Discussion for article #238749
But, of course, this correction will receive significantly less circulation than the original story which is far more sensational and “scandalous.” This is the modus operandi of our media.
12 Likes
Never apologise, No shame. " the newspaper of record" is now " the newspaper that sows discord".
2 Likes
“An earlier version of this article and an earlier headline, using information from
senior government officialsa guy in the Jeb!? campaign,misstated the nature of the referral to the Justice Departmentlied like a cheap rug regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she wassecretary of stateshoveling out the turd bunker from 8 years of neocon bacchanalia. The referral addressedthe potential compromise of classified informationkitten pictures we hope to gin into mock controversy in connection with that personal email account. It did not specifically request an investigation intoMrs. Clintonour meal ticket during the '90s.”
Fixed.
34 Likes
Yes indeed, they can say “senior government officials” but why don’t they name them?
“Some people say…”
Shitty excuse for journalism IMO.
7 Likes
Jesus. They should just change their name to The New York Breitbart Times.
15 Likes
This thing is unraveling very fast. Both the IG for State and Intelligence have come forth and said they have never asked for a criminal investigation. So where exactly is the unnamed government official coming from? (Gowdy) And how in the hell did the NYT rush to print with out additional sourcing?
Obviously the hope was by releasing it late Thursday night that they would so over awe everyone for rest of today that it would breeze right on through and be THE topic of Sunday’s show, ensuring maximum damage. Thankfully it looks like its falling apart much faster than the anticipated, though I have no doubt that Todd is going to be screaming about Hillary’s criminal email server throughout his show.
13 Likes
Ah, yes, “senior government officials.” In other words, Gowdy and his fellow clowns. In other words, “if the Benghazi committee leaks it to us, that’s enough to call it true and put it on the front page!” And they’re still trying to make it sound like a small semantic slip in an otherwise sound story.
Truly pathetic.
(And I don’t buy the “facts don’t matter the damage is done” line. The election is a long way off. Something like this can only have lasting impact if it has real legs. It will be clung to… by people who already hate Hillary and Dems. Hard to see it changing a single vote.)
This is not a correction. A correction would have stated the specific mistake/flaw in the earlier report, noting that it said “criminal” investigation, when in fact, there is no crime being investigated. By dancing around the “nature of the investigation”, they allow the false accusation/narrative to persist, and downplay how significant an error this was on their part.
25 Likes
Just what I clicked in to say, @AlphaDad; time to bombard their public editor with complaints again.
And just a reminder as the latest bogus “scandal” gets new, unwarranted life: in determining whether a given email was job-related or personal (on the secure server of a former president of the United States), she was exercising precisely the same discretion exercised, by law, by every Federal employee, whether in the past, when they would decide which email to preserve from a single account, or currently, when they decide which device to use to send a given email. This point can’t be repeated often enough (which is why I’ve been repeating it ad nauseum today)…
10 Likes
This is one lame retraction. If you say she is subject to a criminal investigation, the mistake was to use the word criminal. The retraction needs to say “we were wrong to use the word criminal.There is no criminal investigation, and we apologize for associating the word criminal with Secretary Clinton.”
Anything less is to let the damage done grow and fester.
The first tenant of ethical journalism is to “DO NO HARM.” So it only follows that if you do harm, the only ethical thing is to do all you can to undo the harm. All the Times has done here is cover its ass. The harm continues to fester.
9 Likes
It should be unraveling, but as of 2:30 pm Central Time, even MSNBC is touting the seriousness of the DOJ investigation. They just interviewed two guests who are calling this the end of Hillary’s campaign and they let the original NYT article stand as credible.
1 Like
Its part of what will be an ongoing campaign, all aimed at bottoming out her trustworthy numbers. The election is a long way off, and while none of these stories by themselves is going to make an impact, running one every month or so eventually will, i.e. if there is that much smoke, there has to be some kinda fire.
Its basically a complete repeat of the 90s attacks on the Clintons. Just keep making stuff up and throwing it out there, eventually something will give.
2 Likes
Let me know when we get a 64 word correction from Team Hillary on her statement about minimum wage being a state’s issue.
I also believe that if a confidential source misleads you, they lose the right to anonymity. They got you to do their dirty work, NYT, so you need to expose them. Now.
8 Likes
Oh, there are quite a few reporters that are already smelling blood on this one, that’s why the added this paragraph to try and minimize the damage.
Here are some tweets of some of them:
1 Like
As of 3:30, they were finally noting that the story had been “corrected,” but then proceeded to discuss how bad this still was for Hillary…
2 Likes
What lousy journalistic standards The New York Times has. Seriously, guys, even your “corrections” are way off the mark. I’m glad I allowed my subscription to lapse a few years ago.
4 Likes
Thanks for updating me. The whole media process is so disgusting and disheartening . . . and the fact that Republicans get away with labeling it as liberal is actually laughable.
4 Likes
Yeah, but those tweets are coming from both directions: catch the “objective” Fournier’s (aka John McCain’s biggest 2008 booster), and the ones from the right playing this as the NYT caving to Hillary in softening their “scoop” (not to mention Mediaite’s own clear editorializing in the way the piece ends). Wonder which narrative will take off with the chattering classes?
2 Likes