New York Times changes its Hillary Clinton story again

[Newsjock]

Source: Poynter

The revision history of a New York Times article that originally reported government officials had requested a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of government information on her private email account took another turn Saturday as the paper modified its exclusive story yet again.

The latest edit removes references to a “criminal” inquiry in connection with Hillary Clinton’s email account, downgrading the inquiry to a “security referral pertaining to possible mishandling of classified information.” The word “criminal” has also been scrubbed from the headline and lede of the story.

... And here’s the current headline and lede:

Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email
Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open an investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

The Times appended a correction to the story Friday afternoon, then modified it this morning to fix the allegation of a criminal inquiry.

Read more: http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/360545/new-york-times-changes-its-hillary-clinton-story-again/

[still_one]

1. and they still haven't got it right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027010298

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. Got caught publishing false information

It's like the work for Fox.

[SunSeeker]

3. The NYT headline is still a lie.

The inquiry is not sought into Hillary Clinton's "use of email." It is sought into the State Department's prior failure to mark email as classified and releasing that unmarked classified email in response to the FOIA requests and Gowdy subpoenas for her email.

The request for the Justice Department investigation came after a June 29 memo from the State Department's inspector general stating a review of 55,000 pages of Clinton e-mails found "hundreds of potentially classified emails within the collection."

A follow-up memo from both the State Department and intelligence community inspectors general to Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy on July 17 said they had received confirmation that "several of the emails contained classified (Intelligence Community) information, though they were not marked as classified. At least one of the emails has been released to the public" by the State Department. Officials were additionally concerned that possible classified material would be posted in future releases of Clinton's emails.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/index.html

[Botany]

4. Wake up and smell the Rove

n/t

[GitRDun]

5. This has been a non-story from the beginning.

It says a lot more about politicians and the media that keep bringing it up than it does about Hillary.

We would all be better served if they focused on her policy proposals than this email crap or other non-issues like Benghazi.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

6. Come on guys.....

.....we all know the Corporate Clinton Propaganda Wing of the M$M is simply playing a fool to give her some sympathy!!!!

[vlyons]

17. I don't know that, and neither do you

You're just speculating BS based on your own prejudices. Your comment amounts to slander, not that it bothers you. Don't strain yourself trying to be objective.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

21. Don't strain yourself looking for your sense of humor

That would truly be a waste.

I hear sarcasm detectors may be on sale at Target this week.

[vlyons]

27. Your hyperbolic BS deserve mucho sarcasm

not "everybody knows" whatever it is that you claim they know. I'll bet you frequently assume that "everybody knows" that whatever weird conspiracy your mind concocts is absolutely true. Let me give you a little clue. The MSMedia does not conspire to help Hilary or any other Democrat or progressive for that matter. Making such a claim is completely absurd and also ignorant.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

30. Seriously, I am speechless at this point

A far more clever person would toy with you awhile. But I just think it's embarrassing.

So let me spell it out for you.

My post claiming the New York Times was using reverse psychology of bad reporting to gain sympathy for Hillary was in jest. A joke. Not serious. Parody. Satire. A mockery. A slap at the conspiracy theory you are now legitimately accusing me of. See the little tin foil hat guy at the end of it? Yeah, I put him there in recognition of the absurdity of such mental gymnastics that some might propose.

In other words



This place sometimes......

[MADem]

34. Apparently the tin foil hat wasn't enough!

Well constructed rebuttal, that!

[tavernier]

36. I caught on immediately

and Ah ain't reel braht! 😄

[Cha]

7. NYT is dragging themselves further into the gutter.. this will not go unnoticed by TPM, MediaMatters

and other blogs with integrity.

[ericson00]

10. I have faith in TPM, but not MediaMatters

given that they haven't covered what Rachel Maddow talked about Thursday at the start of her show, or what Steve Kornacki has been trying to point out for the last several years, or what Nate Silver's site and Nate himself have also debunked.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

8. Yes, but did MetaManny change his? n/t

[MADem]

12. Don't hold your breath....wonder how many people will withdraw their "recs?" nt

[Hekate]

28. Indeed

[madokie]

9. We all know its a witch hunt

Hillary will be pummeled until the day she dies by the 'CON party. You know its wrong I know its wrong, most thinking people know it's wrong but yet the pukes can't handle themselves and feel they must. She scares the daylights out of them. I think more than anything its because she is a Competent person who just so happens to be female. The old boys club thats had a hold on our Presidency since day one will fight tooth and nail to keep it that way. Its sucks but thats the way it is.

