire during a trip she took as first lady to Bosnia in March 1996. The Obama campaign suggested it was a deliberate exaggeration on Clinton's part."

      Yes, the media hounded her about it.

      Just google it David. "Hillary Clinton sniper fire"

      I got 32000 hits in less than a second.

      Meanwhile, Donald J. Trump, con man extraordinaire, is literally an open sewer of non stop lies, yesterday today and tomorrow. What an ass.

    9. DinC is not a troll. He is sincere and more polite than most. He is actually a valuable commentator on this site because he is from the right and it gives all the lefties a chance to react. But compulsively calling him a troll even when he is polite and sincere is simple tribalism--like the half-brains on braindead.

    10. FYI re "mark carpenter: "Profile not available."

    11. Hillary lied about her belief that the NC shooting was suspicious and that the suspect was not a "super predator" of a type that must be brought to heel in a civilized culture. He was, she knew it back when she used that phrase and she knows it now.

    12. @ 6:18 PM:

      Breitbart ========================>

  2. Somerby doesn't like professors, but this is a pretty good rundown on the difference between Trump and Clinton's crime policies and the idea of evidence-based policing.

  3. To David, answering your question from yesterday:

  4. Whether one agrees with Spayd's column depends on weight one assigns to each candidate's sins. I think the media gives much less attention to Hillary's.

    Here's one small example: Hillary swore (approximately) that her people had sifted through all the e-mails on her private server and supplied all the non-personal ones. Subsequently thousands of other government-related e-mails came to light. Omitting thousands of e-mails looks like an intentional cover-up. Swearing that all the e-mails had been supplied looks like some kind of fraud. At best, it was terrible management of the sifting process.

    Yet, the media hasn't pursued the matter enough to even find out what Hillary's excuse was. They don't bother to justify Hillary's behavior. They simply don't talk about it.

    1. DinC trying to be funny: "the media hasn't pursued the matter enough"! Yes, he's actually talking about the email "scandal."

    2. Balance this against the stories about Trump's misuse of his Foundation, his buying off public official to get out of lawsuits, his entanglements with foreign governments and companies presenting likely conflicts of interest (at best) and subversion of policy to promote his business interests at public cost, allegations of rape of a 13-year old girl, his refusal to release his tax and health records, failure to pay his own campaign staff, and leaking of his recent intelligence briefing content. These are far worse problems that have either been ignored or briefly reported and then dropped by the NY Times and other media.

      Why? Inquiring minds really want to know about this one.

      David doesn't have to try to be funny.

    3. Just today, another Trump Foundation actual real scandal exposed.

      Donald Trump spent more than a quarter-million dollars from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses, according to interviews and a review of legal documents.

      Those cases, which together used $258,000 from Trump’s charity, were among four newly documented expenditures in which Trump may have violated laws against “self-dealing” — which prohibit nonprofit leaders from using charity money to benefit themselves or their businesses.

      Trust me, this will not cause a ripple with DinC, who is still twitching in his panties about whether Secretary Clinton was really named for Sir Edmund Hillary.

    4. mm - The article says that according to an anti-Trump partisan, something he did 9 years ago "may" have violated the law. I wonder why he wasn't prosecuted real time. Could it be that David A. Fahrenthold doesn't fully understand all aspects of this law?

      But, I more or less agree with you mm. Trump has been a wheeler-dealer, who took advantage of whatever he could. He's not at all my favorite Republican.

    5. "I wonder why he wasn't prosecuted real time."

      You're kidding, right? This scandal is about Trump bragging about paying off people trying to prosecute him for stuff. Trump has bragged about such payoffs. That makes him a crook, not a "wheeler dealer."

    6. KDrum brings out another type of the media's overwhelmingly disparate treatment against Hillary Clinton: there have been countless reporters and articles about the Clinton Foundation, yielding nothing but GOP-fed inferences, while Trump's foundation is covered only by Farenthold (thank God for him) yielding payoffs of other people's money to prosecutors in Texas and Florida as well as using his foundation's funds to pay off a settlement in Florida, with nothing but crickets from the rest of the media.

      Trump misuses and abuses his foundation's tax-exempt status to cover his ass in his "business dealings" - a clear abuse- while the Clinton Foundation saves thousands of lives without any personal financial benefit to the Clintons, but it is the Clintons who are corrupt while it's just Donald being Donald according to the narrative.

