Discussion: Clinton Campaign Torches NYT For 'Egregious' Errors In Email Reporting

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #238946

2

The New York Times is failing financially, not because the mode of conveyance moved from analog to digital, but because it’s become a second-rate news organization. Pretty sad, but fortunately there are many other sources of news.

21 Likes
3

Garbage in, garbage out. Anyone remember Judith Miller and the run-up to the invasion of Iraq?

The Clinton Derangement Syndrome is on full display at the NY Times. Despicable.

26 Likes
4

The Clinton Campaign’s letter reveals a few things that weren’t clear to me before. I didn’t know that the campaign was rather desperately trying to get in touch with the NYT to set the record straight and failed, only to see that the story had already gone to press [electrons?] by the time they had finally succeeded. But the letter strikes me as a a genuine statement of grievances without embellishment. We’ll see how the NYT responds. But this is no Donald Trump style “The Times has been failing for years; what a bunch of losers. All the editors should be fired” kind of response. This is a serious, soberly worded condemnation.

It will be interesting to see how the Times responds. So far, Baquet seems to be content to avoid any accountability by blaming “the Government”, when it was clear that the information was coming from anonymous individuals who could not speak for the Government.

The NY Times should consider changng their motto to: > " It’s our story and we’re sticking it to you "

33 Likes
5

Baquet should be summarily fired for this.

Not because it’s anti-Hillary, although that’s pretty bad—but because it’s utterly false and scurrilous.

11 Likes
6

Eh…after warmongering the country into spending $10 trillion in the middle east and killing a few hundred thousand people, what’s a little Clinton axe-grinding? On the scale of egregious fuck-up’s the Times will probably never top itself despite it’s obvious desperate trying. But like the RWNJ’s has to constantly scream for attention so it doesn’t fade into deserved irrelevance.

10 Likes
7

I hope Gowdy Doody is reading this.

3 Likes
8

This messy mudball and its rapid and continuing spread across the fly-over media is a disgrace but a common element along the path that has brought us to this ugly place. For how many more years and political calamities (wherein they have been instrumental) will the media be allowed to erase its tracks by hiding itself from the coverage and preventing a rational discussion of its role so as to perhaps minimize calamities and better understand and hone media’s most contributory aspects?

3 Likes
9

This was not “accidental” or any kind of “failure of oversight” by the editors.
This was an intentional, bald-faced, Hit Piece on Hillary, part of a decades-long hate-fest by the NYT on the Clintons.
Since their partnership with the Reich-Wing could not dig up any dirt on Hillary, they decided to go the Breibart route and just manufacture it out of whole cloth.
It is unconscionable for the NYT to do this to ANYBODY.
If they had done this to one of the Republican Candidates the Senate would be in special session to investigate them and the House would already have 4 committees looking into it.

22 Likes
10

They have become a worthies and pathetic rag. It has fallen so far down it is sickening, The great grey lady is great no more.

4 Likes
11

But it is not just the NYT…look at yesterday’s ‘focus group’ and the Ebola-like spread across the media bubble…it ain’t the meat anymore, it’s all motion.

3 Likes
12

Now you’ve got it! Worthless and pathetic. Except when they cover racial injustice and and except when Maddow and McDonnell cite their reporting.

1 Like
13

I understand there’s a position open at Rolling Stone.

(Speaking of which, one article destroyed Will Dana, who has done a dynamite job of keeping RS committed to the kind of in-depth journalism we should get from outlets like the NYT. Will Baquet pay the price? Can anyone spell HELL NOES!)

6 Likes
14

Defend them all you want. Their reporting on the Clintons has been abominable.

6 Likes
15

I thought nothing could top the media bias against Al Gore in 2000. Sadly, I may be wrong.

Bring back Jill Abramson.

3 Likes
16

Maybe it should be. Any editor who could have stopped this, and didn’t, should be fired.

7 Likes
17

The Times blew this story and mishandled the correction. It also has a penchant for gotchas on the Clintons, particularly Hillary. But it remains far and away the most valuable news reporting organization in the US. In addition to the examples cited by @littlegirlblue above, its work on money in politics has been at times stellar (as cited just this week in this Rick Perlstein article in TPM: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/holy-grail-of-gop-primaries ).

I’ll go a step further in my apostasy on this threat: Hillary and, to a lesser extent, Bill share some responsibility for their acrimonious relations with reporters. Whether rooted in bad experiences early in Bill’s political career or something else, she hasn’t shown an ability to warm up to reporters, has been obvious and prickly in her penchant for controlling stories, and has a tendency to try to hide the workings of government from public view (e.g. her healthcare reform panel, her self-described bad idea regarding the email servers).

Sorry to through bitter herbs into the feeding frenzy, but calling the times “a worthless and pathetic rag” is just baloney.

1 Like
18

We are not talking about an “acrimonious relationship”. This is about yellow journalism. Even if we all agreed that the acrimony is totally the fault of the Clinton’s (which I do not believe is accurate or fair, nor did you imply such), there is simply no excuse for The Times putting out piece after piece with such totally erroneous claims. If this were done to a GOP candidate, someone would have been terminated by this point.

Just because they occasionally do a great piece on money/politics in no way mitigates the damage caused by their coverage of other topics, namely the Clinton’s but also the Iraq War.

11 Likes
19

When people call it worthless based on a pre-existing hatred, I feel obliged to remind them that worthless must be accompanied by pathetic, both very tired canards.The Times is the paper of record for this country, and you seem, like me, to recognize the value of its reporting on a day to day basis over and above politics: business, arts, books, editorial page, Paul Krugman for dog’s sake, well, hell, it’s like defending the usefulness of public libraries.

1 Like
20

Sadly, yes – in the areas I’m sort of familiar with (computation/drug development), I’ve learned they’re not a source to be relied upon. Yes, sometimes they’re right, but they don’t vet the information well.

My current motto: “If their science reporting was accurate, all forms of cancer would have been completely cured back in the '90’s”

2 Likes