NYT Public Editor: Debunked Clinton Story 'Messy And Regrettable'

[riversedge]

NYT Public Editor: Debunked Clinton Story 'Messy And Regrettable'
Athena Image



The above headline was posted on Huffington Post but when I clicked on the story, it took me to the NYTimes editor:

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

The Public Editor's Journal - Margaret Sullivan

A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What Next?
By Margaret Sullivan July 27, 2015 10:00 am July 27, 2015 10:00 am



Updated, 10:54 a.m. | 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 a tweet:

Felix Salmon
✔
@felixsalmon

These words from @Sulliview should be plastered above every editor’s desk http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/a-clinton-story-fraught-with-inaccuracies-how-it-happened-and-what-next/?smid=tw-share&_r=2 … pic.twitter.com/Es0VZTShlg

:small



.......................................


EJ Dionne
✔
@EJDionne

Candid accounting of a paper's errors adds credibility. Tough @Sulliview take on @nytimes #HillaryClinton email story
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/a-clinton-story-fraught-with-inaccuracies-how-it-happened-and-what-next/?smid=tw-share&_r=3 …
Show Summary

[Sheepshank]

1. And in true Rovian fashion, the damage is already done

and NYT cannot un-sing that Hillary hate chorus line. People will not read retractions or corrections, they will remember for the next 16 month the original lies and claptrap.

[msanthrope]

2. So let me get this straight..........nt

[Spazito]

4. LOL...

[msanthrope]

5. a rather messy and regrettable thread yes? nt

[Spazito]

7. Yep, par for the course....

if ya know what I mean. Promoting disinformation is pro forma all too often.

[msanthrope]

8. You Better Believe It! nt

[vadermike]

3. ugh

I think some damage was done unfortunately.. now i dont know what to think.... i hope Hillary isn't derailed by all this ... we dems have to be unfied in 16.. whether Hillary or Bernie.. but i am realistic... Hillary 16 may have been derailed.. we will see in the next month or so,........ maybe i ma just overly worried.... I a, a Hillary supporter but like Bernie too.... also we have to overcome the Dem enthusiasm gap that is showing in polls..... we have alot of work to do...

[bvar22]

6. The NY Times LOST all credibility...

...when they published Judith Miller's lies without verification.
So much for the Paper of Record.
Send the NY Times to the trash heap.

[RussBLib]

9. the writer of that story was just so smarmy about it

Chris Matthews raked him over the coals for the stupid story but he just kept at it. That asshole should be fired.

[Number23]

10. K&R For no other reason than as counter to an equally 'messy and regrettable OP littering this forum

Although that OP has shown time and again that no matter how much s/he is called out, they regret nothing.

[dsc]

11. but the public editor makes some disturbing things rather clear

One is that they apparently would do the same thing all over again and the second is that we will not be told who these sources are. So this will happen again, and in true NYT fashion it will only happen to her not any other candidate.

[NCTraveler]

12. The New York Times is shape-shifting into the National Enquirer.

Ok. I don't really believe that. They have actually produce some pretty good journalism. I'm just reserving the right to change my thoughts on them completely dependent on the next article of theirs I read.