How Did This Happen Exactly? - By Josh Marshall

[DonViejo]

I've watching this New York Times blockbuster about the now non-existent criminal referral about Hillary Clinton's emails. And it is one of these stories that didn't just come apart in one big way. It fell apart in several different big ways over the course of the day. Former Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald has a good dissection of how it all unfolded that makes a pretty good case that even now - post corrections and sorta retractions - the piece still contains major omissions and distortions.

One thing worth noting is that if you're going to publish a piece that really lands a big blow on the Clintons, you really need to be a totally certain it's not entirely wrong. Because, man, they will never let you hear the end of it!

But as I said in the title, how did this happen exactly?

Journalists get things wrong. You can do everything right and still get it wrong. That's in the nature of writing the first draft of history. And that's why a journalist's greatest ally is fear and a bit of obsessive anxiety.

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.

more
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/how-did-this-happen-exactly

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. Its propoganda--and purposeful

They are just keeping the issue alive for Walker and Bush.

[sabrina 1]

2. It keeps people from talking about ISSUES which is the main purpose of all

propaganda, and it is clearly succeeding since time is being spent by supporters of different candidates, trying to refute the lies and distortions that are being told about them.

See this article eg. It SHOULD be about what concerns the American people. But instead it is about trying to correct misinformation.

If the author thinks that anyone on the MSM is a 'journalist' they haven't been paying attention.

[DonViejo]

3. It's an opinion piece, Sabrina, by the man that is a journalist and

the owner/publisher of Talking Points Memo...a web news site full of issues from one day to the next, e.g.;

Cop Expert on Sandra Bland Arrest: It Was Legal, But Not Good Policing
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sandra-bland-video-legal-but-not-good-policing

Alleged Theater Gunman Left Trail Of Extreme Right-Wing Views Online
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/john-russel-houser-louisiana-gunman

What's wrong with a left leaning publication trying to correct misinformation, whether it's about Sen Sanders, Sen Warren, President Obama or whomever? Particularly when the publication is the New York Times, a newspaper that once was held in very high esteem in this country?

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. I think you know the answer to that question. n/t

[sabrina 1]

8. Please read my post number 7. You have made a very wrong assumption.

[sabrina 1]

7. I am very familiar with TPM, and have great respect for them.

I am not saying they should not try to correct misinformation pushed by the Corporate Media, I am merely pointing out how successful the Propaganda Machine we call our 'news media' IS when they FORCE even good journalists to have to try to correct them. It's a catch 22 situation isn't it? If they do NOT respond, then the story goes unchallenged, but if they DO respond, it prolongs the story.

What would be better imo, is to write about the Corporate Media itself, expose it constantly, look at who is running it, expose them for who and what they are, be relentless, demand that the media NOT be run by six powerful corporations.

Every journalist who is not a part of the propaganda machine should be focused on exposing them so that when something like this happens, people don't need to be informed about the sources.

But we all participate in it, don't we. When they publish lies about OUR candidates we go after them, but when they publish lies about other people's candidates we LINK TO THEM. Ever done that btw?

Maybe if everyone refused to accept their lies about candidates even if it isn't our candidate, they wouldn't get away with it. But I don't have much hope that that is going to happen and fully expect to see those now complaining about THIS story, re Hillary, jump at the chance to post the next one that is negative to Sanders.

[Doctor_J]

5. nailed it. people don't give a shit about this.

Meanwhile Mrs Clinton's closeness to the bfee and her conservative/republican views on all sorts of issues go undiscussed.

Our media is a joke

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. Don't link to NEWYORK TIMES. It's a far-RW racist trojan horse

lol..........

just kidding

but like you said. all 'news' has its agendas and tell their own part of the truths, with omissions and out right lies as with their own Judith Millers

I read both left and right but use a filter and verification with research in order to formulate.

Which is why I didn't buy into the Iraqi war bullshit as some in power did.

[hollysmom]

9. Listeed to him being interviewed on Chris hayes,

He knew it was not true, man, you could hear it in his voice, but he had a job to do and he did it. there is not a doubt in my mind that this was planned to come out wrong, No proof but it was something about the way he just ignored that it was wrong in the conversation. I would have to have the transcript to point it out though.

[Cha]

10. "As I noted this afternoon, a lot of this has a disturbing similarity to the Times Whitewater

coverage, which dominated much of the Clinton presidency and turned out to be more either vastly over-hyped or in numerous cases simply false. And this is the Times! What's supposedly to be the best paper in the country."

So they learned nothing and attempted to fly their crap reporting, a-gain.

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."

Thanks for this, Don.. Josh Marshall is always worth a read.

[Gothmog]

11. The NYT blew this story

[George II]

12. Are those two writers on the NYT staff or are they freelancers who sold the story to the NYT?