    7. David,

      David Fahrenthold should be clearing off space on his bookshelf for the Pulitzer Prize that is surely coming his way for his incredible string of investigative reports into the criminal enterprises of Mr. Donald J. Trump, Republican nominee for President of the United States:

      Let us review some of the highlights uncovered by Mr. Fahrenthold.

      1. Trump’s foundation appears to have repeatedly broken IRS rules, which require nonprofit groups to file accurate paperwork. In five cases, the Trump Foundation told the IRS that it had given a gift to a charity whose leaders told The Post that they had never received it. In two other cases, companies listed as donors to the Trump Foundation told The Post that those listings were incorrect.

      2. Money from the Trump Foundation has also been used for political purposes, which is against the law. The Washington Post reported this month that Trump paid a penalty this year to the Internal Revenue Service for a 2013 donation in which the foundation gave $25,000 to a campaign group affiliated with Florida Attorney General Pamela Bondi (R).

      3. In two cases, he has used money from his charity to buy himself a gift. In one of those cases — not previously reported — Trump spent $20,000 of money earmarked for charitable purposes to buy a six-foot-tall painting of himself.

      4. Trump had found a way to give away somebody else’s money and claim the credit for himself.

      Trump had earlier gone to a charity in New Jersey — the Charles Evans Foundation, named for a deceased businessman — and asked for a donation. Trump said he was raising money for the Palm Beach Police Foundation.

      The Evans Foundation said yes. In 2009 and 2010, it gave a total of $150,000 to the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a small charity that the Republican presidential nominee founded in 1987.

      Then, Trump’s foundation turned around and made donations to the police group in South Florida. In those years, the Trump Foundation’s gifts totaled $150,000.

      Trump had effectively turned the Evans Foundation’s gifts into his own gifts, without adding any money of his own.

      On the night that he won the Palm Tree Award for his philanthropy, Trump may have actually made money. The gala was held at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, and the police foundation paid to rent the room. It’s unclear how much was paid in 2010, but the police foundation reported in its tax filings that it rented Mar-a-Lago in 2014 for $276,463.

      The fact that you are willing to vote for this con man, who will not even allow you to see his tax returns, tells me all I need to know about you.

    8. Anon - the Clinton Foundation provides two financial benefits to the Clintons. It pays for their lush travel. The Foundation spends more for travel than it gives to charity. And, it provides high paid jobs for Clinton people, including their daughter.

      But, the scandal is not so much how the money is spent, but how it was collected. It has been reported as fact that Hillary sold access to the State Dept. to foreign interests for big bucks. That in itself is an incredible scandal. No prior Secretary of State did this.

      Furthermore, the other day, Bill Clinton even acknowledged that more than access was delivered in exchange for big Clinton Foundation donations.

    9. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone got access as a result of their contribution. There is evidence that contributors requested favors they did not receive. There is no evidence any contribution was solicited on those terms and not as a legitimate contribution to a charity doing good in the world, to which people might wish to contribute regardless of who was doing the fundraising.

      Bill Clinton said no such thing, unless you mean by "more" that attendance at a charity luncheon or some such recognition was provided. Nothing came from Hillary or the State Department or anyplace improper. It is normal for charities to acknowledge their donors in trivial ways that have nothing to do with selling favors.

      I do resent your coming to a liberal blog and spewing this garbage, creating a chore for people to contradict, since we do not wish this site to be a place where people will read nonsense and perhaps being confused about what is true and what is not.

    10. Ano n5:39 -- The liberal Washington Post wrote on August 22
      Emails reveal how foundation donors got access to Clinton and her close aides at State Dept.

    11. Emails reveal that they contacted Clinton's aides and got brushed off (politely). There is no evidence anyone got access to Clinton herself and no evidence anyone got any favor. The emails show the opposite of what you are claiming. They do show that people who would have had access without any donation got access, and people who asked for access without any standing to request it did not. They reveal how clean Clinton's operation was.

    12. I am signing off on this discussion. I do not have time for this. David will never believe anything posted here and neither will any Trump supporter. They don't care what the truth is.

