NYT corrects its story on Gabbard and Hillary; they misquoted HRC

[Skidmore]

Threads here should be corrected to add this. I 'm using Raw Story, which links to the correction and provides additional information.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/new-york-times-changes-story-admitting-they-misquoted-clinton-saying-russians-were-grooming-tulsi-gabbard/#.Xa-gAKKls4E.twitter

In fact, the actual thing Clinton said was that Republicans were grooming Gabbard to be a third-party spoiler candidate in 2020.

“Hillary Clinton waded into the Democratic primary on Friday by suggesting that Russia was backing Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii for president and that Republicans were ‘grooming’ her as a third-party candidate,” The Times said in a corrected report (emphasis from RawStory).

“It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me,” Gabbard tweeted about Clinton. “Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.”

In an interview with Fox News Monday, Trump used the inaccurate quote to justify diminishing the accusations of his links to Russia.

[still_one]

1. This needs as much exposure as possible, especially in context that a good number were so ready to

jump all over Hillary for this, and many of those same "critics" seem to "want to move on", and not acknowledge the error

[Perseus]

5. If Hillary brushes her hair, people will have something negative to say

republicans have never been able to get over the fact that Hillary dances around them any time they accuse her of anything, that there is no republican who can outsmart her, and it has been that way since she first went to Washington after law school, they immediately recognized her as a threat to them.

[Skidmore]

6. Sadly there are some

Democrats happy to help them, as we've seen this past week.

[thesquanderer]

12. It's not as bad, but it was still a bad thing to say.

TG had already said that she would not run as a 3rd-party or independant. So implying that she would--regardless of whether it was the Russians or Republicans "grooming" her--is a dirty attack. Making it the Republicans merely makes it less dirty compared to adding the implication that she was working with a foreign government.

And she still referred to TG as a Russian asset. That is defensible (one can make a good case for her being an unwitting asset), but I still think that's probably an inappropriate thing for a party statesman (statesperson?) to say about one of the candidates who is running for the nomination. It would be one thing to endorse who she liked for the primary, but I think it's unseemly for her to denigrate those she does not.

And yeah, I know she didn't mention TG by name. But anyone who does not have their heads completely in the sand when it comes to the political scene knew exactly who she meant, and HRC is smart enough to know that.

[still_one]

13. No. Why do you think The NY Times walked it back? Because they intentionally misrepresented and

lied about what she said

This isn’t the first time they have done this to Hillary, and also to Preside Obama, Democrats on the FEC, etc etc etc

TG reacted to The NY Times lie. I doubt very much this would have gone anywhere if not for the inept yellow journalism of The NY Times

Hillary was specifically warning about foreign involvement in 2016, and its repeat in 2020

The likely implication is someone like Jill Stein

[thesquanderer]

14. No, NY Times walked it back because their job includes correcting themselves when they're wrong.

It doesn't mean they INTENTIONALLY misrepresented. Corrections are made for inadvertent errors all the time. The presence of a correction does not mean their previous misstatement was intentional, that's ridiculous.

Regardless, the correction still only changes Hillary's statement from something very bad to something not quite as bad. It was still bad, for the reasons I mentioned.

That said, TG's response was even worse.

[still_one]

22. Here are some stories that they "softly" walked backed, and some they didn't

It was because of the "hubris of the Obama Administration and the Democrat why the repubicans rejected climate change:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html


On October 31, 2016 the NY Times headlined the following story:

"Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia"

....................

"That New York Times article from Oct. 31, 2016, on the FBI investigation into the links between Russia and the Trump campaign won’t stop wiggling around in the newspaper’s archives. “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia,” reads the headline over a piece that addressed an ongoing probe that hadn’t yet “found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.” The story continues: “And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0

This reporting was shoddy at best

They love their "bothsiderisms:

They setup false equivalencies between the republicans and Democrats completely distorting the obvious differences in a video by Mark Scheffle and Shane O'Neill telling us how both republicans and Democrats have flip-flopped on Comey. It is so out of context it is pathetic.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000005090191/comey-fired-democrats-republicans.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

They did the same thing when one of the Democrats on the FEC stepped down, building the false equivalency argument that how there is deadlock because both sides won't budge. That was NOT the case at all, and was a gross distortion again. The Democrats were doing everything they could to compromise with the republicans on the committee. It was the republicans that refused to compromise

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/politics/fec-elections-ann-ravel-campaign-finance.html

In fact that report was so messed up, that the Democrat who resigned from the commission wrote a rebuttal to state the reality of the situation:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/opinion/dysfunction-and-deadlock-at-the-federal-election-commission.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/nyt-mag-nathaniel-rich-climate-change/566525/

It was just a few days ago they walked backed the "Hillary email story" that no criminal wrongdoing in Hillary Clinton's emails ON PAGE 16.

