Discussion: NYT (Sort Of) Owns Up To Mistaken Story On Clinton Email Probe

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #238824

2

Even if they don’t want to release the names of the sources, they should at least make clear if they were members of the GOP Benghazi!!!1! committee or staffers in the Justice Dept. That way the reader can determine if it’s a partisan witch hunt (I know, I know, who could suspect the GOP of such a thing).

It seems to me, a newspaper has no particular obligation to protect the identity of a source that burns them as opposed to a source who is a whistle blower.

25 Likes
3

Their sources were Darrell Issa and Trey Gowdy staffers - chairs of two of the multiple Benghazi hearings and investigations. (All of which have found no wrongdoing or coverup, by the way.) Gowdy has stretched the timing for the release of his report to be right before the 2016 elections.

Edit to correct toTrey Gowdy, not Tom Cotton as chair.

6 Likes
4

A not unreasonable suspicion. Also, do you mean Trey Gowdy?

1 Like
5

Yes, Trey Gowdy. D’oh. Thanks for the correction.

2 Likes
6

Understandable, you need a taxonomic key to the batshit to tell these people apart sometimes.

7 Likes
7

The NYT has an unfortunate history of misreporting important news.

Baquet is now part of this history. He should be removed.

11 Likes
8

Releasing the Benghazi report right before the elections would matter more if anyone outside the GOP actually CARED about it. I haven’t seen a whole lot of people being interested in it.

2 Likes
9

Percy is an ostrich. Clinton’s polling numbers are going down. Why should anyone think this mysterious?

1 Like
10

As a reader in fly-over country, it was obvious from publication day 1 that the alleged story wasn’t passing the smell test. The smug, young reporter that I watched appearing on CBS that first morning reminded me of the young fellow I just watched on CBS fronting the ‘Trump rape allegation’ this morning.
Attention young, hungry reporters, beware of billionaire henchmen bearing gifts…

2 Likes
11 
"It was not clear how the discrepancy arose."

How about gross incompetence coupled with partisan politics?

27 Likes
12

Absolutely right. The GOP and their Fox propaganda channel will yell “BENGHAZI” with a blowhorn the last couple of months of the election; expecting it to make a difference and hand them the election. On election night I’ll expect another Karl Rove like meltdown.

4 Likes
13

" ‘As other news organizations followed up on The Times’s report, the Justice Department confirmed to them that a ‘criminal’ investigation had been requested,’ the (NYT) editor’s note read."

Why would “the Justice Department” tell the NYT the investigation was “criminal” and tell Rep. Elijah Cummings and the rest of the media something else? What a crock!

And the lameness of that excuse doesn’t begin to explain the unsubstantiated innuendo dripping from the NYT version of the story.

The NYT is digging a deeper hole for itself with each ‘clarification.’

11 Likes
14

And we’ll have to deal with this crap until election day (and then for the eight following years). The NYT as an organization has had it in for the Clintons since they first showed up on the map. There’s no way that stops now.

6 Likes
15

Its all about WHO you talk to within the Justice Dept. Talk to someone official in the DoJ, and you will hear what rest of the media hears. Talk to a Bushie under conditions of anonymity, and you will hear what what the Times said they heard.

Which no doubt, left their reporters with a bit of a quandry…do they go with the official story, which probably isn’t worth printing, or do we go with the anonymous story that gets our name on the front page?

We know how that decision worked out…

7 Likes
16

The NYT’s Baquet came off as lame when he trotted that silly excuse saying “the government” gave the reporter the information. I am sure he meant “gubmint”. The NYT has learned nothing and forgotten everything. All one has to do is say: Clinton did…and their eager young reporters will fill in the blanks. Of course the usual suspects on Morning Joke are never short of the ten cents worth - Duffer Halperin can be relied to shovel dirt, Mrs Greenspan, who spent hours flying around the world with Mrs Clinton does not hesitate to put the boot in. As I don’t watch Fux I am spared another cesspool of “journalism”.

3 Likes
17

The NYT has been wrong so many times on the Clintons that I no longer read this rag

3 Likes
18

What did the Clintons ever do to the NYT first off and why after their aide in starting Bush’s phony war are they taken seriously anyways?

I know people back the Times but to me they are always dishonest at just the wrong/right time, depending on your POV, so they are untrustworthy which is the deathknell for any newspaper but especially the NYT.

The fact that they just don’t come out and admit their mistakes, intentional mistakes as they are, really undermines their credibility.
What are they after, another war from another goober President because that is what their twisted reporting leads to.

3 Likes
19

Well, that Pam Tillis song, “Queen of Denial,” is going to be running through my head for the rest of the day.

3 Likes
20

That’s my point. It wasn’t “the Justice Department.” It was ‘a Justice Department source.’

The NYT continues to look foolish in equating the two. And it still doesn’t explain the innuendo throughout the story.

5 Likes