They tried that through Obama’s entire first term. He was easily reelected.
The endless focus on “THE EMAILS!” as scandal-fodder is also likely to backfire. It reeks of trivial overkill. I don’t think people (outside the right wing) are going to feel that it has cumulative power.
For now, the MSM is trying desperately to keep the story alive despite the bottom falling out. It’s an investigation! Scandal! Scandal!
Gowdy. Good call. He is always full of himself and BS.
I don’t have a clue what the happened, but I do know that the NY Times has a long history of woman hating and they’ve started in recent weks to give Hillary that treatment.
Egg on their face (again)!! But it doesn’t matter. The rest of the lap dog media already has their angle and talking points. Both Chuck Toad and Ron Fournier have already declared that, regardless of the error in reporting (putting it mildly), this all feeds into the “narrative” about the Clinton’s.
I guess it doesn’t matter that it is a false narrative which is perpetuated by yellow journalism just like the NYT story.
But no apology from the Times I guess, huh?
A high-ranking NYTimes official says they just rehired Judith Miller to add some credibility to their reporting . . .
This is the journalistic equivalent of “mistakes were made.” Just who made them and what they were is not important, but we (when forced to) admit that there were mistakes…
Or it would have just scrapped the entire original article, since the gist of it was that there had been such a request.
Lately the NYT is making Breitbart look like quality.
As usual the above the fold front page one story and headline will see the correction placed at the bottom of page 39 in fine print…
The correction should have said: We are terrible journalists and run any rumor that the Far Right feeds us.
from the inimitable “Old gray lady” to puppy pee trainer…bird cage liner in a relatively short time…
When Diane Rehm stated unequivocally that Bernie Sanders was an Israeli citizen, at least her source was a highly reliable Facebook page [i.e. rumor]. The 24-hour news cycle and the desire to be first with a story has destroyed the integrity of journalists everywhere. Until the internet, that tip from a “senior government official” would have lead to some legwork to get the actual request, and the article would have been based on the request. Now a rumor is good enough.
Even TPM does sloppy reporting, making John Stewart sound like a racist by cherry-picking comments out of a long interview with one of his employees.
It is worrisome that older voters still think what they read in print is always true, because for most of their lives it was true.
I canceled my subscription to the NYT more than a year ago because of this kind of crap. I encourage others, any time I can, to do the same.
I just loved their half azzed’ mea-culpa: “This incident shows the danger of relying on reckless, inaccurate leaks from partisan sources”. Oh! YOU THINK? ___Hell, it sounds like FOX wrote it for them: "We make up shit. You find the truth. THAT’s not our job! "
The New York Times: “Fools’ for Scandal.”
Sadly, I will follow your lead and cancel my subscription today. I have tried to support newspapers in general, but this is just one-too-many ridiculous stories and non-apologies.
Weak sauce.
It’s what I’ve come to expect from the NYT regarding most things that intersect with politics these days within their pages, unfortunately. They really showed their hand for bias when they enabled the Bushies to get their War of Choice. Once they sacrificed their journalistic integrity for boosterism of the Bush Doctrine of Preemption, allowing them to conflate their “War On Terror” because of 9/11 with Saddam Hussein, it was a fait accompli before, during and after anyone could express any serious doubts, or offer contradictory information, no matter how much investigative journalism would later show up on the back pages proffering some form of dissent. For a very long time, you couldn’t find any story concerning the wrong-headedness of our march to war on the front pages, above-the-fold as they say, in those days. All you could find were narratives justifying whatever the civilian NeoCon hawks and Armchair Generals had said was necessary.
As far as I’m concerned, It has only gone downhill from there. And I’m still waiting for an apology and a front page correction for all that shit too.
Ok…but consider that we have the NYT, and many other typically liberal voices that were more or less defenders,(or at least willing to splash cold water on the non-scandals that the right manufactured about Obama) are pushing the righties out of the way to be first in line to get the first cuts in on Hillary. That’s an entirely different scenario.
And, there is some truth to the “No Drama Obama” compared to the Clintons, who both have a knack of creating gossip out of nothing, as if they thrive on drama.
Democrats should boycott the NY Times.
Maybe the Gray Lady was (snicker!) “trying to provoke a reaction” like the post event reframing of Major Garrett’s asshole question about Iran hostages to President Obama last week?
The American news audience is up for grabs like no time prior. They’re shopping for a digital updating of the original product profit-hungry and information chary corporations destroyed following Clinton’s rewrite of Reagan’s rewrite of the Communications Act but the original recipe has been lost.
Yet another instance of a source who needs to be outed for leading the reporters down the primrose path. But no, they’ll grovel to him the next time, and the next, and the next, ad nauseum.