      Someone must have access to Clinton in order for her to do her job. The Wapo headline doesn't explain that "access" isn't the problem. Quid pro quo would be a problem but there were none given. Too bad our press cannot put that into its headline instead of implying to idiots like David that Clinton was dirty. How can any public official function without providing "access" to those who need it for legitimate functions?

    13. Lying troll @ 5:23 PM - completely unattributed nonsense, apparently whispered to said troll by Prof. Otto Yerass.

    14. Lying troll @ 5:45 Pm - this is at least the 2nd time you've foisted this particular slab of agiprop.

      The Washington Post is a liberal newspaper only to your ilk. The paper does have talent, Fahrenthold being a glaring example.

      Stupidly, you still insist that contributing to the Foundation and meeting with Hillary Clinton at some point - without anything more - is proof of corruption. Stupidly, and despite other commenters accurately pointing out that the article you cite undercuts your assertion, you continue to foist this piece of shit myth as evidence of corruption.

      How's life in the Basket? Say hello to your sockpuppet. Haven't seen him post since you got called out.

    15. You're so full of shit David. Every day you come to this progressive blog and post your bullshit.

      The Foundation spends more for travel than it gives to charity.

      Really, David? Post your evidence. What is your source for that?

      And, it provides high paid jobs for Clinton people, including their daughter.

      No, Chelsea does not get paid by the foundation. What is your source for that?

      It has been reported as fact that Hillary sold access to the State Dept. to foreign interests for big bucks.

      Just marvel at the slimey way DinC phrases that bit of malicious slander.

      "It has been reported as fact"!!!!!

      Where David? On your alt right favorite web sites?

    16. One sad thing about the Clintons is that they corrupt the whole country. They do things that were previously unthinkable, which then become acceptible. E.g., a President getting a blow job in the Oval Office from an aide.

      Until the Clintons, it would have been unacceptible for a high officer of any organization (or his family) to be getting large amounts of money from people doing business with the corporation. It would have been an obvious conflict of interest for organizations with dealings with the State Dept. to give large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation. It gives the appearance of impropriety. Today, it's acceptible.

      And, for donations to help provide access obviously means there's a benefit, because without access, you can even ask for a State Dept favor, let alone receive one. Whether the money actually affected our foreign policy is impossible to prove and impossible to disprove. That's why the Clinton Foundation should have never taken donations from organizations involved with the State Dept.

      mm -- you are right that Chelsea doesn't get paid by the Clinton Foundation. She does get $300,000 as a board member of IAC/Interactive Corp.

      The comparison of Travel vs. charity comes from the Foundations Tax reporting:

      The Clinton Foundation spent significantly more money on travel costs than it did on charitable grants in 2014, the organization’s tax filings show.

      Read more:

    17. You're just a dishonest bastard, David. No question.

      That ridiculous misleading statistic you point to is meaningless.

      Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation — which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly.

      nearly 77 percent of the $8.4 million spent on travel in 2013 went toward program services; 3.4 percent went to “management and general expenses”; and about 20 percent went to fundraising.

      Just go away David. Go to your alt right websites to spread your malicious lies.

      Not here anymore.

    18. Stupider by-the-minute troll @ 7:23 -

      1. If I want to find out what a tribal Daily Caller hack thinks about the Clinton Foundation tax return for 2014, which I don't, I will go to that website; so, your utility for polluting this comment box with that dreck is zero. Using a cherry-picked, biased screed in support of your nonsense is worse than no citation at all. Stop bringing your right-wing echo chamber into this comment box if you have any self-esteem at all.

      2. How much do you think it should cost a foundation with 2014 assets of $332 mil in multiple states and numerous countries to raise $100 mil in one year?

      3. Are you aware that foundations need to raise money in order to contribute to their chartered causes?

      4. Are you aware that it's not usual at all for charities' expenses to exceed their distributions for a one-year period, since charities operate to raise money as well as to distribute money?

      5. Are you aware that none of the Clintons made a cent in compensation and benefits for their Foundation activities for 2014?

      6. What evidence do you have that the Clintons did receive compensation and benefits for their Foundation activities for 2014?

      7. What was the Trump foundation's 2014 contributions relative to its expenses?

      8. What was Trump's income and tax liability for 2014?

      9. How many years worth of tax returns has Trump disclosed during this election?

      7. On what authority do you state that the Clintons have corrupted the entire country?

      8. What does a blowjob have to do with political corruption? Have you ever hear of the illicit pecadillos of Warren Harding FDR, Dwight Eisenhower, and JFK?

