A short piece worth reading regarding the NYT’s history of sloppy journalism of the Clintons.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/16/is-the-new-york-times-gearing-up-for-more-clint/202910
*That kind of weird invective seemed to infect the Times’ reporting and led the newsroom astray again and again and again, as the paper oversold stories in a concerted effort to make the Clintons look bad. *
By “lot”, do you mean “lost”? As in, ‘LOST a lot faith in the NYT’?
I bought almost every single Sunday edition of TNYT from September 1968, this is well before college, on until I found it all online 15 plus years ago. Read thru all of it some Sundays, reviewed all but a few thoroughly. But I never actually TRUSTED the writing per se: it depended a lot on who was reporting, what was being reported, who was opinionating, again on what, and the nature of the issue.
Matt Apuzzo’s reporting I’ve always found suspect, in something like the same way David Ignatius’ reporting is for WaPo: they both seem to have agenda-ridden sources in the intelligence community, and I’ve never seen any sign at all of them reporting in a way that questions the reliability of their sources or the information they’re being fed. In addition, Apuzzo’s got an AP background, and those types seem highly inclined to act as pipelines for a certain corporate b.s. partisanship that the NSA, AFAICT, demands from certain of its long-time contacts in other key US intel community agencies, particularly the CIA and those parts of the FBI and DoJ most focused on cointel and anti-terrorism.
I’m saying, IOW, that I treat Apuzzo, and not just Apuzzo but all national security and intel community reporters, as conduits for particular points of view, not reporters at all. So, I’ver never lost faith in TNYT reoorting, any more than in WaPo reporting on the same areas, because I’ve never believed it to be anything other than partisan pov delivery.
They listen to Maureen Dowd too much. Really it was the NYT that ginned up Whitewater to start with.
These days no one should listen to Maureen Dowd about anything.
If anything, the original story in the NYT was probably meant to be cannon fodder for Hillary-haters in the same mold as Dick Cheney referring to Judith Milller reporting on aluminum tubes for WMDs in Iraq. To be planted and referred back to in a circular fashion for greater effect. Fuck the NYT. Expect more of this however.
Funny, it is almost 2:30 on Friday and CNN is still saying that there is a criminal probe going on at this moment. They DID add that the offending documents were not labeled as “secret” by the State Department.
And BTW, considering the amount of hacking into government computer systems, we should all be glad that HILLARY managed to protect her email.
It is diabolically mischievous: Float a rumor that the DOJ is “looking into” the Clinton emails.
They know the psychology of rumor. They get embellished: For ex: “I hear the DOJ is investigating Hillary on her emails, but the White House and she are keeping it quiet”.
Exactly. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
I saw that! Wolf was pimping this story for all it is worth (which is NOTHING) The reporter tried to push back and correct Wolf’s assertion of a criminal report, explaining to him that it was simply an inquiry into how the State Department (not Hillary Clinton) handled classified information. But no! That simply would not do for Wolf. He acknowledged that, yes, RIGHT NOW it is an inquiry. But, because he has been around for a long time, he has seen how these inquiries turn into criminal investigations, and then to grand juries, and then to indictments. Lions! Tigers! And Bears!
Oh My! Yes, it seems the NYT is certainly getting the desire effect of their continued practice of yellow journalism. And, make no mistake, this is yellow journalism. It has happened too many times to be anything other than that.
Which was most likely their goal, just like an attorney who asks a question in court that the judge tells the jury to forget. Which just makes it harder to forget.
See also: Judith Miller.
Wow the NYT really has it out for Hillary. Gee, I wonder why that could be?
Intentional. Happens too often to be mere sloppiness.
From the Times? The organization that has yet to give the slightest indication of awareness of how completely off the rails they went in the 1990s?
I’m betting that the issue in the true complaint - far from being related to any of Clinton’s actions - is going to wind up actually being about Republican Congress members and/or staffers improperly releasing classified info to try and smear her.
I also predict the NYT won’t even report it.
The newspaper of record is trying to sew the seeds of discord. I plan to go visit the NYT newsroom and shout “Clinton” and watch the reaction. After Judith Millers’s lies and obfuscations, which was rewarded with a warm welcome and a liquid lunch by Arthur on her release from prison, I decided that “shame and humility” is not in their vocabulary. The current crop of journalists are set to repeat their mistakes they made during the last Clinton presidency. Maureen Dowd must be salivating. Pathetic.
The NYT has given up any pretense of real and honest journalism
and devolved into scalp collecting. It
used to be known as the paper of record know it’s the place to go for sloppy partisan
lies
The election is not until November 2016. Can you imagine what all is going to happen between now & then regarding both parties? No lasting damage at all. There will be plenty to take its place especially with the clown bus characters in the republican primary.
People don’t have that long of a attention span to remember this even after a month. Much ado about nothing is all it is.
Well, even that statement…“the agency NOW says”
Yes, now because you just asked them directly for the first time so they answered. So technically, I suppose that sentence is correct. But they never claimed there was a criminal referral in the first place. The NYT, and possibly its anonymous government official, made that claim.
But by couching it that way, it makes it appear as if the agencyis changing THEIR story, when its actually the NYT’s story that is changing.