The Gray Lady isn't what it used to be, and it started to losing that with Judy Miller and the WMD LIE

[thesquanderer]

31. None of that proves that their initial mis-reporting of what HRC said about TG was intentional.

As for the rest, they demonstrate a variety of different circumstances.

Hubris? That wasn't a news story, that was an analysis piece, which by its nature is subjective. Disagreeing with a viewpoint is different from pointing out an error. (It would be interesting, however, to hear what Obama thinks of that characterization of what happened.)

The October 16 story seems to represent what was believed to be accurate at the time. Shoddy reporting and bothsiderism again don't illustrate intent to deceive. And at least they did publish the rebuttal to that "messed up" report.

The Hillary email thing a few days ago wasn't an editorial "walkback," it was a news story on a recently released report. But yes, throughout the media, this report is not getting the publicity that the original accusations got. To be fair, I think that's because the earlier report already basically cleared her as much as this one did. So this story was, in a sense, "new report confirms previous report" or "Hillary cleared yet again for something she was already cleared for." So to play a little devil's advocate here, how newsworthy is that, really? Should it really be front page news? Honestly, the people who believe she was already cleared won't see this as important news, and the ones who don't believe she was cleared STILL aren't going to be convinced.

I'll buy that the NYT wasn't what it once was (or at least what many of us believed it was)... that goes back at least to the days of Judith Miller. But I also subscribe to the philosophy of not automatically assigning to malice what can easily be explained by incompetence. And as has often been said, the daily news is only a first draft of history. The time pressures are conducive to being incomplete and/or inaccurate. And as a perceived "liberal" paper, NYT probably does go too far out of their way to try to prove they're not.

I still think the NYT is an important source (if only because everyone else in the world does, which therefore makes it so), but no one source should be somebody's only source, and I'm not sure how many outlets are clearly better than the NYT... none of them get it all right, right?

[still_one]

32. No argument regarding an important source for a free press. Argument is they need more scrutinity

within the paper to insure they are as accurate as possible.

Of course this doesn't just apply to the Times either

It seems media outlets are so anxious to get a story out quickly, they don't always follow due diligence

This wasn't the NY Times, but a perfect example when the SC ruled on the ACA the first reports that came out was that in went down, which was false. Someone didn't take the time to read the decision

[Tiggeroshii]

2. ....

Tulsi owes Hillary an apology, as none of what she was responding to was actually said.

[Skidmore]

3. Seems to me that many people

owe Hillary an apology.

[Tiggeroshii]

41. Yeah

[still_one]

23. I would say the NY Times owes a lot of people an apology, and they will more carefully scrutinize

their headlines and stories to try and avoid such repetitions in the future

[Tiggeroshii]

40. Agreed.

[BlueMTexpat]

4. Thanks for posting this.

Too many - even here on DU(!!) - do not seem to know this.

[Cha]

7. Mahalo, Skidmore!

How could the NYT mix up the repubs with the Russians?

[Skidmore]

8. Well, they booth begin with "R"...

Mahalo, Cha!

[Cha]

9. lol.. yeah there's that and

they all answer to putin.

[still_one]

24. LOL!!!!!!!!!

[jcmaine72]

10. Shouldn't that work both ways?

Yes, those who jumped on HRC should definitely retract their criticism(s). However, by he same token, there was certainly no shortage of people here who were willing to gleefully run with the (misquoted) unsubstantiated claim that Gabbard was a Russian agent. Their answer when asked for proof was merely that it was "obvious". Is it still obvious she's being groomed by the Russians? Anyone care to walk that assertion back a tad?

BTW, WTF happened to the NY Times, once the gold standard in print journalism? If anything is "obvious" here it's that they're trying to cause division among Democrats. They suck.

[Me.]

11. Stiil Not Correct

For I don't believe she named or mentioned Gabbard

[Skidmore]

18. Read the article

and you will find the entire record is corrected.

[melman]

15. So how come Nick Merrill said "if the nesting doll fits"?

Link to tweet

[Skidmore]

17. You'll have to ask him.

Perhaps covering his tush and hoping no one would notice?

The newspaper issued a correction.

[melman]

20. Here's a helpful link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

[Skidmore]

34. The best response you can come up with is

a snarky insult?