      9. Do you think a cure will ever be found for the level of stupidity you've exhibited throughout the comments to this post?

    19. But DinC's link is even more dishonest than that.

      This is the bullshit D is touting from that impeccable journalistic source, the Daily Caller.

      The Clinton Foundation spent significantly more money on travel costs than it did on charitable grants in 2014, the organization’s tax filings show.

      This is fundamentally dishonest reporting.

      The CF gives a very small percentage of its funds to other other charitable funds. This is because they do most of the work themselves.

      This is from, June 19, 2015.

      By only looking at the amount the Clinton Foundation doled out in grants, Fiorina “is showing her lack of understanding of charitable organizations,” Borochoff said. “She’s thinking of the Clinton Foundation as a private foundation.” Those kinds of foundations are typically supported by money from a few people, and the money is then distributed to various charities. The Clinton Foundation, however, is a public charity, he said. It mostly does its own charitable work. It has over 2,000 employees worldwide.

      “What she’s doing is looking at how many grants they write to other groups,” Borochoff said. “If you are going to look at it that way, you may as well criticize every other operating charity on the planet.”

      In order to get a fuller picture of the Clinton Foundation’s operations, he said, people need to look at the foundation’s consolidated audit, which includes the financial data on separate affiliates like the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

      “Otherwise,” he said, “you are looking at just a piece of the pie.”

      Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.

      We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.

      CharityWatch has consistently given the CF an "A" rating.
      Charity Navigator just reported giving the CF 4 out of 4 Star rating.

      about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs

      DinC is a lying troll.

    20. When you call DinC names you have already lost the argument.

    21. Or you risk the ire of his sock puppet.

  5. Today's biased 'journalists' should be forced to read '60s AP, UPI, and other news service articles to see how to write an unbiased report. Back then there actually were conservative newspapers as well as all the liberal ones. To maximize sales, the news services couldn't have a bias, if they did, they lost subscribers. It's from that era that people got the idea that the press was fair, but when the conservative media disappeared over the last 20 years, left wing media went whole hog crazy with the bias. And the country has figured out the media is to be as trusted as a used car salesman or lawyer.

    Even the left doesn't trust them; not left wing enough for them. 90th+ percentile lefties look over at the reliably 80th+ percentile lefty media and see COPORATE, CONSERVATIVE, WALL STREET, owned and operated.

    1. This is laughable.

      Breitbart is over there ===============>

  6. Conway is what I would call a sledgehammer mechanic without the finesse. Todd did a lousy job, but I doubt that anyone believed a word Conway said.

  7. Trump's presidency will be very, very good financially for journalists. The money will roll in.

  8. On a lighter note:
    Today, I listened to the Diane Rheem Show, hosted by Michelle Martin. The guest was Maureen Dowd. Some gems.
    MoDo: I’m just a political reporter who’s a columnist.
    MoDo: My brother said if there were a hurricane you’d blame it on Bush. There was and I did. Katrina.
    A listener called in about the dissolution of news, Michelle asked if Dowd was snarky.
    MoDo: I don’t like the word snarky, I like the word saucy, but maybe I’m just rationalizing. I don’t know.
    Call in question about Trump hinting assassination.
    MoDo: I think he (Trump) has followed the roar of the crowd to some very dark places.
    Michelle asked about the name Barry.
    MoDo: I thought of it like Henry IV and Prince Hal… I realize that I offended a few readers, I wouldn’t do it again.

    During the interview, Michelle brought up the subject about Clinton’s peccadilloes getting as much coverage as Trump’s whoppers. Dowd remarked the we shouldn’t ignore Clinton just because Trump is more outspoken, essentially endorsing false equivalence in the name of journalistic integrity.

    1. Where's the lighter note? This is depressing.

    2. I thought it was amusing that MoDo said she isn't snarky, at least not knowingly, but rather sees herself as a satirist along the lines of Jonathan Swift.


