Slate Plays Dumb About The Clinton Foundation

We've noticed lots of news outlets that have done this. When discussing Bill Clinton and the foundation he heads (and there's been lots of discussion lately about possible conflicts of interest with Hillary perhaps becoming SoS), the word that the Beltway media often refuses to use in connection with the foundation is "charity."

Chris Matthews did this all the time on MSNBC in recent days, relentlessly referring to international "business" connections Bill Clinton has. Charity was almost never mentioned.

Slate just published a 900-word piece in which writer Christopher Beam insists Clinton close down his foundation because of the "inevitable" financial scandals that will emerge in coming years, and how it would distract from his wife's work as SoS. The tsk-tsking article mentions "foundation" 21 times. But for some reason it only mentions "charity" once. ("Charity" also appears in the pun-driven headline.)

Interestingly, the piece never actually explains to readers what the Clinton Foundation does. Answer: It helps poor people around the world.

Why does Slate purposely play dumb about what the Clinton Foundation is? Why does Slate carefully avoid mentioning the Clinton Foundation battles the HIV/AIDS pandemic and fights hunger in Africa? My guess is that makes it easier for Slate to make the cavalier demand that, in order to please Beltway nay-sayers, the foundation should be shut down; that "the Clinton Foundation effectively has to close shop."

If Slate thinks its narrow definition of conflict of interest trumps helping poor people around the world, than just say so. But don't play dumb in the process.

Crossposted at Country Fair, a Media Matters for America blog.

Comments

[Badbone]

Answer: It helps poor people around the world.
Better answer: It helps Clinton, then poor people around the world.

Bill didn't accumulate over a hundred million bucks by being "charitable". Check how much money goes into "administrative costs". I think you'll be surprised.

[dryrock]

The neo-cons started the 'Clinton-dark-side' drumbeat as soon as Bill was elected and they haven't stopped for 16 years. It has stained HRC (tho I'm not a fan of hers, it is still significant, and I don't know how much of my impression of her as 'reported' - mostly commentaries - is accurate). Obama has been a step ahead of them so far. I prefer to get my information from a number of sources, but the news on the right has not proved reliable, and some on the left too emotional for me to feel comfortable with. (My preferred source for news, CSM, and of course Jon Stewart.) The plutocrats have stolen the retirement I worked a lifetime for - redistribution of wealth - hell yes! It's time some of it came our way.

[UtahLiberal435]

Good for Boehlert to point out that the press (both MSM and the supposedly different 'netroots') have a Clinton-hating psychosis.

The aggressively marketed perception that the Clinton's are somehow 'sleazy' is positively weird.

[larry278]

What makes you think that SLATE is playing? SLATE publishes corrections---when SLATE's errors are publacized.

[stell]

Everyone on Wall St. who's receiving money from the bailout should start a charity, it will absolve you of any guilt from shady business dealings.

[InofTouch]

I take you serious if it wasn't "my guess"

[Havnagudtim]

Bill Clinton has many more business endeavors than his charitable foundation; it is those connections that are in question. Ol' Billy never saw a paycheck he didn't like, and he is not all that particular who signs it. He is a very rich man and is dedicated to increasing his wealth through every avenue he can find.

[stell]

Of course, and any one that can think knows that there has to be a "charity" as a cover at the very least for these endeavors. All the bases have to be covered.

One doesn't have to fly halfway around the world to feed the hungry. Last I checked those ravaged by Hurricane Katrina are in this country. You don't have to be stretching nets on people to be producing results.

One isn't supposed to have a charity to be congratulated for having it or to feel good about one's self, it's supposed to be done because it's the right thing to do.

Instead of giving a fish, why not teach someone to fish. Charity vs. Justice.

[satyriasis]

Clinton worked very hard for the people of New Orleans after Katrina. Maybe you forgot to mention that because it didn't fit your little anti-Clinton narrative.

There are lots of charities in the US. Very few good ones internationally. A former president heading up a charity that focuses on the poor around the world is the most ingenious use of power I've seen. He has the donor contacts and knowledge to make it a success and he has.

[allonfla]

I saw that headline this morning on Slate and didn't bother to read the article. You are right, it is disgusting the way no one mentions that Clinton is doing great charity work for the poor.

[Steve Kettmann - Huffpost Blogger]

Excellent post, Eric - amazing how no one wants to call Clinton's charity work "charity." I have a new post up also looking at the press and the Clintons and how the word "drama" is thrown around loosely.
Keep up the great work!

[Konnie]

once again i plead: tell the beltway insiders,talking heads, pundits, loud mouths, and in general anyone who wrote something, or appeared on a program and WAS WRONG to go away.

once again we run into what Eric Alterman wrote in his book "what liberal media".

Obama won. He won big. Its now his Obamabelt-way.............so s.t.f.u...........

too bad the media can't be dumped every 4 years. some of these old birds should have been
put out to pasture a long time ago..............can you say broder........safire........kristol........all of fox........

[babymonster]

I'm a new fan.

[RadhaColalurver]

Thank you! I keep hearing everyone bemoan about Bill Clinton's foundation and how it's hurting his wife get the SoS job. They never actually mention what the foundation does. Personally, if he's going to give up helping the hungry and those suffering with AIDS/HIV, then I don't think Hillary should become SoS. It's not sacrificing Bill's career... it's making life harder for those poor children. I really hope that the Obama administration and Bill can work something out to keep his foundation's good works going.

[RedDogBear]

There is more going on here than President Clinton's unselfish humanitarianism. He also gets payed huge speaking fees (more for one speech than most people make in a year) as part of his travels and I wouldn't be surprised if he is also negotiating consulting fees. I don't begrudge him this. But lets not pretend this is just about charity.