General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHere’s how the New York Times bungled the Hillary Clinton emails story
NEWSWEEK
25 JUL 2015 AT 08:52 ET
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.
So had the Times mixed up a criminal referrala major news eventwith a notification to the department responsible for overseeing FOIA errors that might affect some documents release? Its impossible to tell, because the Times storycomplete with its lack of identification of any possible criminal activitycontinues to mention a criminal referral.
But based on a review of documents from the inspectors general, the problems with the story may be worse than thatmuch, much worse. The reason my last sentence says may is this: There is a possibilityhowever unlikelythat the Times cited documents in its article that have the same dates and the same quotes but are different from the records I have reviewed. I emailed Dean Baquet, the Timess executive editor, to ask if there are some other records the paper has and a series of other questions, but received no response. (Full disclosure: Im a former senior writer for the Times and have worked with Baquet in the past.)
more
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/heres-how-the-new-york-times-bungled-the-hillary-clinton-emails-story/
Little Star
(17,055 posts)cheyanne
(733 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Keep watching them! Thanks!