[MADem]

11. What is wrong with those idiots?

Remember when they tried to say McCain was sleeping with a lobbyist? That was an "exclusive story" too. It took a year for the lobbyist (I think it was her, might have been McCain) to get a retraction. I wouldn't be surprised if she got paid for the defamation to her character--who wouldn't be pissed off if they were accused of sleeping with that guy?

They need to stop listening to these Aspens are Turning assholes--their sourcing is bad, their reporters are lousy. They need to clean house up in there.

[truthisfreedom]

13. Did trump pay them to create this subterfuge?

[pnwmom]

14. And even now it's STILL misleading. A Newsweek journalist said the story was "despicable"

in the way it twisted the facts.

Hat tip to still_one for first posting this:

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246

The real issue is how classified information is being handled NOW in response to Freedom of Information Requests -- not how Hillary Clinton handled it when she was in office.

Yes, there is memo after memo after memo, which the Times gloats were given to it by a senior government official. . . . And all of them are about the exact same thing: the process being used by current FOIA officials reviewing the emails of a former official is messed up. That’s like criticizing the former owner of a car for the work conducted by the new owner’s mechanic.

So what was the point of the memo written by Linick and McCullough? The memo itself is very clear: “The Department should ensure that no classified documents are publically released.”

In terms of journalism, this is terrible. That the Times article never discloses this is about an after-the-fact review of Clinton’s emails conducted long after she left the State Department is simply inexcusable. That this all comes from a concern about the accidental release of classified information—a fact that goes unmentioned—is even worse. In other words, the Times has twisted and turned in a way that makes this story seem like something it most decidedly is not. This is no Clinton scandal. It is no scandal at all. It is about current bureaucratic processes, probably the biggest snooze-fest in all of journalism.

SNIP

In our hyper-partisan world, many people will not care about the truth here. That the Times story is false in almost every particular—down to the level of who wrote what memo—will only lead to accusations that people trying to set the record straight are pro-Hillary. I am not pro-Hillary. I am, however, pro-journalism. And this display of incompetence or malice cannot stand without correction.

And to other reporters: Democracy is not a game. It is not a means of getting our names on the front page or setting the world abuzz about our latest scoop. It is about providing information so that an electorate can make decisions based on reality. It is about being fair and being accurate. This despicable Times story was neither.

[calimary]

15. This aspect of the story is finally spreading. Which is GOOD.

It's in Raw Story now, too, and Wonkette, and I think I also saw it on Kos - and I'm not even really searching that hard:

Yes, there is memo after memo after memo, which the Times gloats were given to it by a senior government official. (For those who have thoughts of late-night meetings in parking garages or the Pentagon Papers, they were unclassified documents. Reporters obtain those kinds of records through the complex, investigative procedure of asking the press office for them.) And all of them are about the exact same thing: the process being used by current FOIA officials reviewing the emails of a former official is messed up. That’s like criticizing the former owner of a car for the work conducted by the new owner’s mechanic.

So what was the point of the memo written by Linick and McCullough? The memo itself is very clear: “The Department should ensure that no classified documents are publically released.”

In terms of journalism, this is terrible. That the Times article never discloses this is about an after-the-fact review of Clinton’s emails conducted long after she left the State Department is simply inexcusable. That this all comes from a concern about the accidental release of classified information—a fact that goes unmentioned—is even worse. In other words, the Times has twisted and turned in a way that makes this story seem like something it most decidedly is not. This is no Clinton scandal. It is no scandal at all. It is about current bureaucratic processes, probably the biggest snooze-fest in all of journalism.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/heres-how-the-new-york-times-bungled-the-hillary-clinton-emails-story/comments/

Something just doesn't feel right about this. I saw the reporter who wrote this story being interviewed on MSNBC on Thursday. SMUG little so-n-so. I couldn't believe how smug! As if to say "I'VE got all the dirt! Ain't I special!" He behaved as though he thinks he can already taste his Pulitzer. I wonder what his real agenda is - because I've seen him interviewed before, about some sort of attempted take-down of either the President or Democrats or some such - and he came off incredibly smug then, too. Almost like another Judith Miller - and she's always been pretty smug, too.