Look, I posted an article about the NYT correcting its article. Each person who jumped on using that erroneous content, including candidates, to spin incrementally erroneous comments have a responsibility to correct the record.

[melman]

35. Oh

And I suppose your suggestion that I contact Nick Merrill was sincere and snark-free?


Please.

[Skidmore]

36. I said that was a question you we ould

have to ask the man. IOW, I don't know. It was a sincere response. Are you always so literal?

[Cha]

43. ..

[still_one]

25. It was "his" speculation. Poulfe speculated Jill Stein. The NY Times corrected ARTICLE IS NOT

SPECULATION, and it is clear she was warning about foreign interference in 2020

He also probably based his TWEET on the false NY Times story

[still_one]

28. Because like everyone else, he probably based it on the original FALSE NY TIMES SHODDY REPORTING

[melman]

30. What?

First of all, his original comment wasn't in reference to the NYT story.

But that aside, Nick Merrill is HRC's spokesperson. You're going to tell me he made a comment based on a NYT story without checking anything?

Just off the cuff like that. Winging it?


Okay.

[still_one]

33. Because I am just going from your tweet? Should I assume that David Sirota, Nina Turner, and

Briahna Gray, and their activities during the GENERAL ELECTION in 2016 represents Bernie's position?

and you know as well as anyone else, representatives of campaigns make statements that either are walked backed, or don't align with the campaign.

and that has happened within ALL the campaigns, including Bernies

[StevieM]

37. Actually, yes.

Strategists and spokesmen speak off the cuff all time. They go off script all the time. They misspeak. They get carried away. They get caught up in a situation where they have a bunch of questions coming from all sides. They don't think about every possible interpretation of a response, especially when two sides are fighting it out.

And Merrill gave his answer after Tulsi had launched a hateful, personal smear against HRC, calling her the embodiment of corruption. We definitely give more flexibility to people who are speaking under those conditions, and especially to their staffers who are trying to defend their employers from a harsh attack on their character.

[melman]

38. Let me ask you a question

Why pretend what was said wasn't said after celebrating it for the last almost-week?


Seriously, all we've heard since Friday is how great this was. And now it didn't even happen?


Whats up with that?

[StevieM]

39. I am not sure what you mean.

First of all, Democrats haven't been celebrating anything that Nick Merril said. No disrespect to him, but he is not a prominent person in the party.

Second, I don't think HRC's people have been pushing this story at all. They have been on the defensive as Tulsi milked it for all it is worth, hammering Hillary relentlessly.

If you mean people here on DU, then I can't speak for everyone. I can only tell you that my general comment has been to point out that HRC never said Tulsi Gabbard's name in that podcast. This only became a big issue because Tulsi wanted it to be one.

[George II]

45. Yes, it only became a big issue because Tulsi...

...in addition to those "who doth protest to much" want it to be a big issue, and remain so.

[George II]

42. Who was "celebrating"? Certainly not anyone on this site. Perhaps another one?

[Celerity]

46. also see a direct quoting from the transcript with one word that changes this whole thing

I agree that Clinton never said it was the Russians for the first part. It was clear that she was talking about Rump and the Rethugs, BUT she DID accuse Gabbard of being a Russian asset (anyone arguing it was possibly any of the other female Dem POTUS candidates is not actiing in good faith, as NONE but Gabbard have been pushed by Russian bots and Russian media) when she said this

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/oct/22/hillary-clinton-and-whether-she-called-tulsi-gabba/

snip

transcript

Plouffe: "But one of the reasons he was able to win is the third party vote."

Clinton: "Right."

Plouffe: "And what's clear to me, you mentioned, you know, he's going to just lie. ... He's going to say, whoever our nominee is, ‘will ban hamburgers and steaks and you can't fly and infanticide’ and people believe this. So, how concerned are you about that? For me, so much of this does come down to the win number. If he has to get 49 or even 49.5 in a bunch of…"

Clinton: "He can't do that."

Plouffe: "...which I don't think he can... So he's going to try and drive the people not to vote for him but just to say, ‘you know, you can't vote for them either.’ And that seems to be, I think, to the extent that I can define a strategy, their key strategy right now."

Clinton: "Well, I think there's going to be two parts and I think it's going to be the same as 2016: ‘Don't vote for the other guy. You don't like me? Don't vote for the other guy because the other guy is going to do X, Y and Z or the other guy did such terrible things and I'm going to show you in these, you know, flashing videos that appear and then disappear and they're on the dark web, and nobody can find them, but you're going to see them and you're going to see that person doing these horrible things.’"

