A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies:

[UCmeNdc]

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.


http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/a-clinton-story-fraught-with-inaccuracies-how-it-happened-and-what-next/

The NY Times gets it wrong again.........

[Gothmog]

1. The NYT blew it

[DURHAM D]

2. When did a lie become just inaccuracies? nt

[NCTraveler]

3. All a part of the horse race they are desperate for. nt.

[Sheepshank]

4. Meanwhile, it's not the corrections that has lodged itself in the minds of HDS group

its the first article....the flame bait, that will be remembered for the next 16 months. She will be spending precious time and resources over and over and over supplying the corrections, that no one will want to believe anyway because they only want the first headline to be so very true.

[mcar]

5. HRC deserves a public apology

on the front page of the Times. I won't hold my breath, though.

[geek tragedy]

6. the NY Times is in Whitewater mode.

They've always hated the Clintons, always will

[lapfog_1]

7. nevertheless

I work for a major IT company... and have for many years... and before that I spent 10 years at NASA.

I have, over this entire time, kept my personal and business emails and texts and cell phone use separate.

Not only that, but even my internet carrier is different, I have a work mifi and my own mifi... never will the bits I type or listen to or speak will in my personal life exist on anything that my company has paid for and vice versa.

Is it a pain, a little bit... I carry two cell phones and my personal mifi (the company cell is also a mifi)... and when I travel I carry two laptops. I have a company "go bag" that has my company related phone and laptop... and a personal one.

I'm sure Ms. Clinton had aids or interns that could travel with her and help keep her life segregated. Especially as she must have known that it would come up. I know it can come up with my life, because of many corporate policy statements that I see and acknowledge every year. So I go to the extra effort to keep it all separate.

The NYT was waaaaay off base to generate the headline that they did. I'm sure it helped sell papers. But Ms. Clinton didn't have to provide any reason to even investigate.

[UCmeNdc]

8. Rep. Elijah Cummings, who is the most senior Democrat on the House Select Committee on Benghazi says

So what on earth happened here? How could the Times screw this story up so utterly and royally? Rep. Elijah Cummings, who is the most senior Democrat on the House Select Committee on Benghazi, has a compelling theory:

"This is the latest example in a series of inaccurate leaks to generate false front-page headlines—only to be corrected later—and they have absolutely nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi or protecting our diplomatic corps overseas."