NYT Editor Dean Baquet, Editor's Note: Clinton Email Coverage (New York Times, full statement)
Last edited Tue Jul 28, 2015, 12:18 AM - Edit history (1)
The Times’s coverage last week of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of a personal email account as secretary of state involved several corrections and changes that may have left readers with a confused picture.
The Times reported online Thursday night (and in some print editions Friday) that the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies had sent a referral to the Justice Department requesting a “criminal investigation” into whether Mrs. Clinton “mishandled sensitive government information” on the email account. That article was based on multiple high-level government sources.
Shortly after the article was published online, however, aides to Mrs. Clinton contacted one reporter to dispute the account. After consultation between editors and reporters, the first paragraph was edited to say the investigation was requested “into whether sensitive government information was mishandled,” rather than into whether Mrs. Clinton herself mishandled information. That type of substantive change should have been noted immediately for readers; instead, a correction was not appended to the article until hours later.
On Friday, another question arose — whether the investigation being sought was a “criminal” inquiry. As other news organizations followed up on The Times’s report, the Justice Department confirmed to them that a “criminal” investigation had been requested. Officials also gave that description again to Times reporters who were rechecking their initial story. But later in the day, the Justice Department and the inspectors general said that the request was not a “criminal referral” but rather a “security referral,” meant to alert the F.B.I. about a potential mishandling of classified information. It was not clear how the discrepancy arose.
In addition, the inspectors said they discovered that four emails out of a sample of 40 they examined contained classified information, although it was not marked as such.
On Friday afternoon, The Times wrote a new article, including the inspectors’ finding and the change in the description of the referral, as well as Mrs. Clinton’s response that she was confident her emails did not contain classified information. The original article, however, was not altered online until Saturday morning to take account of the change in description of the referral from “criminal” to “security.” Editors should have added a correction sooner to note that change.
= new reply since forum marked as read
...about Emails that don't "Look right"
Last edited Tue Jul 28, 2015, 07:43 PM - Edit history (1)
Put out a spurious story, force the Democratic candidate... and it's ALWAYS the Democrat being attacked, to refute but first make sure to leave it in place long enough to imprint that piece of dirt in the public mind.
Because we hold onto dirt faster and harder than anything good. Dirt will imply distrust and danger, so it goes straight to the subconscious. Never to leave once it's there. The brain does not forget anything, but it does prioritize danger for survival. Kept in a constant state of low level fear alters the conscious mind to allow propaganda in.
My thread on this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110215862
I posted this nearly two years ago. And I added this photo later:
One of the things the Clintons have been known for is their 'rapid response' team to these attacks. But the media is so much farther to the right, and the landscape of possible voters is too, that it doesn't take much to convince them.
A generation has grown up hearing Rush all their lives. Many regions of the country have lost all progressive, liberal or even neutral reporting. Journalism has been reduced to propaganda. And it is also in the hands of about half a dozen billionaires.
The airways and television and other venues, entertainment as well as 'news' is now echoing the same talking points until the human mind is overwhelmed. There are forms of what is called 'manufactured consent.' After a while those of an opposing view know better than to say a thing as they hear neighbors and their friends and family repeating it. Since it is everywhere, it's true.
One way is because a media story has been put out, there is an urgency to it. But it's not even current, oftentimes. I've caught 'breaking news' that is actually recycled from years ago. But when a manufacturer of some other vendor wants something to take part of the taxpayer's money or the Commons, a story pops up as if it's a crisis. It's not. At times the situation discussed has been taken care of, sometimes years ago. It may or may not generate public outrage and reaction.
But even everyone ignores it, the 'new crisis' is used as an excuse to pass a piece of legislation that profits someone by stealing the Commons or destroying some institution or agency no one had a problem with. Then it's passed even if the public does rouse itself to fight back.
Because it was 'on the news' so it must be true and important! The cycle repeats. I see all the news and entertainment as no more than selling a product. All kinds of things, from hate to war to gadgets.
'It's new! It's the best! Everyone wants it, everyone is buying it! Hurry! Don't miss out, you will get behind in the pack.'
It's buying to negate anxiety. The NYT is selling a product. Who benefits from it?
The GOP does.
Now being happily picked up by the RW media, is that HRC "made" the Times change their story. Because, you know, NYT is so in the bag for Hillary. 
