Former ABC News anchor Carole Simpson comes out of the closet she was never fully in
Last month, the Hillary Clinton campaign proudly released this news:
During Senator Clinton’s recent campaign stop at a high school in Salem, New Hampshire to announce her “Agenda for Working Families,” Clinton received an unexpected endorsement from former ABC News Anchorwoman Carole Simpson.
During the question and answer portion of the event, Simpson stood up and stated that she had something to say to the Senator and what better time than to do it now. “I want to tell you tonight, because I happen to be here with my students, that I endorse you for president of the United States. It’s very freeing now that I’m not a journalist and I can speak my mind. I think you are the woman, and I think this is the time,” she eloquently stated. She added that she had a dream that there would be a woman president in her lifetime.
“I am very honored to have Carole Simpson’s endorsement and it was a wonderful surprise to hear during the event,” said Clinton. “I look forward to Carole’s continued support throughout the campaign season.”
In January 2007, Simpson joined the faculty at Emerson College in Boston. Prior to joining Emerson College, Simpson had a prominent journalism career. Simpson anchored ABC World News Tonight Sunday from 1988-2003, joined ABC News from NBC News in 1982. Prior to joining NBC News in 1974, she was an instructor at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism.
Simpson helped anchor ABC’s coverage of events, including the release of Nelson Mandela from prison in South Africa, the Tiananmen Square massacre and events surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing. Her reports have appeared on World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, Good Morning America, 20/20, Nightline and numerous ABC Special Events programs. Simpson moderated the 1992 presidential debate; she was the first woman and first African American to do so.
You can listen to the audio of Simpson’s fawning over Hillary right here:
This, of course, is no surprise to anyone who watched Simpson at ABC News over the years. Funny that she declares herself more liberated now. When she was still at ABC, she openly fawned over Hillary six years ago upon her Senate election without any inhibitions:
“What an exhilarating moment it must have been for [Hillary Clinton] - the first First Lady in history to be elected to public office. There, for all the nay-sayers to see, was the woman who had finally come into her own, free at last to be smart, outspoken, independent, and provocative, all qualities she had been forced as First Lady, to ‘hide under a bushel.’ Still she was voted one of America’s most admired women. Just wait. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”
– “On My Mind” ABCNews.com commentary by ABC anchor Carole Simpson
And Newsbusters remembers Simpson’s nauseating exchange with Bill Clinton in 1999 at a tomato factory:
Most infamously, in a 1999 interview with President Bill Clinton at an Arkansas tomato processing plant, Simpson made the story all about herself and her glory: “I have to bask in this moment, for a moment, because I am here talking to the most powerful man on the planet, who was a poor boy from Arkansas….I am an African-American woman, grew up working class on the south side of Chicago, and this is a pretty special moment for me to be here talking to you. How does it feel talking to me? That I made it, too, when people said I wouldn’t be able to?” Clinton: “It’s a great country.”
What is news is that some of her colleagues are actually disturbed by her declaration. Not that Simpson will have to suffer any real consequences for stepping over the line. Via yesterday’s Boston Globe:
It was an unorthodox political endorsement, to be sure. And in throwing her support behind presidential candidate Hillary Clinton with an unprompted, heartfelt speech at a New Hampshire rally last month, Carole Simpson, the longtime ABC news anchor-turned-Emerson College journalism instructor, flung herself into the partisan fires.
more stories like thisWhile Clinton was quite taken by the unexpected backing, quickly issuing a press release touting it, others have taken offense. Over the past month, news of Simpson’s endorsement has barreled across the blogosphere, seized on by conservatives as proof of liberal media bias. And Emerson students and faculty continue to debate the ethics of a journalism instructor and well-known former reporter making a public show of support for a political candidate.
Simpson, 65, said she immediately regretted her actions and offered her resignation the next day, which university officials refused to accept. Now Simpson is considering an offer from the Clinton campaign to stump for the candidate, namely before black audiences in the South. She and other university officials have agreed she will not teach political journalism courses if she campaigns for Clinton.
