The New York Times stirred up a hornets nest late Thursday night with a stunningly inaccurate smear on Hillary Clinton’s character and State Department tenure. Throughout yesterday a series of protests from a variety of sources called them out on the legitimacy of their story. A few minor (and grudging) revisions resulted.
Today, the Corrections section issued this.
Corrections: July 25, 2015
The second it looks defensive. I did not hear anyone saying the NYT requested an investigation.
Here is the latest revision of the header and lede.
Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email
Here is the correction in the footer of the article.
Correction: July 25, 2015
An earlier version of this article, along with the headline, misstated, using information from senior government officials, the nature of the inspectors general’s request. It addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal email account. It did not specifically seek an investigation into Mrs. Clinton.
The shabby and less than full-throated “walk back” fails to mention that the key word redacted from the header and the lede was the word criminal. That is the word that was burned into memory of Americans who saw that header whether they bothered to read the article or not. Nowhere does the NYT mention its egregious blunder in using that word.
More importantly, neither have they removed Hillary’s name from the header. The issue is not Hillary’s “use of email.” It is whether any of the emails should have been classified. None of them were classified at the time Hillary received them. There remains contention between the State Department and the intelligence community over whether or not some of these emails should be or should have been classified. None of these emails originated with Hillary.
Far beyond a simple set of progressing “corrections,” the New York Times owes Hillary Clinton a front page public apology with a big header as does every publication and news source that sank its teeth into this story like so many crocodiles.
Years of blogging have taught me that many, many people do not bother to read. Headers catch the eye, and that is the full message. Some even comment based on the header to an article they have not bothered to read. Then a version of the game of telephone ensues wherein an erroneous message takes root as truth and spreads like a stain.
Hillary will tell you that she’s used to this kind of character assassination. That does not mean that we, her supporters, should slough it off.
The NYT ought to apologize to Hillary Clinton publicly and loudly with a big prominent headline. forthwith!
Corollary to this comes the news from CNN about an hour ago that Hillary will testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, as she has long said she gladly would do and has asked to do, on October 22, four days before her birthday. Contrary to CNN’s remarks, this throws no “wrench” into Hillary’s campaign plans. As she has insisted, her testimony will be public.
Thank you, Mary Jo Payne, for this petition!
Demand front page apology for Hillary
We love you, Hillary! We have your back!
really and truly someone does need to be fired. I hope I am not reposting but this youtube of a former nytimes writer really breaks it down.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Three someones at least.
LikeLike
Thanks for the vid. The response was excellent. I wish it was shorter though. Not as many people will sit through a 12 and a half minute explanation. We do, but we aren’t average. 🙂
Also, the article of the week for me is the one by Barney Frank on Politico about why progressive should support Hillary over Bernie.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/why-progressives-shouldnt-support-bernie-120484.html#.VbPk_PlmpME
LikeLike
In the comments to the “Blah blah” thread below, there is a written-out, shorter text of the same commentary. It is really excellent and easy to read.
LikeLike
These so-called journalists actually seem to have forgotten how to report a fact straightforwardly: Hillary will testify before the House Benghazi Committee on October 22. Instead CNN must editorialize that this throws a “wrench” in her campaign plans, even though this is exactly what she has wanted all along. If editorializing is called for, it should read, “Hillary wins!.”
LikeLike
Tweeted.
LikeLike
Jen, I don’t know if you saw, but they were looking for the link to the candles. I thought it was on this thread, but maybe not.
LikeLike
The candle page is gone. Here is the link, but all I get is an error message: http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/candles.cfm?l=eng&gi=hrc
LikeLike
We love you Hillary. We all know you will do fine in the hearings. Keep focused like you do.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on The Department of Homegirl Security and commented:
Cross-posted at Still4Hill.com
LikeLike
[…] division at the New York times has come under scrutiny and criticism in the past several days for faulty and inaccurate reporting about disagreement between the intelligence community and the State Department on classification […]
LikeLike
Wow! As I said, many many people don’t bother to read. Seems they are only too happy to have others bite off, chew, and digest the news for them
LikeLike
[…] The series of subtle and obscure revisions more like a grad student’s tweaking of a paper for a course than a major publication’s mea culpa for mishandling what it set forth as a major story, was as effective as throwing a bucketful of water on a burning hi-rise. Bags sitting on the carousel. The corrections were even more concealed than the revisions, and as for the blog post, there is almost no form of publication with less gravitas compared to the front page of the New York Times than a blog post – including this one. It is a fine way to vent, but is a far cry from a prominent public retraction which is what this particular transgression by the NYT cried out for. […]
LikeLike
[…] NYT: Strong on the Hillary Attack – Feeble on the Walk-Back […]
LikeLike