After Forming Clinton Cash "Exclusives," NY Times, Washington Post Fail To Report On Book's Errors

[hrmjustin]

HILLARY CLINTION ROOM POST


ERIC BOEHLERT


Ever since Peter Schweizer's new attack book Clinton Cash was touted as the must-read tome of the campaign season, a growing number of media organizations, including Politico, BuzzFeed, ABC News, FactCheck.org, and Time, have detailed factual shortcomings in the book. (Media Matters has, too.) Noticeably absent from that fact-checking procession has been The New York Times and the Washington Post, the two newspapers that entered into exclusive editorial agreements with Clinton Cash's publisher.

The Times' and Post's seeming lack of interest in detailing the book's long list of misstatements certainly raises questions about whether the papers' exclusive pacts made the dailies reluctant to highlight Clinton Cash's obvious shortcomings.

After all, if those other media organizations can find the Clinton Cash errors, why can't the Times and the Post? And even if Times and Post reporters can't spot the misinformation, why aren't they at least writing about the key revelations that others are uncovering? Recall that it was the Times that trumpeted Clinton Cash as the "the most anticipated and feared book" of the campaign season. If it's so important, why isn't the Times documenting the crucial errors found between the Clinton Cash covers?


http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/01/after-forming-clinton-cash-exclusives-ny-times/203492

[Jackpine Radical]

1. The WMD Times and the CIA Post?

Ya gotta be kiddin' me. Facts run counter to their mission statements.

[workinclasszero]

2. It was a right wing drive by

Hit piece.

Why the NY Times went with it is the question.

[Thinkingabout]

3. Fast to jump on the story, maybe never to correct the errors.

Is this the story Rand Paul was referring which would disqualify Hillary from running. Haven't heard much from him since. My, my, how things just quit flowing when the well runs dry.