"They're also going to do third party again. And I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up. Which she might not, 'cause she's also a Russian asset."

Plouffe: (Inaudible)

Clinton: "Yeah, she's a Russian asset, I mean, totally.

"And so, they know they can't win without a third party candidate and, so, I don't know who it's going to be it but I will guarantee you they'll have a vigorous third party challenge in the key states that they most need it."

snip




let's look at that part that is highlighted broken down


"They're also going to do third party again. <<< obviously the 'they' is Rump and the rethugs based of the convo


And I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. <<< again talking about the Rethugs and not specifics as to who

She's the favorite of the Russians. <<< now we are narrowing it down, it is a female

They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, <<<< NOW she has made it so it can only be Gabbard, as none of the other female candidates have that going on (plus the 'if the nesting doll fits' comment by Clinton's surrogate.)


and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up. Which she might not, 'cause she's also a Russian asset." <<< Clinton, after talking (inferring with a series of statements that can ONLY mean Gabbard) now says Stein is ALSO a RUSSIAN ASSET, the key word is ALSO.


summary:

If she (Hillary) was not calling the inferred female (who is clearly Gabbard as there is no one else who fits Clinton's decription of the female candidate) a Russian asset (no one disputes Clinton called Stein one) and only meant Stein, then Clinton never would have added 'ALSO'.

Take the world ('also') out and THAT THEN would mean she was ONLY calling Stein an asset in that part of the interview. The addition of 'also' is clearly a linkage that calls the inferred female (Gabbard) a Russian asset as well as calling Stein one.

Clinton also said, in regards to the inferred female, (Gabbard) 'She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her.' All of that was and is common knowledge before this podcast interview.

This whole 'grooming' part was never in dispute and the media were ASSHOLES to say that is what Clinton said (the grooming part, as it is clear on THAT part Clinton was talking about the Rethugs), but Clinton surely did say the asset part in regards to Stein and Gabbard as well (via the use of the word 'also'.)



here is the audio

go to 34 minutes and 35 seconds in and listen to that part for yourself (it ends at 36 minutes, 20 seconds)

https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vaHEtcGxvdWZmZQ&episode=OGE2M2FhMTgtZTZlMS0xMWU5LTk4YWEtNTM4NTJiZDViMzc5&hl=en-GB&ved=2ahUKEwiau_6tv7LlAhU0XRUIHQJAAWUQieUEegQIABAE&ep=6&at=1571837604953

[DesertRat]

16. Why did it take the NY Times FOUR DAYS to correct?

Not to mention they buried the final conclusion of the "But her emails!" Investigation on page 14 of the Saturday edition.

[jcmaine72]

19. Because they're slimeballs

We're seeing this more than ever these days from formerly credible media outlets. They either "misquote" someone (Or, more accurately, misrepresent what someone said to garner clicks/attention) get a story wrong entirely, or attempt to pass some BS that one of their "reporters" read on Twitter as objective fact. The retractions/corrections, when they actually do deign to print them, usually get relegated in small print to somewhere between the restaurant reviews and the obituary column.

They know that far, far fewer people will read the "correction" than reacted to the initial incorrect headline. and that's the whole point. They get a few days of boosted click$, sale$, rating$, or whatever, without having to deal with any serious fallout. The microscopically printed "correction" gives them plausible deniability.

What grinds my gears is that this was once a tactic associated with sleazy tabloids and oily magazine shows. These days, we have the NY Times, CNN, and other formerly credible news sources seemingly engaging in sensationalized, fact-check-challenged journalism.

What happened to the old journalism maxim of “Get it first, but first get it right.”?

[Cha]

50. Damn the NYT sneaky

selves.

[beastie boy]

21. I read a few posts here that some Democratic candidates defended Gabbard based on the original NYT

report.

Now that NYT has corrected itself, I wonder how many of them will retract or modify their statements...

[gab13by13]

26. I certainly don't plan on voting for Tulsi

with that said, the only way we lose is if we fight among ourselves.

It would be better to ignore her instead of giving her all of this publicity. JMO.

[mcar]

27. I wonder if the posters who said HRC should retire

or sit down, or stop talking, will retract their statements?

[2naSalit]

29. And on what page did they bury that correction?

Asking for a friend.

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. It's sad that one has to ask, but what they did with the email exoneration shows they have/had...

an agenda.

[Cha]

48. Great question!

[PhoenixDem]

47. All the people who attacked Hillary over this should eat crow n/t

[Cha]

49. Kicking This!

[Blue_Tires]

51. kick