Stunner: ABC hires partisan propagandist to work as journalist, and . . .

So let me see if I have this straight. ABC News hires a guy whose primary experience is as a mouthpiece for the Clintons, and assigns him to report news objectively and without bias. Some time later we discover, to our horror, that he is contributing money (and more than he first admitted) to the slush-fund-disguised-as-a-charity that these very same Clintons use to line their pockets while shaking down foreign governments, making speeches for upwards of half-a-million dollars, and demanding the "toppling" of the damnable "1 percent." And because of this revelation, we now face the heartbreaking possibility that George Stephanopoulos is not an objective journalist but is, in fact, a Clinton bootlicker?

Who could have foreseen such a thing? The better question, of course, is why ABC thought (or even better, if ABC really did think) they could hire a guy whose primary background was as a partisan propagandist and actually see that guy transform into an unbiased journalist with no agenda at work in his reporting. Rob told you yesterday, and showed you video, of Stephanopoulos's clear attempts to whitewash the Clinton Foundation donation scandal, all without disclosing his own financial connection to it. We learned late yesterday that even when he did disclose his donation, he wasn't honest - oh, sorry, it was an "honest mistake" - about how much he gave. ABC went to the worst web site in the world when it had no choice but to cop to this, er, "honest mistake":

ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos has given $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, charitable contributions that he did not publicly disclose while reporting on the Clintons or their nonprofit organization, the On Media blog has learned. In 2012, 2013 and 2014, Stephanopoulos made $25,000 donations to the 501 nonprofit founded by former President Bill Clinton, the foundation's records show. Stephanopoulos never disclosed this information to viewers, even when interviewing author Peter Schweizer last month about his book "Clinton Cash," which alleges that donations to the foundation may have influenced some of Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state. In a statement to the On Media blog on Thursday, Stephanopoulos apologized and said that he should have disclosed the donations to ABC News and its viewers. "I made charitable donations to the Foundation in support of the work they’re doing on global AIDS prevention and deforestation, causes I care about deeply," he said. "I thought that my contributions were a matter of public record. However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air during the recent news stories about the Foundation. I apologize."

---

So he did something that destroys the fantasy that he's an objective reporter. Big deal. The better question is not for Stephanopoulos but for ABC. Why did they think Stephanopoulos was qualified for the job they hired him for? What was his journalism background before they hired him away from the White House and put him on the air? Does ABC not know that there is a huge difference between spewing partisan talking points on behalf of a politician and reporting the news? Then again, is there? The distinction certainly seems blurred these days, and apparently that's because the MSM doesn't see much difference between acting as a partisan mouthpiece and doing the job of a reporter. They do want the obvious bias of their reporters made somewhat deniable, which is why it's a problem for them when the financial links between journalists and politicians become public. But if anyone really thought Stephanoplouos would not be a partisn bootlicker, especially for the Clintons, they overlooked two things: 1. That's what he does. 2. That's what the media does. Imagine if Rob or I was hired to host a major network news show, given our history with and connection to Herman. The point here is not to whine about double standards because frankly I'm tired of conservatives whining about that. The point is that you'd laugh at any claim that we were objective, unbiased journalists - and of course you should because we clearly are not. We don't pretend to be. And that's really the problem. Stephanopoulos does pretend to be, and ABC went along with the charade, which is why this revelation is such a problem for them and for him. It makes it impossible to deny what most of us could plainly see with our own eyes all along.