“I know I made a mistake. It was definitely the wrong venue for my first foray into free speech,” Simpson said. “But I’d really like to see her win. After being a reporter for so many years, where you wish you could do more than you can, it would be nice to make a difference.”
So, she won’t teach “political journalism.”
What kind of “journalism,” then, will she teach?
***
Wow, what a shocker. An MSMer turns out to root for the lefty. Is anyone really surprised? This is the MSM, and 90% of its senior elites are Democrats masquerading as “objective” analysts. They all deny this while working, but in retirement it turns out they have been card-carrying lefties their whole lives. They tell us it didn’t affect their work, but we laugh and move on.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Hillary Clinton, Media Bias
Stop The ACLU
» Reporter to Obama: Didn’t You Belittle Hillary’s Foreign Policy Experience In Primaries?
TigerHawk
» Barack Obama's first foreign police gaffe?Patterico
» The Newest SenatorsRedstate
» If You Can't Win, Change The RulesScobleizer
» Nokia N97: the ultimate Facebook deviceMudville Gazette
» Excerpts from a LifeJustOneMinute
» Susan Rice To The United NationsPower Line
» "Our Friends In Bombay"Power Line
» Lessons from MumbaiBelmont Club
» Good enoughNewsBusters.org
» Klein Bashes 'Inanity' of Asking Obama About Process and Old Hillary-Bashing Quotes
LAME STREAM MEDIA by any other name is just lame.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Those who can, do. Those who can’t, report.
Years back, didn’t Simpson also do a fawning interview with husband Bill?
Paraphrasing Simpson’s words to then President Clinton (someone please find the exact quote):
“I’m so excited to be interviewing you. Are you excited to be talking with me?”
Do reporters like Simpson really believe that their bias hasn’t been in the forefront of their reporting all these years? Are they really that delusional or is lying so ingrained in their being that they don’t recognize it anymore?
Added to the post:
Carolling Carol Corralled…news at 11!
Excuse me, but sometimes I feel there is a sort of reverse discrimination going on. You can’t comment if you’re a journalist because that would show bias. You can’t comment if you’re a jurist because you’re suppose to be impartial. You can’t comment if you’re an educator because that would be brainwashing innocent minds. You can’t comment if you’re a Hollywood actor because you’re stupid. And Michelle you can’t comment because you’re not MSM. Pretty soon the only people who can comment will be politicians and we all know how truthful and straight talking they are.
The only thing that would have given away her Hillary girl-crush even more was if she had lifted up her shirt and revealed a big “H” painted on her chest.
He feels your pain…
Or…
“Don’t tease me bro’”
Isn’t the headline here just a tad misleading? Whateva.
Every time I check the news I immediate feel like I have to look at the bottom of my shoes. The media’ droppings are everywhere indicating that the news is pre-packaged, pre-cooked and decidedly showing up always on the left side of the menu. And did I mention is always filling with absolutely no nutritional or intellectual value?
Alright everybody. Set back and watch Hillary Clinton jump .0000001% in the polls.
She’s REALLY on a roll, now!
I think what amuses me most in this story is the final quote from Ms. Simpson.
I thought the leading cause of journalism was the desire to “make a difference”. I think what this reveals is that Ms. Simpson and her ilk really want to be able to dictate outcomes. “Making a difference” isn’t quite enough, anymore.
The other sign of hubris here is the idea that her endorsement will be worth more to Hillary than the endorsement of toubabou would be.
I suppose, when you make an endorsement at a school function when you’re on faculty, it could be seen as undue influence on the poor, directionless students present, but it is a shame that we muzzle everyone who ought to have an opinion so that only those who know nothing, or who pretend to have no opinions have the floor. Indeed, “celui qui sait ne parle pas, celui qui sait pas parle.“
Wow, it wasn’t until the end of the story that I even realized that she was black. She must’ve had the same plastic surgeon as Micheal Jackson.
I also saw the words ‘unpromted heartfelt speech’, ‘unexpected endorsement’, and ‘wonderful surprise’. Anytime you hear those words coming from a liberal mouth, you might was well consider it ‘opposite day’. (To quote SpongeBob)
The only upside is that at least she was honest about her political affiliations, vs. 95% of the rest of the MSM who continue to pretend to be ‘fair and unbiased’.
