Accuracy in Media


If Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2016, it’s a pretty good bet that she won’t be getting the vote of liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who on Sunday criticized Clinton’s daughter Chelsea for what she said was her “money grab.”

The Clintons’ finances have come under scrutiny lately, after Hillary said last month that the family was “dead broke” when they left the White House, and that they weren’t “truly well off” despite earning over $100 million since then.

Dowd took Chelsea to task for collecting $75,000 for speeches of dubious value:

There’s something unseemly about it, making one wonder: Why on earth is she worth that much money? Why, given her dabbling in management consulting, hedge-funding and coattail-riding, is an hour of her time valued at an amount that most Americans her age don’t make in a year? (Median household income in the United States is $53,046.)

If she really wants to be altruistic, let her contribute the money to some independent charity not designed to burnish the Clinton name as her mother ramps up to return to the White House and as she herself drops a handkerchief about getting into politics.

Or let her speak for free. After all, she is in effect going to candidate school. No need to get paid for it, too.

Dowd was also less than enthusiastic about Chelsea’s gig at NBC News, of which she said Clinton was “wildly overpaid” for a nepotistic job as a soft-focus correspondent.

Does anyone even remember what Clinton has reported on for the more than $25,000 a minute she was paid by NBC News?

Her $600,000-a-year contract is now a month-to-month deal, but she wouldn’t be there at all if her last name wasn’t Clinton.

While the Clinton’s laugh all the way to the bank, the public is left to wonder if any of the Clintons are truly concerned about income inequality and other liberal causes, or just interested in building their own personal wealth and empire.

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.



    Remember what she last reported on? I didn’t even know she was playing reporter. Seems no one needs to be qualified to do the job their in anymore. Especially true if your name is Clinton.

  • boysenberry

    One of the few times I agree with Dowd.

  • The Major

    I really hope & pray that Dowd & the Times goes after Hillary hammer & tong
    when she announces her run for POTUS,,,since the Times has reporters that can prove that Hillary has LIED since Watergate,,when she & 2 co-conspirators
    LIED to their boss about denying Nixon a fair trial,,,later the 2 got jobs in Bill’s Admin.,,,she lied about Chelsea on 9/11,,,she lied about the Benghazi “Video”
    the list goes on & On,,,

  • Steven Barrett

    Talk about giving nepotism a bad name. I just can’t wait till the first time a second Clinton administration has to answer for some of its insider appointments and accusations of giving special consideration, yadda yadda yadda. On the other hand, the cracks of loyalty are beginning to creak, spread and spread wide within the once thought to be unbeatable Hillary run for her husband’s old job.

    Wasn’t one Justinian and Theodora “power couple” or as the new “branding” would put it, “power family unit” enough?

  • sarah godwin

    That’s ridiculous. Women have as much right to make money as men do. The glaringly obvious evil double-standard has got to be stopped in its tracks. Years ago, one “liberal” reporter crazily accused the Clintons of “pimping out” Chelsea just because she campaigned for her mother for President – while he Ignored the FACT that Mitt Romney’s sonS were traveling all over the country Campaigning for THEIR father just as hard! Disgusting. Maureen Dowd should be ashamed of herself.

  • sarah godwin

    Would Dowd be asking her “unseemly” questions about any other STANFORD graduate? It is bizarre to think that this woman who worked hard AND also had a front row seat viewing history in the making is somehow “unworthy!”

    So she ALSO had good role models in Both parents where her work ethic is concerned. That is allegedly a “bad” thing? Why?