Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe New York Times Reverses Course On Clinton's Emails After Public Editor Admits Fault In Reporting
The Paper of Record(TM) strikes again.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/13/the-new-york-times-reverses-course-on-clintons/202894
The New York Times has begun to quietly reverse course on reports about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email use, after Times public editor Margaret Sullivan admitted that the publication's initial misleading insinuation that Clinton violated the law was "not without fault." The new, more accurate reporting underscores the publication's initial sloppiness and rush to judgment.
NYT Public Editor Admits Original Story "Was Not Without Fault." On March 8, the Times' public editor Margaret Sullivan responded to criticism of the paper's initial reporting on Clinton's use of private email while secretary of state, stating that the story "was not without fault" and "should have been clearer about precisely what regulations might have been violated." (The New York Times, 3/8/15)
NYT Then: Clinton "May Have Violated" Federal Law With Email Use. In its initial report, the Times accused Clinton of possibly having "violated federal requirements that officials' correspondence be retained as part of the agency's record" with her use of personal email for official government business during her time at the department, specifically citing the Federal Records Act. (The New York Times, 3/2/15)
NYT Now: Guidelines On Email Use Were Vague, "Until Three Months Ago There Was No Law." The Times' earlier allegation that Clinton may have violated federal law was undercut by a subsequent report published over a week later explaining that oversight of email guidelines have been "vague" at the time Clinton worked at the State Department:
NYT Public Editor Admits Original Story "Was Not Without Fault." On March 8, the Times' public editor Margaret Sullivan responded to criticism of the paper's initial reporting on Clinton's use of private email while secretary of state, stating that the story "was not without fault" and "should have been clearer about precisely what regulations might have been violated." (The New York Times, 3/8/15)
NYT Then: Clinton "May Have Violated" Federal Law With Email Use. In its initial report, the Times accused Clinton of possibly having "violated federal requirements that officials' correspondence be retained as part of the agency's record" with her use of personal email for official government business during her time at the department, specifically citing the Federal Records Act. (The New York Times, 3/2/15)
NYT Now: Guidelines On Email Use Were Vague, "Until Three Months Ago There Was No Law." The Times' earlier allegation that Clinton may have violated federal law was undercut by a subsequent report published over a week later explaining that oversight of email guidelines have been "vague" at the time Clinton worked at the State Department:
NYT Now: Guidelines On Email Use Were Vague, "Until Three Months Ago There Was No Law." The Times' earlier allegation that Clinton may have violated federal law was undercut by a subsequent report published over a week later explaining that oversight of email guidelines have been "vague" at the time Clinton worked at the State Department:
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
10 replies, 804 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The New York Times Reverses Course On Clinton's Emails After Public Editor Admits Fault In Reporting (Original Post)
KamaAina
Mar 2015
OP
are you referring to NYT or some of the "I love any HRC dirt and want to spread the dirt" DU posters?
Sheepshank
Mar 2015
#6
As it turns out her personal server was doing a better job of preserving the emails.
Thinkingabout
Mar 2015
#10
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)1. How hard is it to look up a law?
and find out when it was passed? Or to call State and ask them what the governing email procedures were at the time? That's just plain shoddy.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)3. I wonder what the DU names of the reporters are. nt
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)8. *Snarf*
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)2. Thanks!
randome
(34,845 posts)4. I'm in a good mood and rarely prone to 'in-your-face-isms' but...
Bwa-ha-ha! Take that, you Negative Nellies! You defeatists! Whiners!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)6. are you referring to NYT or some of the "I love any HRC dirt and want to spread the dirt" DU posters?
ahhhh, no need to answer, I prefer to think it's pretty much the same lol
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
annabanana
(52,791 posts)5. "not without fault."
Man, that is some weak tea.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)9. So the Paper of Record pushed a false
narrative,who would of thought. Ain't the first time.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)10. As it turns out her personal server was doing a better job of preserving the emails.
If she had used the .gov email probably very few emails would have been saved. Again it is a lot about nothing.