Oh boy, Carol Simpson in the Clintons corner, again. What a surprise.
#8 Alaskan said:
Simpson has every right to comment, and she has always taken the opportunity to do so. I question her outright advocacy for the Clintons, as documented above during her tenure as a national corespondent.
I am convinced that Simpson’s stewardship of the 2nd 1992 Presidential Campaign was rife with planted questions for Bill’s benefit:
If this cheesy “feel my pain” question wasn’t a plant, than it was certainly one of the beginning shots in the “Oprahfication” of American politics during the 1990’s.
Not surprising if you recall her preformance as the moderator of the 1992 Presidential debate in Richmond Virginia. She was gushing with Clintonian enthusiasm, as I recall. That was also the first Presidential debate to follow the town meeting format - a format which evolved into what we saw at the last CNN Democrat presidential hopefull debate.
Same “news” different player…I hate and I mean hate these MSM liberal’s who think they know better than us rubes……I cannot wait for the day when there is an actual wire service that give some “right” news for everyone else to feed off of.
Slanted
Well shucks … learn something every day … here I always thought there was only one course curriculum for a degree in “Journalism” … now I find out there is a separate course curriculum for a degree in “Political Journalism” …
now a standard journalism degree is a bachelor of arts in journalism … and it is abbreviated BJ … (I think Monica had one of those) …
so adding in the political science aspect I guess a political journalism degree would be bachelor of science in journalism … or a BS-PJ …
Wow, this story is a shocker!!
What’s next? - Wolf Blitzer refusing to ask Hillary tough questions???
Very funny, nice shot.
But they are NOT biased and Fox IS. Somebody find the barf bag!!!!
I didn’t realize that Carole Simpson was THAT relevant in the first place. As a self-absorbed individual, she impresses me less and less.
Where was the fawning for Dr. Rice? Where was the fawning for Colin Powell?
Ack, I need some mental floss to purge my mind of this nonsense.
This is the telling quote: “After being a reporter for so many years, where you wish you could do more than you can, it would be nice to make a difference.”
Clearly, she did as much as she could as a “journalist” to help democrats win elections. Now she’s just really, really excited that she doesn’t have to be covert and fraudulent about it anymore. Oh, how liberating it must be to know she doesn’t have to feign professionalism and integrity anymore. She can be a partisan hack right out in the open. I can just hear the choir humming “Michael row the boat ashore.” FREEDOM!
I really don’t think I could care less about Simpson, Clintons, or and of the other democrapweasels.
But, I was under the impression that all journalism degrees are BS. Am I wrong?
A reporter is supposed to report. You know answer the 5 basic questions.
Who?
What?
Where?
When?
How?
and if possible Why?
I can teach journalism. What they all want to be is commentators and there is a big difference.
I can see it now: Hillary names Simpson “Press Secretary”.
How does life have meaning when everything is rehearsed?
Why am i being hounded by a dialog box asking me if i want to Run and ActiveX control on “this page”?
The Republican establishment agreed back before the 1992 presidential election that Carole Simpson would be the sole anchor/moderator of the “town hall” style debate between Bush, Perot and Clinton. Once that format was settled upon and Simpson made the moderator, Bush was dead meat. He had no chance with Simpson fawning all over Clinton, all the “independent” people in the audience were proClinton and a pony tailed wimpish guy was allowed to lecture Bush to “stop personal attacks”. Clinton was allowed to take the high road and he actually laughed at President Bush when Bush was speaking. The Republicans can thank establishment figure/ gaming/casino lobbyist Frank Farenkauf for the ignominius surrender.
She was a joke because there was no hiding her bias. At least some anchors and commentators are subtle in how they get their “message” out unlike this turkey. She could have just a sign and it would have been less obvious. See ya..
Actualy shows a larger problem..
She’s a College Prof who is espousing political causes in front of her students… and keeping her job.
What she does on her time? I don’t care… but she stated it was special because she could do it IN FRONT OF HER STUDENTS!
Wow… just wow… bet the lone Conservative Male in her class just dropped the course.
