Oh Hell, Everybody in Media Donated to the Clinton Foundation: Here’s a List


Clinton Foundation donors include dozens of media organizations, individuals

Josh GersteinTarini PartiHadas Gold and Dylan Byers report:

…The following list includes news media organizations that have donated to the foundation, as well as other media networks, companies, foundations or individuals that have donated. It is organized by the size of the contribution:


Carlos Slim
Chairman & CEO of Telmex, largest New York Times shareholder

James Murdoch
Chief Operating Officer of 21st Century Fox

Newsmax Media
Florida-based conservative media network

Thomson Reuters
Owner of the Reuters news service



News Corporation Foundation
Philanthropic arm of former Fox News parent company


Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Richard Mellon Scaife
Owner of Pittsburgh Tribune-Review


Abigail Disney
Documentary filmmaker

Bloomberg Philanthropies

Howard Stringer
Former CBS, CBS News and Sony executive

Intermountain West Communications Company
Local television affiliate owner (formerly Sunbelt Communications)


Bloomberg L.P.

Discovery Communications Inc.

George Stephanopoulos
ABC News chief anchor and chief political correspondent

Mort Zuckerman
Owner of New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report

Time Warner Inc.
Owner of CNN parent company Turner Broadcasting




Hollywood Foreign Press Association
Presenters of the Golden Globe Awards



Knight Foundation
Non-profit foundation dedicated to supporting journalism

Public Radio International

Turner Broadcasting
Parent company of CNN



Parent copmany of NBCUniversal

NBC Universal
Parent company of NBC News, MSNBC and CNBC

Public Broadcasting Service


Robert Allbritton
Owner of POLITICO parent company Capitol News Group


AOL Huffington Post Media Group

Hearst Corporation

Judy Woodruff
PBS Newshour co-anchor and managing editor

The Washington Post Company


Thanks a Lot: When You Get the Flu This Winter, You Can Blame Anti-Vaxxers


We’re never going to modernize our outdated approach to preventing annual outbreaks as long as scientists remain stuck in nonsensical debates with the no-shots crowd.

Kent Sepkowitz complains: Now that flu season again is closing in on all of us, it’s time to trot out the annual debate about flu vaccines.

“The bigger problem is that the anti-vax crowd waits for this sort of mess to pounce, as if the biologic unpredictability of a living virus is enough to make their point.  Their point of course is a slippery one…”

On one side are pro-vaccine stalwarts like those in public health (and yours truly), who look at the needle and syringe and see lives saved and hospitalizations averted. On the inevitable other side stand vaxxthose against vaccination, people looking for plot, conspiracy, and intrigue in all the wrong places: the anti-vaccine brigade. Somehow, the discussion each year begins from scratch, Groundhog Day-style, with identical claims, counterclaims, and mud-slinging from all quarters.

 “To vaccinate against the dozens of potentially circulating strains would require a giant syringe more out of a vaudeville act than a nurse’s station.”

This year, it must be admitted, the discussion is a bit more dicey—the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced a few weeks ago that this season’s vaccine is not such a good match, meaning that the vaccine may prevent fewer cases of influenza. On average, the vaccine has an efficacy of about 60 percent. This number is arrived at by comparing proven influenza rates in groups that vaccinated and those that didn’t—a flu-shotfair-enough and simple-enough way to examine an extremely complex epidemiologic problem.

This year, the vaccine protection rate may be even lower because, even in the red-hot super-cool molecular science world of the 21st century, we still generate flu vaccine like it’s 1963. Here’s the staid approach: In winter each year, certified flu experts meet in a room and decide which of the dozens of strains circulating worldwide are likeliest to cause the most harm when the next winter’s flu season hits, eight to 10 months hence. They look at all sorts of data and then like weathermen forced by the ticking clock to make a judgment despite imperfect information, they vote three or four strains into the vaccine. Read the rest of this entry »