  10. David,
    You are a troll bought and paid for by wingnut welfare. You know how I know?? Oh hell, forget how I know, lets just put it this way--you my dear boy stand out like a whore in church. You are not even particularly good at it, but you do stand out for being the only RWNJ on call here every day. A normal person with your peculiar proclivities would never show up to a liberal site and spew nonsense daily without getting paid for it. I guess you could simply be a narcissist, but even a Repub narcissist LOVES Repub groupthink too much to just give it up. Yep, it's the Benjamin's.

    1. I completely understand DinC and he totally belongs on this site. The way that you and others namecall and mindlessly attack his character perfectly demonstrates the arrogance and contempt that much of the reporting class has for that huge swathe of the population that thinks differently.

    2. Mark, you are really off the mark here. DinC almost exclusively posts endless lies, inaccurate and misleading information here in a malicious attempt to support his extremist views about taxes and government.

    3. @ 12:31 PM - mark carpenter is a David in Cal sock puppet.

    4. no, anon 12:31, DinC is espousing mainstream rightwing belief. I have it in my family.You may not like what he says but he is actually fairly moderate. And as long as he is sincerely trying to support his sincere beliefs, then even if he's daft and wrong, he is not a troll.

      I guess that one of the reason a conservative like DinC comments here is that Somerby is by my estimation a left winger who is not afraid to call out the hypocrisies of other left wingers like the maddows and NYT. It makes sense for a right winger to applaud that. But it also makes sense for left-wingers not to call him an idiot for taking part in the conversation because that is narrow-minded and frankly hypocritical since lefties are supposed to be about accepting different viewpoints.

    5. mark carpenter @ 5:22 PM =sockpuppet for David troll
      (eg. "DinC is ... actually fairly moderate.").

      Give it a rest, troll. You're outed.

  11. This is the most wonderful thing i have ever experienced. I visited a forum here on the internet on the 17 APRIL 2016, and i saw a marvelous testimony of Tracie Aldana from United States on the forum about the good works DR OSEMU. I never believed it, because have never heard anything about such miracle before. No body would have been able to convince me about it not until DR OSEMU did a marvelous work for me that restored my marriage of 4 years by getting back my divorced wife just as i read on the internet. Am Brooklyn Gray from USA. I was truly shocked when my wife knelt down pleading for forgiveness to accept her back. I am really short of words to use to show my appreciation to DR OSEMU. For his a God sent to me and my entire family for divine restoration of marriage. Contact him now for any kind or help via Email:, website: OR call and whats App him on +2348135254384. You can text or call me also for more inquiries +1 (914)-902-7078.

  12. Trump is going to win not because his voters are ignorant of the issues discussed in this post or this blog, but because we see behaviors from Clinton such as calling for police to release the video of the NC shooting. Like Obama, she would poke her fat unethical nose into matters a president has no business commenting on. The larger issue aside from corruption of that kind is her position of support for thugs who disobey law enforcement. That a major candidate would hold that insane a position is almost unbelievable and is the reason an antidote like Trump is sought.

    1. Breitbart =========================>

      They love that shit over there.

  13. This is the most wonderful thing i have ever experienced. I visited a forum here on the internet on the 17 APRIL 2016, and i saw a marvelous testimony of Tracie Aldana from United States on the forum about the good works Doctor Osemu. I never believed it, because have never heard anything about such miracle before. No body would have been able to convince me about it not until Doctor Osemu did a marvelous work for me that restored my marriage of 4 years by getting back my divorced wife just as i read on the internet. Am Brooklyn Gray by name from USA. I was truly shocked when my wife knelt down pleading for forgiveness to accept her back. I am really short of words to use to show my appreciation to Doctor Osemu. For his a God sent to me and my entire family for divine restoration of marriage. Contact him now for any kind or help via Email:, website: OR call and whats App him on +2348135254384. You can text/call me also for more inquiries +1 (914)-902-7078.

  14. Am here to testify of a great spell caster who is very straight forward with his words of casting spells. When my Wife left me for another Man i was so confused,but one day a friend of mine gave me the email address of this great spell caster called Awo Babatunde, I contacted this man and explained to him all that i was going through,he then told me to be calm and not worry anymore because my case is a very easy one. At first i never believe all that he was saying until when my wife returned home two days later begging me to forgive him all that he has done to me and to please accept him back into my life,I was so amazed,I never believe it was going to happen that fast.
    This man is truly great indeed. Contact him today for a perfect solution to your love problem, or whatsApp him +2349045101972