The only place one can find real news is in the blogs, like this one.Michelle Malkin and others like her give us hard facts and a starboard spin. That’s fine with me.
What I cannot stomach are “journalists” who are nothing more than covert stenographers for the left-wing. There’s nothing covert about Michelle Malkin. What I see is what I get.
Rah, rah, siss boom bah!
Hi I’m Carole Simpson cheerleader for the lame dame presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and I approve this message.
D’OH!
Carole Simpson is also one of those blacks who especially hold a high degreee of contempt for any other black who is a Republican. I remember back when she was hosting ABC News Sunday evenings and, during Bush’s first term, she interviewed Rod Paige, the first black secretary of education. She was so rude to the man, even making quite visible “scoffs” on her face at what he was saying, it was startling. Paige remained gracious throughout the interview, but I really kept hoping he’d just reach over and slap Simpson’s face. It was one of the most unprofessional interviews I’ve ever seen conducted on television. The underlying tone from Simpson seemed to be “blacks can’t trust this president, and you should be ashamed to be serving under him.” As for me, I was quite pleased when Simpson left ABC. I should have known she’d end up pushing her biases in a classroom somewhere.
Nimrodcast Journalism.
I’m sure she is unaware but a lot of Republicans like myself grew up working class and have worked hard to improve our economic status. We attribute our success to hard work, not government hand-outs, and don’t consider it some special privilege to talk to us because we “made it.”
And who are these people that are always telling women, minorities and the poor thay cannot succeed?
Dems of course!
I shoud have known!
Just A Grunt - Exactly! There is a huge distinction between being a journalist and a commentator. True journalism is completely objective, while commentary is subjective. Naturally, anyone in the MSM will tell you that objectivity is impossible, given the amount of gatekeeping that is necessary in news gathering - which stories are important to cover, in what order should they be presented, editorial decisions, etc.
I saw Simpson speak at my college as part of a “distinguished speaker” series back in 1991 as part of a debate with Phyllis Schlafly on Roe v. Wade. So even then she was an advocate for lefty causes, and I wondered at the time how she could be an objective journalist as anchor of the ABC weekend news.
MSM “correspondents” like Simpson are why the new media are more important than ever - we as consumers have access to more information than we ever have thanks to the Internet/blogosphere. Of course, much of the raw news information still comes from the same flawed journalistic sources, but at least there is a counterbalance to what we hear and see from the MSM.
Laugh and move on, yes that is what we conservatives have been doing since I can remember. My news watching days started in the 60’s. I have seen the bias; and have wondered when the conservatives would get their nightly bully pulpit. Well….?
Thank-God for blogs and talk radio. The seriously flawed perspective of an elitist is that they think they are objective and can look at themselves with a subjective approach. Jounalism Education because of its vital play in United States political arena should be scrutinized. Consequences must be expected for unethical behavior, something that has surely been lacking in the past 30 years….
Surprised, heck no, just tired of the laugh and move on by the conservatives and the liberals, too, as they get away with this sham: ethical journalism.
Carole Simpson…C.S.—
Clinton Supporter
Covert Supporter
Coyly Sympathetic
Clandestine Solidarity
Ethical journalism is an oxymoron.
Republicans should mention that the Democrats in Congress deserve some credit for the surge.
Something like,
This might help get more support for the war and finally allow us to see a united front. This would surely be a significant blow to our enemy’s morale.
Okay! Does anyone have any real proof that Hillary is in fact a woman, or is she just an ugly man?
This validates the bias concerns in the presidential debates she moderated.
Newsbusters has a nice synopsis of her liberal career at ABC.
Simpson is emblematic of the kind of thinking that has come to symbolize modern-day American “journalism.”
The first trait is to confuse herself with the cosmos. Being a liberal, and presumably cavorting almost to exclusion with other liberals, leads her to see her beliefs as “normal” if not normative.
This is why most liberal journos doggedly cling to the notion that they’re not biased: in their minds, that’s not possible because they have already sold themselves on the belief that they’re the “mainstream.” It’s how Dan Rather can say with a straight face that the New York Times is “middle of the road” in its politics; in his mind, it really is so because the Times’ ideology parallels his own.