Actually, I really DON'T wonder what his real agenda is and who's feeding him this crap to regurgitate on the front pages of the New York Times. Michael S. Schmidt. I think I'm gonna start watching him. I suspect he's got ulterior motives. Yet another hatchet job on Hillary. Wonder why anybody'd do that?

[pnwmom]

16. Yes. We shouldn't trust Schmidt or his co-reporter, what's-his-name. n/t

[calimary]

18. "By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and MATT APUZZO JULY 24, 2015"

I think somebody's got an agenda there... It just smells. Something smells.

[calimary]

19. Btw - I did find this one.

http://www.newsdiffs.org/diff/942817/942849/www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us/politics/criminal-inquiry-sought-in-hillary-clintons-use-of-email.html

Let the tap-dancing begin!

[calimary]

20. Other interesting speculation in the Wonkette piece...

So, how did the Times fuck this up so badly? Well, it got some secret memos. Can’t tell you how, it is a SECRET. But Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings, who is a member of the House Benghazi Committee To Investigate Hillary Clinton Until They Prove She Did Benghazi, thinks he might know:

In a statement, Cummings said that “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.”

So hmm, maybe Republicans are leaking information to the Times to try to turn a story that isn’t a story into a story, for their own political gain. But nah, they would never do something like that, would they? And the Times would never play along, would it? (Yes and yes.)


Read more at http://wonkette.com/592018/new-york-times-writes-badass-slash-fiction-about-hillary-clinton-criminal-investigation#0ZAwwt1l2Hc6CCKd.99

[pnwmom]

23. It's either the Rethugs or someone else who wants to hurt Hillary, for whatever reason. n/t

[Gothmog]

32. Good article from Wonkette

[MADem]

35. Somebody needs to rat out the NYT....go to another paper and give them an

exclusive that reveals the source of the memo in exchange for anonymity...hey, two can play at that secret memo game.

[McCamy Taylor]

22. Maybe we should launch a criminal investigation into the Hostages for Votes deal

and see which one America cares more about.

[Reter]

24. A little late

Reagan is dead and Poppy is 91 and hospitalized.

[NBachers]

25. Doesn't matter- the residual "criminal" image has been planted yet again- mission accomplished.

The damage has already been done.

[6000eliot]

26. Now they can continue to float the meme that she isn't "trustworthy."

"Why do we continue to trust them?" is the more important question.

[Hekate]

29. KnR

[Gothmog]

31. The NYT blew this story

[lluvia]

33. Not surprised

They make shit up. See Iraq war.

[MADem]

37. Judy "Aspens are Turning" Miller. Jayson "Bullshitter" Blair.

Carol Vogel.

You know they're completely bankrupt when BAD JOURNALISTS laugh at them...and have a point.

[Beauregard]

38. As Secretary of State, Hillary should have known....

...that her discussions with Sid Blumenthal about Libya were extremely sensitive and should be classified, and would be classified if anyone in authority had known about them. Of course they weren't already "marked 'classified'" because they were on a private server and had not been seen by anyone else (that we know of). As Secy of State Hillary was in charge of classification of State Dept. documents.

Starting weeks before Islamic militants attacked the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, longtime Clinton family confidante Sidney Blumenthal supplied intelligence to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gathered by a secret network that included a former CIA clandestine service officer, according to hacked emails from Blumenthal's account.

The emails, which were posted on the internet in 2013, also show that Blumenthal and another close Clinton associate discussed contracting with a retired Army special operations commander to put operatives on the ground near the Libya-Tunisia border while Libya's civil war raged in 2011.

That is sensitive material, which ultimately got hacked by Romanian hacker Marcel-Lehel Lazar, who went by the name Guccifer.


http://gawker.com/leaked-private-emails-reveal-ex-clinton-aides-secret-sp-1694112647

(Thanks to JonLP24 for the link.)

[Android3.14]

39. And the passive voice continues

The editing at the Grey Lady is as shameful as the story.