Here it is, from the NYT Public Editor: "A Clinton Story Fraught with Inaccuracies"
The story certainly seemed like a blockbuster: A criminal investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton by the Justice Department was being sought by two federal inspectors general over her email practices while secretary of state.
It’s hard to imagine a much more significant political story at this moment, given that she is the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.
The story – a Times exclusive — appeared high on the home page and the mobile app late Thursday and on Friday and then was displayed with a three-column headline on the front page in Friday’s paper. The online headline read “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email,” very similar to the one in print.
But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.
Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.
From Thursday night to Sunday morning – when a final correction appeared in print – the inaccuracies and changes in the story were handled as they came along, with little explanation to readers, other than routine corrections. The first change I mentioned above was written into the story for hours without a correction or any notice of the change, which was substantive.
And the evolving story, which began to include a new development, simply replaced the older version. That development was that several instances of classified information had been found in Mrs. Clinton’s personal email – although, in fairness, it’s doubtful whether the information was marked as classified when she sent or received those emails. Eventually, a number of corrections were appended to the online story, before appearing in print in the usual way – in small notices on Page A2.
But you can’t put stories like this back in the bottle – they ripple through the entire news system.
So it was, to put it mildly, a mess....
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/publiceditor/2015/07/27/a-clinton-story-fraught-with-inaccuracies-how-it-happened-and-what-next/?referrer=
= new reply since forum marked as read
Only once again to be let down. 
Will they ever learn?
Great advice from Josh Marshall.. especially to writers @ NYT..
"What I frequently tell reporters who I work with is to run this little thought experiment when you're about to publish a big piece or something a lot rides on. Pretend that the story blows up in your face. And you have to explain to me or your editor what went wrong. If you're the reporter in that case, you take your lumps but when you have that conversation you really want to be able to say and explain how you covered every base, checked every box on the list and it still went wrong. When you go through that exercise it often makes you think of some box that hasn't been checked that you really want to have checked if you find yourself in a real version of that hypothetical conversation."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/how-did-this-happen-exactly
DonViejo http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251473979#post10
Mahalo DeepModem Mom
