The New York Times Reverses Course On Clinton's Emails After Public Editor Admits Fault In Reporting

[KamaAina]

The Paper of Record(TM) strikes again.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/13/the-new-york-times-reverses-course-on-clintons/202894

The New York Times has begun to quietly reverse course on reports about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email use, after Times public editor Margaret Sullivan admitted that the publication's initial misleading insinuation that Clinton violated the law was "not without fault." The new, more accurate reporting underscores the publication's initial sloppiness and rush to judgment.

NYT Public Editor Admits Original Story "Was Not Without Fault." On March 8, the Times' public editor Margaret Sullivan responded to criticism of the paper's initial reporting on Clinton's use of private email while secretary of state, stating that the story "was not without fault" and "should have been clearer about precisely what regulations might have been violated." (The New York Times, 3/8/15)

NYT Then: Clinton "May Have Violated" Federal Law With Email Use. In its initial report, the Times accused Clinton of possibly having "violated federal requirements that officials' correspondence be retained as part of the agency's record" with her use of personal email for official government business during her time at the department, specifically citing the Federal Records Act. (The New York Times, 3/2/15)

NYT Now: Guidelines On Email Use Were Vague, "Until Three Months Ago There Was No Law." The Times' earlier allegation that Clinton may have violated federal law was undercut by a subsequent report published over a week later explaining that oversight of email guidelines have been "vague" at the time Clinton worked at the State Department:

NYT Now: Guidelines On Email Use Were Vague, "Until Three Months Ago There Was No Law." The Times' earlier allegation that Clinton may have violated federal law was undercut by a subsequent report published over a week later explaining that oversight of email guidelines have been "vague" at the time Clinton worked at the State Department:

[BainsBane]

1. How hard is it to look up a law?

and find out when it was passed? Or to call State and ask them what the governing email procedures were at the time? That's just plain shoddy.

[msanthrope]

3. I wonder what the DU names of the reporters are. nt

[TreasonousBastard]

8. *Snarf*

[pnwmom]

2. Thanks!

[randome]

4. I'm in a good mood and rarely prone to 'in-your-face-isms' but...

Bwa-ha-ha! Take that, you Negative Nellies! You defeatists! Whiners!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Sheepshank]

6. are you referring to NYT or some of the "I love any HRC dirt and want to spread the dirt" DU posters?

ahhhh, no need to answer, I prefer to think it's pretty much the same lol

[randome]

7. Yes.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[annabanana]

5. "not without fault."

Man, that is some weak tea.

[Wellstone ruled]

9. So the Paper of Record pushed a false

narrative,who would of thought. Ain't the first time.

[Thinkingabout]

10. As it turns out her personal server was doing a better job of preserving the emails.

If she had used the .gov email probably very few emails would have been saved. Again it is a lot about nothing.