2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow The New York Times Bungled the Hillary Clinton Emails Story
*With thanks to DeepModem Mom who read this story first and put it in the HRC Group.
Conclusions: " recklessness, ignorance or intentional deception" .....I think all three!
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246
What the hell is happening at The New York Times?
In March, the newspaper published a highly touted article about Hillary Clintons use of a personal email account that, as I wrote in an earlier column, was wrong in its major points. The Timess public editor defended that piece, linking to a lengthy series of regulations that, in fact, proved the allegations contained in the article were false. While there has since been a lot of partisan hullaballoo about email-bogus-gatesomething to be expected when the story involves a political partys presidential front-runnerthe reality remained that, when it came to this story, there was no there there.
Then, on Thursday night, the Times dropped a bombshell: Two government inspectors general had made a criminal referral to the Justice Department about Clinton and her handling of the emails. The story was largely impenetrable, because at no point did it offer even a suggestion of what might constitute a crime. By Friday morning, the Times did what is known in the media trade as a skin backthe article now said the criminal referral wasnt about Clinton but about the departments handling of emails. Still, it conveyed no indication of what possible crime might be involved.
The story seemed to further fall apart on Friday morning when Representative Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) issued a statement saying that he had spoken to the inspector general of the State Department and that there had been no criminal referral regarding Clintons email usage. Rather, Cummings said, the inspectors general for State and the intelligence community had simply notified the Justice Departmentwhich issues the regulations on Freedom of Information Act requeststhat some emails subject to FOIA review had been identified as classified when they had not previously been designated that way.
(more) http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246
MADem
(135,425 posts)What's sad is so many people suspended their "aspens are connected" skepticism about the NYT, and chose to believe this hate-filled silliness a day or so ago, simply because they had a deranged hatred of HRC.
Of course, if one is not a member of that "deranged hatred" group, they should not take offense--only someone with an unreasonable hatred of HRC would be angry at this comment..
Consider the source..always.
Nite Owl
(11,303 posts)some sort of desire to accuse the Clintons of something, anything to break a story. Remember what they did to President Clinton? Whitewater and all the investigations proved nothing and cost millions.
procon
(15,805 posts)Take a few minutes and read this piece. This was a badly contrived hit pice on Clinton and the Times has some serious s'plaing to do RE the journalistic intent.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)The NYT really screwed up
asjr
(10,479 posts)Popcorn 51
(84 posts)The NY Times writers are stupid and they are liars.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)CNN discussing it right now. Defenders and accusers be will be debating it from now on and for the rest of her life.
Facts have left the building of journalism.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)which, BTW, is the whole point ...
Next up ... link after link to HRC "Untrustworthiness" polling numbers.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)And all the 'untrustworthiness' crap can be tracked right back to the GOP!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And posTed by a select few DU members.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)Laser102
(816 posts)I think anyone who supports Hillary should do the same. I am not saying this will have any impact on the slanted coverage, and the urge to sensationalize all things Hillary, but it certainly made me feel better.
mcar
(42,372 posts)Post the inflammatory article, edit it or take it down later. Then print a "correction" in a day or two.
In the meantime, other media outlets pick up the original story and run with it. The correction will never be addressed.
The "story" was on CBS and PBS news last night. Big AP article in my local rag this morning.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)mcar
(42,372 posts)Really discouraging.