Conflict? PBS Journalist to Emcee Event Praising HHS Sec. for Obamacare
- Posted on April 19, 2012 at 8:37am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
Might this be a conflict of interest?
PBS anchor Gwen Ifill is set to emcee an event honoring Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for her “advancements in health care” and contributions to implementing Obamacare. The event is a benefit for the non-profit Whitman-Walker Health.
“Please join Gwen Ifill, managing editor of ‘Washington Week’ and senior correspondent for the ‘PBS News Hour’” and the Whitman-Walker family as we honor United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius for advancements in health care,” the invite says. “Be the Care and help Whitman-Walker Health continue to provide empowering health care services to our community.”
The bio of Sebelius listed on the invite leaves no question what type of event it will be:
Kathleen Sebelius was sworn in as the 21stSecretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on April 28, 2009. Since taking office, Secretary Sebelius has led ambitious efforts to improve America’s health and enhance the delivery of human services to some of the nation’s most vulnerable populations, including young children, those with disabilities, and the elderly.
As part of the historic Affordable Care Act, she is implementing reforms that have ended many of the insurance industry’s worst abuses and will help 34 million uninsured Americans get health coverage. She is also working with doctors, nurses, hospital leaders, employers, and patients to slow the growth in health care costs through better care and better health. [Emphasis added]
Metro Weekly also makes it clear that the non-profit organization is a big fan of Obamacare, and confirms Ifill’s role:
Whitman-Walker Health, the nonprofit community health organization that specializes in HIV/AIDS treatment, will hold its 19th annual spring fundraiser, themed ”Be the Care,” during which the center will honor Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius with its Partner for Life Award for her work in helping implement the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The cocktail reception and awards ceremony, which will be emceed by PBS’s Gwen Ifill, is set for Thursday, April 19.
Whitman-Walker representatives praised Sebelius’s work in implementing the ACA to ensure better access to health care for millions of Americans, including those with pre-existing conditions, and to provide support to community health centers like Whitman-Walker. [Emphasis added]
This isn’t the first time Ifill has been involved in an event with a possible conflict of interest. “In 2008, it was questionable that PBS NewsHour and Washington Week anchor Gwen Ifill could moderate the vice-presidential debate as she was writing a book called “The Breakthrough” about the rise of Barack Obama and other black liberal politicians,” Newsbusters points out.
What do you think?
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 676 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 527 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 400 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 372 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 328 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 266 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 275 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 148 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 266 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (37)
drphil69
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 11:43amWhat conflict? PBS is Public Bull Sh*t – run by the govt at taxpayer expense to propagate government lies to the public. With Obummer in office, PBS, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, are all just mouthpieces for an out of control govt that will bankrupt the most prosperous, most powerful nation on the planet within the next few years.
So… where’s the conflict?
Report Post »db321
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 6:50pmGo ahead use your Public druel to promote something that will be deemed Un-Constitutional! How American is that!
Report Post »tankyjo
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 11:39amNo conflict here, conflict of interest was soooo decades ago. It’s open collusion.
Report Post »RodT82721
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 11:34amThis shouldn’t be a surprise, PBS / NPR, tax payer funded, praising Socialized Medicine! It’s been the plan of Progressives since Wilson.
Progressives rejoice that now a lot more ‘free’ stuff that private Insurance Companies wouldn’t provide. Pre-existing conditions are not insured, they are a health car plan. 26 year old children for a free ride? Only when someone else pays.
In the private sector a business has to make a profit to stay in business. In the world of progressives, that would be the public sector, everything is paid by the tax payers, it’s pennies from heaven, to give to all those that can’t or wont pay their own bills.
Report Post »Bluesurf
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 11:16amend all pbs tax dollars now!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »freetexas2
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 11:01amJust another normal day at PBS. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Report Post »I.Gaspar
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 10:40amI didn’t know who gwen Awful was but her picture speaks a thousand words.
Report Post »leftcoastslut
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 10:13amafter watching PBS from birth until kindergarten, these little ones are already little progressive soilders
Report Post »flsnipe
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 10:02amPBS= Please Be A Socialist
Report Post »AnAmericanToo
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 10:01amGwen Hill is an employee of the Public Broadcasting System. It is my understanding that the American taxpayers are forced through taxes to support PBS.as such she is paid by taxpayers. She should not be advocating on position or another. But what thinking people even watch PBS for “news”?
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:47amDear Allen West: Here are the names of a bunch of Communists!
Report Post »poster
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:39amI would hardly use the word “journalist” when referring to Gwen Eye-full. She’s a Progressive-Liberal-Democrat-Socialist house-slave for the Obamas.
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 10:27amthat was what I was going to say “journalist” when speaking of PBS is like saying those journalists at msnbc. It is garbage. They are lying purveyors of propoganda.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:27amYou’re surprised ? PBS and NPR and BBC are all preachers of the International Left’s religion of Big Brother Politics. And NPR ( their “news ” sounds like the Obama Campaign Committee ) and PBS get to use our tax money to spout their propaganda – like the Marxists who have silently infiltrated our public educational institutions for years . Another great waste of tax dollars…
Report Post »helena
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:22amI stopped being a member to pbs when they got political. There is too much political activity on the other channels. I don’t need to watch it on PBS, also, and then contribute to it as well.
Report Post »BlackCrow
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:17amWhy would it be a conflict of interest for an employee of one government agency to MC an event for an employee of another government agency? PBS is not an independent news agency it is the official government propaganda agency. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has long outlived it’s usefulness and should be defunded yesterday.
Report Post »Hickory
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:15amWe used to contribute to PBS. We stopped that about 3 years ago.
Report Post »GoodCook
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:15amWhy yes, yes it is the Propoganda Broadcasting System.. … Using your tax dollars against you!
