Today, from "Correct the Record": "Time and time again, the NYTimes has had to walk back..."

[DeepModem Mom]

"CORRECT THE RECORD" STATEMENT ON BOGUS NEW YORK TIMES STORY ON SECRETARY CLINTON’S EMAILS:

* For Immediate Release *

Washington, DC – Correct The Record released the following statement on the New York Times’ faulty reporting on Hillary Clinton’s emails.

“Here we go again. The New York Times prints a bogus story on Hillary Clinton’s emails, and, within no time at all, Trey Gowdy and his ‘Select Committee to Destroy Hillary Clinton’ put out a statement making even more outrageous claims and demands,” said Brad Woodhouse, President of Correct The Record. “It’s not a coincidence.”

“Time and time again, the New York Times has had to walk back its claims about Hillary Clinton’s emails. The common thread is thin sourcing, excess hype, and a tag-team rollout with the hyper-partisan, Republican-led House Benghazi circus–which has abandoned any pretense of investigating that tragedy in favor of simply harassing Hillary Clinton for political dividends.

“This whole thing is a farce. Elijah Cummings, the ranking member of the committee, flagged that the State Department Inspector General directly disputed that any criminal investigation was called for at all. Now, the Justice Department is flatly denying that any criminal referral was received.

“For months, questions on Hillary Clinton’s emails have been asked and answered. Instead, the media has become a willing partner in Trey Gowdy and House Republicans’ efforts to bury the truth in favor of utterly baseless melodrama. Enough is enough. It’s time for respectable news outlets to do more than take the word of partisan sources, and it’s time for everyone to treat Trey Gowdy and his bogus investigation for the joke that it is.”

(Correct The Record is a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks.)

[tblue]

1. I heard about the "criminal investigation" on the radio news today.

My gosh, I'm sure it went round the world. That's just horrible!!!!

[AllFieldsRequired]

2. What is it with the NYT and their hit pieces on Hillary?

While I love it when I see actual investigative reporting, why does it only seem to happen on Hillary or Barack?

Let me know when a reporter writes a story about the shenanigans of a Rick Scott or Scott Walker.

[Fred Sanders]

3. Scott Walker is raping Wisconsin using Koch money and fascist tactics but some email is more "news"?

[AllFieldsRequired]

5. We really have to insist on putting an end to this insanity. The damage being done

on a daily basis by the rightwing in this country is something we must do something about.

NOW

[mcar]

4. The Clinton Rules

Apply. The Times and Washington Post won't stop the smears. GOP contenders get away with murder in the meanwhile.

[Fred Sanders]

6. It is almost like the media make up shit, cover the made up shit with more shit just to avoid reporting on the real shit.

[mcar]

8. And they keep.reporting on this crap

And it gets picked up because "where there's smoke..."

Whitewater all over again.

[Thinkingabout]

7. They probably never expected to have Elijah Cummings to come out with his statement of the truth.

[Walk away]

9. I am on the phone right now cancelling both my subscriptions to the NYT.

In fact, I just hung up after calmly telling them exactly why. I've been getting that paper delivered for 38 years and I have subscribed to NYT.com for seven years. They had someone actually apologize and tell me that they had updated the story shortly after it appeared so I shouldn't worry about it. I told them that I wouldn't even reference the 10 free articles per month I could still use because I felt as if I couldn't trust them as a news source anymore.

I told them in typical incensed old lady fashion, that everyone from the managing editor to the delivery boys should be ashamed of their product, said thank you and hung up!

[DeepModem Mom]

10. Walk away, I SALUTE you!!!

[riversedge]

11. some Media Matters stories:

These are a few days old but I would like them with this story for Reference

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/07/24/ny-times-reporter-cant-answer-chris-matthews-si/204593

NY Times Reporter Can't Answer Chris Matthews' Simple Questions About Faulty Clinton Email Story
Matthews: If Clinton Received Emails That Weren't Marked As Classified, "Where Could There Be Even The Imagination Of Criminality Here?"
Video ››› July 24, 2015 7:52 PM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

From the July 24 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:




Previously:

DOJ Official Reportedly Contradicts Flimsy NY Times Article On Clinton Email

NY Times Walks Back Flimsy Report On Probe Into Clinton's Email

David Brock Calls On New York Times To Commission A Review Of Its Flawed Clinton Reporting

[riversedge]

12. NY Times Issues Second Major Correction To Botched Report On Clinton's Emails

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/25/ny-times-issues-second-major-correction-to-botc/204596

NY Times Issues Second Major Correction To Botched Report On Clinton's Emails
Blog ››› July 25, 2015 2:40 PM EDT ››› BEN DIMIERO


This morning, the New York Times issued a second substantial correction to its anonymously-sourced report that originally hyped a potential Department of Justice investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of personal email. The paper has now removed the claim -- which appeared in both the article's headline and first sentence -- that two inspectors general were seeking a "criminal" investigation into the handling of Clinton's emails.

The paper has not addressed numerous lingering questions about both the sourcing and vetting of its report, with their corrections instead blaming the errors on "information from senior government officials" who remain anonymous. Times public editor Margaret Sullivan indicated on Twitter that she plans to weigh in on the story on Monday.

A comparison of the opening sentence of the July 23 article as originally published and how it currently appears on the Times website underscores the deeply flawed nature of the paper's report. In less than 48 hours, the article went from alleging a request for a "criminal investigation" of Clinton herself to "an investigation" into whether information had been mishandled in connection with her email account.

Here's the story's original opening, which appeared under the headline "Criminal Inquiry Sought In Clinton's Use of Email":

Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

And here's how it currently appears, as of 2:30 p.m. EST on July 25:

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.

[DeepModem Mom]

13. Thanks for adding this valuable additional info!!! nt