The second characterisic of modern American journos is their exaggerated sense of self-importance. This probably dates back to the Watergate scandal and the rise of “adversarial journalism,” when a couple of Washington Post reporters proved instrumental in helping to bring down a president - and have ever since inspired a lot of less-talented hacks to try to duplicate their style if not their achievement.
One of the symptoms of this inflated sense of self is the self-imposed “duty” not just to inform, but to take on the mantle of opinion leader. For Simpson, the power to inform millions of people carries with it the responsibility to see that the masses get the “correct” kind of information so they can do the right thing themselves.
Simpson just knows in her heart what wonderful people Bill and Hillary are, and how lucky America is to serve them; it’s as much a public service obligation for her to rally the people to the “Dear Leader” as it is to report the “Five W’s.”
The third defining quality of present-day American journalists is their deep sense of cynicism. Simpson is elegant proof: at some level she knew all along that her partisanship and bias were and are a betrayal of the ideal of journalistic objectivity, which is why she denied them. But by her own admission, now that she’s no longer bound to pay lip service to that ideal she can let it all hang out. And she does.
Indeed, it must be a very liberating feeling for her not to have to camouflage her prejudices anymore; much like the old knights of chivalry must’ve felt if they ever got the chance to trade in their poetry of unrequited love to consummate the real thing.
I believe she’s looking to br HRC’s Press Secretary. For those into sports she is also Tony Wilbon’s first cousin and role model. Tony is a good reporter but often defers to the race card. Maybe, this explains her attitude with conservative blacks like Rod Paige.
[Mostly leftist] journalists, incapable of objectivity in their reporting, are even less able to be objective about themselves. They see what they want to see, which is a false but favorable self-image. This applies both individually and collectively within the trade. What a surprise.
*shrugs*
As was pointed out, most of these blithering talking network heads are nothing more than nutroot mouth pieces grinding axes under the pretense of pretending to be pretentiously objective.
It’s like announcing the U.N. is a corrupt, perverse, anti-American leech seeking to suck the like blood out of its host.
*shrugs* We know.
The question is, ‘what are Westerners going to do about it?’
Unprompted…unexpected…my ‘Howard Dean’.
This you talk about, but not Fox News’ involvement in the Judith Regan, Kerik, Giuliani fiasco? Oh, right…
The Guardian has a great article about it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2213075,00.html
Regan, naturally enough given her special knowledge of the man, was questioned about Kerik by federal investigators. And she now alleges that two executives of Fox News instructed her to “lie to, and withhold information from” the investigators about Kerik. Regan charges that Fox executives did this because they feared the inquiry into Kerik might singe Giuliani, whose presidential ambitions, her complaint charges, Fox has long been intent on “protecting”.
Let’s linger over that for a moment. Two executives of a major news organisation may have told a citizen to lie to federal investigators to protect a presidential candidate. It’s a stunning charge. If proven someday, Fox will no longer be able to hide behind the fiction that it’s a neutral news outfit.
It’s like an addict trying to hide their addiction. When they’re high they think if they act straight, no one will know they’re high. Everyone knows they’re high.
Ugh, disgusting. I’m with Hugh, though, the journo-turned lefty political activist story has been told a thousand times… what disgusts me is every time I hear some idiotic liberal say “it’s time” for a woman president. How about it’s time for the right candidate you clowns. I’m so sick of it being “time” for the first “xxxx president”. It’s terrifying that this is what passes for a rational thought in liberal circles.
Guess where I heard about the Kerik story? Fox News. So I don’t believe you or the Guardian, particularly given this editorial statement: Fox will no longer be able to hide behind the fiction that it’s a neutral news outfit. I think that says it all. And anyone with more than a 2-digit IQ, (which, granted excluded most liberals,) knows the Guardian isn’t objective and can’t stand the competition from Fox/Murdoch.
bear, Bill Gates is a liberal.
Eloquently? All I hear is: “YOU WOMAN! ME VOTE NOW!”
That’s troubling. If you experience it again on this site, send in a screenshot.
