Hillary Clinton's campaign just published a scathing, 1,900-word letter attacking The New York Times

[uhnope]

Source: Business Insider

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's campaign is apparently still furious at how The New York Times conducted itself while reporting — and subsequently correcting — a story last week.

Late Thursday night, Clinton's communication director, Jennifer Palmieri, published a nearly 2,000-word open letter to Dean Baquet, the newspaper's executive editor.

"I wish to emphasize our genuine wish to have a constructive relationship with The New York Times," Palmieri wrote. "But we also are extremely troubled by the events that went into this erroneous report, and will be looking forward to discussing our concerns related to this incident so we can have confidence that it is not repeated in the future."

The publishing of such a scathing letter — on hillaryclinton.com, no less — raised eyebrows among members of the media, some of whom used words such as "astonishing" and "press release" to describe the piece.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-campaign-nyt-email-story-2015-7

---

Drone strikes are expected

[cosmicone]

1. Drone strikes?

Are you marginalizing the blatantly false stories NY Times is publishing against HRC?

[Justice]

18. 1000+

[Rolf21]

23. +1000.

[Adrahil]

2. Good for HRC

It was crappy reporting that feeds right-wing talking points that are even parroted here.

[lark]

28. I got into a heated discussion with one of the huge posters here.

On Saturday, even after the NYT first correction, he was stating that it was a 100% true fact that HRC had been referred to the Justice Dept. for criminal charges. Funny, haven't seen him around much this week.

[Adrahil]

29. Initial weren't WP were they? ;)

OKay, I'm just being mean. I'm sorry.

[lark]

32. Nope, it was MG

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. It's times like this that I'm glad I can no longer see what he spouts. n/t

[lark]

39. I've only put 1 person on ignore in all the time I've been here.

I just skip some folks posts. Sat. I was sorely tempted to add his name.

[Tarheel_Dem]

40. Well, I gave in to temptation. Just like WP, it was waaaaayyyyy past time.

[Adrahil]

35. ah... his eviler twin ;)

[C Moon]

3. I think that was the right thing to do.

[Scootaloo]

4. The NYT just got roshambeauxed

[blue neen]

5. Good for them.

I hope that all Democratic candidates do the same if the media is not telling the truth.

[George II]

6. Bravo! She's been dealing with crap like this for decades - time to put an end to it!

[murielm99]

7. We might have had a President Kerry

and a President Gore if their campaigns had had the backbone to do this.

Good for Hillary.

[Justice]

19. 1000+

[calimary]

8. Fair game. When they pull a reckless hit job on her, she has every right to hit back.

MAN the NYTimes is NOT what it used to be. Used to be "the newspaper of record." Now it's just another rag with a pro-CON agenda. If the whole sordid judith miller affair wasn't convincing enough, this hatchet job on Hillary should help make that clear. Just watching Michael J. Schmidt on camera could tell you that. I've rarely seem an interview subject so smug. It seemed glaringly obvious that he had an anti-Hillary agenda.

[deurbano]

11. The Times also got the whole Whitewater ball rolling.

[Sunlei]

9. NYT never 'reported' who gave them false Federal Dept. information.

[yallerdawg]

10. Best counter-punch in the business!

Get ready, Republican trash talkers!

[newthinking]

12. Mainstream Media is shallow and tabloid at best, often distorting or even narrating "stories".

Apparently it even bites back at those who also benefit from it.

How do we restore integrity in the media? Or can we expect it to continue to function to serve whatever power or personality is at hand at the expense of accuracy (until our entire power structure reforms)?

[Agony]

13. She should have waited to respond until after she was President.

[Pastiche423]

15. Touche

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

27. Oh no!

[Gothmog]

14. The NYT really screwed up this story

The NYT has yet to take full responsiblity and has so far been blaming their sources for these mistakes. The NYT screwed up relying statements from Trey Gowdy on anything

[Geronimoe]

16. NYTs almost got it correct

Anyone else who put gov email server in personal home would have resulted in criminal investigation. However this is a Clinton, Clintons know to obstruct justice. If elected this email story will dog her throughout her first term.

[Justice]

20. NYT got basically nothing correct.

WHEN she is elected, this story will be a footnote.

[pnwmom]

37. The secret service installed a server in her home for the former President,

who allowed her to use it. It had nothing to do with obstructing justice.