Report Post »starman70
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:12amPBS: Politbureau Broadcasting System. Odummer’s choice for broadcasting leftist propaganda. Even further left than the mainstream media.
Report Post »The Goo
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:10amNo media bias there… As stated above… PBS can do whatever they want IF they stop accepting tax dollars.
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:04amPBS can do whatever it wants as soon as it stops taking tax dollars. Fact is PBS stands for PURE BOLDFACE SOCIALISM and everyone knows it. Just another example of what happens when you let cancer stay in the body.
Report Post »TEARS FOR AMERICA
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 8:53amI for one am sick of PBS getting my tax dollars for propaganda purposes. Sebelius under her governorship of Kansas propped up late-term abortion and is responsible for more innocents dying than any other in our nation’s history. And if Obamacare gets a pass, with the stranglehold of forced abortion coverage at the center, rationing and death will be commonplace.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 8:51amConflict of interest absolutely; yet remember that PBS is the Progressive Bulshavik System for their propaganda, what else would you expect?
Report Post »IndyGuy
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 8:48amP.S…..PBS=PubliclyBackingSocialism
Report Post »IndyGuy
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 8:46amDefund PBS now!!!!
Report Post »sndrman
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 8:45amyou’re surprised why? come on really? when did you not think pbs is another arm of the dnc,socilaism,liberalism,communism…
Report Post »Locked
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 8:45amNo more of a conflict of interest than a Catholic priest preaching against mandated contraceptive insurance from the pulpit. So long as the MC isn’t endorsing a candidate by name, there’s a lot of leniency. Of course, PBS might not see it the same way and may choose to take action itself; but there will be no issue legally.
Report Post »13th Imam
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:04amSure, Sure
Just another partially publicly funded, socialist leaning, so-called journalist, stumping for socialized , UnConstitutional, Barrycare, is the same as a Catholic Priest speaking about cutting live baby’s out of irresponsible (mostly) skanks.
And this from a Christian Conservative??
Report Post »Locked
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:32am@13th
Seems my last response didn’t post. Oddness, didn’t think I used any forbidden words.
1. Contraceptive mandate doesn’t cover abortions. Try not to conflate the two. People might think you‘re either lying or don’t know the difference.
Report Post »2. Between 89 and 98% of Catholic women use or have used birth control before. You just called most of them skanks. Well done.
3. My political views and religious views have very little to do with my comment this time. Both PBS and Catholic charities take money from the federal government and are tax exempt. They both need to follow rules set by the government to do so. As a conservative, ideally both should be defunded (and Obamacare should be repealed as it is, you correctly said, Unconstitutional), and if they want to shill for a candidate, they should lose their tax exempt status. I think we’ll agree on that!
barber2
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:36amLOCKED: a priest is supposed to teach church doctrine . That is a religious issue . It only becomes political if the government is instituting something against the church’s moral code. Or would you have wanted priests to not speak out against the the Nazis ? Mao’s “cultural revolution ? ” Churches have to take a stand on issues which they believe are immoral . Churches can not be bound by ” political correctness !” And that is precisely why there are martyrs who are killed by repressive governments .
Report Post »flowerplough
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:40amConflict is in that publicly-funded PBS is using our taxes to help Obama and the Dems, yo? Or no? Your taxes going to any priest against your will?
Defund de leftists, know what I‘m sayin’?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:49am@Barber2
“That is a religious issue . It only becomes political if the government is instituting something against the church’s moral code.”
I agree that churches should speak about their moral issues with the world. I also agree that if they cannot follow the rules set up the government, they would be better off losing their tax exempt status. Same with non-profits. It’s duplicitous to say “Oh, well, you can say what you want, but you can’t” just because we agree with one side and not the other. Rules and laws are to be applied equally.
“Churches have to take a stand on issues which they believe are immoral.”
I completely agree. As do all citizens. And as long as they follow the rules that they agreed to, then life is peachy. Hence why I compared the two: neither is breaking the law, because they’re not endorsing candidates. Legally there is no conflict of interest.
Again, ideally (in my eyes) we stop funding both groups, revoke their tax exempt status, and let them have the full freedom of religion.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 10:08am@Flower
“Your taxes going to any priest against your will?”
I think I found what was forbidden: the link to the Catholic Charities website. Anyway, look it up. 67% of their funding comes from the federal government. That doesn’t even count other services like adoption centers, halfway houses, or medical clinics… all of which receive taxpayer funding.
So yes, my money is going to priests and nuns in a manner that I do not regulate and have no say over. Most of what they do I’ll likely agree with, but isn’t this the same argument we have against government agencies that do the same? Uncle Sam takes our money and decides what to do with it… leaving us without the freedom to choose.
As a fiscal conservative, I am against such a system. Are you conservative or not?
Report Post »barber2
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 10:24amLocked : I do not think that the government should have the power to rescind a church’s tax exempt status . Too much of a potential for restricting freedom of speech. This is a very touchy issue BUT freedom of speech is so very important to maintain the rights of the individual over that of the government. Taxation shouldn’t be used to control speech. Maybe we need to completely re-examine taxation !
Report Post »Locked
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 10:42am@Barber2
” I do not think that the government should have the power to rescind a church’s tax exempt status .”
As government is the one that allows tax exempt status, it only makes sense that they have the power to rescind it. But it’s a two-way street. If a church or religious-affiliated organization feels they MUST endorse a candidate, they can do so knowing the consequences. Same thing with a non-profit organization like PBS. Up until that point, both can skirt coming out and saying who to vote for.
Again, ideally we would just keep the government out of all of these things, both in terms of giving exemptions, and in funding them. Short of the true conservative side, I’ll argue with how the reality is: both benefit from the government and neither legally has a conflict of interest in promoting or decrying the government’s programs.
Report Post »