Let me save you the trouble, watershed…Fox News, bad, Republicans, bad; not fair, (nasal sounding) waa-haa-haa-haaaaa!
That just about says it all, huh?
right_on, you left out “Here’s your beef jerkey.”
By the way, the Active-X message is “This website wants to run ‘Windows Media Player Core’ from ‘Microsoft Corporation’…”
It appears Ms. Simpson, aged 65, subscribes to the same, albeit less harsh or extreme, skin treatments as another famous left-wing luminary, Nancy BelaPeolosi, whose unnatural youthfulness makes one scratch their heads wondering “is the water?”
I’m shocked I tell ya…The (A)ll (B)ill (C)linton news channel had a Clinton supporter all along? My eyebrows are on my forehead.
Another thing I remember about Ms. Simpson — after the 2004 elections, Simpson compared the distribution of Blue and Red states to the distribution of Union and Confederate states before the Civil War.
In other words, New York was a Union State back then and now New York was voting for Kerry; meanwhile Georgia was a slave state back in the day and now Georgia was pulling the lever for Bush, etc. True to liberal form, Simpson was implying that a vote for Bush over Kerry was somehow analagous to supporting slavery.
To me this was the telling quote:
“It’s very freeing now that I’m not a journalist and I can speak my mind.”
It’s been decades since journalists did anything other than speak their own minds!
Also interesting is the frequent reference to being “African American” that she repeated more than once and that the stories also flaunted. If she’s so pround of being black, why has she dyed and straightened her hair (including her eyebrows!), and made every effort she can to appear white?
re: #64 John Ansell said:
Here ya go:
/just type the number 8 and a capital O
so cool!
#57
You heard about Judith Regan’s claims about Fox News on Fox News? I would be interested in reading/viewing that. Do you have a link to their story?
#60
I am just showing how this bias you all rant against isn’t merely a “liberal” issue.
Apparently Fox News is so invested in Giuliani’s campaign that they would try and influence legal matters involving his associates. That definitely trumps this rather tame “ex journalist finally gets to say she likes candidate x”. But you won’t hear anything about it here.
Is that because this place is so free of bias?
Please someone explain to me how this is even a news item. The left denies that they have any bias. It is a given like the sun coming up in the east every morning. No matter what evidance is presented they will say that they have an enlightened outlook that is fair on all topics.
A rel news item would be for one of them to come out and say that they are a staunch conservative and blow the whistle on the editors and leftist agenda being portrayed as main stream. Now that would be a news story.
Or a real public apology from Geroldo Rivera (?) to Ms. Malkin for his blatent racism and hatred of America and INSULTS to her.
Thanks Leepo
The over-pronouncing moron is also a loon. How reassuring.
Her”first foray into free speech”?For an MSMer that sounds just about right.What was she doing for the twenty years that she was supposed to be doing journalism?Or is journalism not the practice of free speech?I’m confused.
oddly,I had never heard of Carole Simpson before tonight.
I stopped watching the broadcast networks way back in 1982. If the NFL or Formula 1 is on, I’ll record it and watch later so I can skip through commercials. I’ve heard of Carol Simpson, never watched or listened to her, never will. The clip of her above is not very complimentary. In fact, it makes her look like a fool.
#76
blues, neither had I until a couple years ago when Rush talked about something she’d said-sadly, I can’t remember what it was about…he kept referring to her as Carol Thimpthon, presumably mocking her manner of speech. I wish I could remember that-and I also wish her name wasn’t Carol. That was my mother’s name.
Are you able to distinguish between news shows and commentary?
Do you realize that while FNC has more conservatives than the other cable networks (not to mention the majors), they’re hardly devoid of leftists. Colmes and Rivera come immediately to mind? (And Van Susteren is up there too, in my mind, given her apparent obsession with death and disaster, shared by so many leftists.)
Fox News may be more conservative than the rest in that it has more conservative commentators than they-and maybe Fox’s ratings vis-a-vis them reflect that-but that is not to say that Fox is a conservative network. Much less that the others are not leftist, which they clearly are.
That woman is one of the reasons I quit watching network news more than a decade ago.