[Justice]

17. Actually, her campaign simply reported the facts.

I have been on Facebook going back and forth with someone who posted the original NYT story and focused on the fact that the NYT failed to disclose that the corrections were made at the request of the Clinton campaign. That was the focused of his concern - that the media folded for Clinton in a manner that they would not for another candidate.

As I dug into the story last week, I uncovered a series of other articles which kept quoting the original NYT story about a "criminal referral" about Hillary.

I also found a couple of articles which explained just how badly the NYT failed in the original reporting and then again in the multiple corrections.

Yet, still the suggestion always was that the NYT relied on a third party source who simply lied or was wrong - and therefore the NYT was blameless. That the paper didn't have Clinton's side of the story before publishing.

This letter is SO important as it tells us that the paper called the Clinton campaign BEFORE publishing the original story and were told the information was wrong, the paper mislead the Clinton campaign into thinking there was time to get to the bottom of it and then the paper knowingly published a story that the campaign told them was false, without even publishing the Clinton campaign's response or denial.

This letter tells us that Clinton campaign was trying to help the NYT get the facts right and the NYT was not interested in the facts, they were interested in slamming Clinton at the beginning of August when the story would sink in and take hold. I posted the link to the letter on the FB post yesterday as it is incredible that this is happening.

Already other stories reference the New York Times article about the Inspector General's criminal referral on Hillary Clinton (there is a Time article that does this that was posted on DU yesterday)

Outrageous!

[McKim]

21. Never Forget Judith Miller and Michael Gordon and their Pet Iraw War

The Times really smells since the pro war reporters Judith Miller and Michael Gordon convinced some in America to go along with Bush and make war on Iraq. Shockingly, Michael Gordon still is writing for them on the Middle East. All you have to do is look at the ads to see who the NY Times represents. I cancelled my subscription in 2000 and never looked back.

[hughee99]

22. She should have sent them a thank you letter.

People are now talking about the NYT story and how off base it appears to have been instead of Clinton's email issues. Clinton supporters will point to this story and use it to dismiss any further stories as the press just being "out to get her". You'll hear the phrase "already debunked" in reference to things that the NYT story doesn't even mention.

If there's anything to the email story, he NYT did Clinton a huge favor by being the little boy who cried wolf.

[nichomachus]

24. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

It is a universally successful tactic for a politician to attack the media in a media-driven political climate. It works every time. NOT.

I have to wonder whether whoever thought of this idiotic tactic was operating from Clintonian Hubris, naïveté, or desperation -- or a combination of all three. The only ones this will appeal to are the dedicated Clinton Claque. To everyone else, it looks childish.

"Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel and paper by the ton."

The Times will have the last word -- always.

[Adrahil]

31. So just let them post bullshit? nt

[nichomachus]

41. Well, the letter doesn't stop them from posting

The Times has already corrected the story. It was grossly misled by government officials -- two of them -- who the Times thought were credible sources.

The petulant letter from Hillary and Company was juvenile and arrogant at best. Their argument is with the Intelligence and DOJ officials who misled the time.

But it just proves the tone-deaf arrogance to Hillary's campaign. I shudder to think how bad her administration would be. Could be Bush 2 all over again.

[Rolf21]

25. From the letter:

Most maddening of all, even after the correction fixed the description of the referral within the story, a headline remained on the front page of the Times' website that read, “Criminal Inquiry is Sought in Clinton Email Account." It was not until even later in the evening that the word "criminal" was finally dropped from the headline and an updated correction was issued to the story. The lateness of this second correction, however, prevented it from appearing in the paper the following morning. We simply do not understand how that was allowed to occur.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/updates/2015/07/30/letter-to-nyt/

Hillary could win a defamation suit, even though she is a public figure. But I guess that would not be politically smart.

[uhnope]

30. she would still have to prove malicious intent

almost impossible

[Rolf21]

33. Nope, just negligence.

That's enough, and that's what the NYT is guilty of.

[uhnope]

36. negligence is the standard for private individuals, not public figures

Clinton would have to prove malicious intent

Celebrities, politicians, high-ranking or powerful government officials, and others with power in society are generally considered public figures/officials and are required to prove actual malice. Unlike these well-known and powerful individuals, your shy neighbor is likely to be a private figure who is only required to prove negligence if you publish something defamatory about her.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence

[Rolf21]

38. I take your point.