Monday, March 23, 2015

The New York Times Obsession With Email is Getting Sad

Thought the New York Times discredited "reporting" on eGhazi by Michael S. Schmidt was old news and couldn't get any more lame? Think again.

Here's a quick summary of his latest salvo: Some emails were sent back and forth about Benghazi just after the attack. In those emails, there is zero evidence that Hillary Clinton or anyone else did anything wrong. A small number of emails having something to do with the State Department (but not necessarily Benghazi) were sent and received on personal email accounts, but they were still preserved in accordance with the law.

That's it.

The rest of the piece is just more stretched-out rehash and "narrative". House Republicans, and complicit media such as the New York Times, have turned into a snake eating its own tail in an infinite loop because it's just too hungry to help itself.

Schmidt also continues to be the master of vague insinuation, making it seem at first glance as though several specific examples of email correspondence occurred solely on personal email accounts. However, this does not appear to be the case. How do we know? Because if they were, he would have specifically said so and that revelation would be the blaring headline instead of more rubbish about "concerns".

Here are some highlights:
The emails have not been made public, and The New York Times was not permitted to review them. But four senior government officials offered descriptions of some of the key messages, on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to jeopardize their access to secret information.
So let me get this straight: Four Republican congressmen on the Benghazi committee...sorry, four "senior government officials"...didn't let Schmidt see any emails, but gave him second-hand descriptions of a few so they wouldn't get in trouble. This is now the basis for modern serious journalism?
They provided no evidence that Mrs. Clinton, as the most incendiary Republican attacks have suggested, issued a “stand down” order to halt American forces responding to the violence in Benghazi, or took part in a broad cover-up of the administration’s response, according to senior American officials.
Great news! The insane Republican conspiracy theories regarding Benghazi are totally unfounded. So why isn't this the headline? And why are we still talking about this zombie non-scandal? Could it possibly be because it's nothing but a transparent partisan witch-hunt?
Strikingly, given that she has set off an uproar over her emails, Mrs. Clinton is not a verbose correspondent. 
Dude, you set off the uproar with your misleading original piece which your paper eventually had to walk back!

There's plenty more where that came from, but since you and everyone else is bored silly by this ongoing journalistic disaster, I'll skip to the punchline in the very last paragraph:
Elijah E. Cummings, the Maryland Democrat and ranking member on the committee, said in a statement that “instead of having emails leaked piecemeal — and mischaracterized,” the committee’s chairman, Mr. Gowdy, “should release all of them — as Secretary Clinton has asked — so the American people can read them for themselves.”
Hah! So the responsible advice from Rep. Cummings is completely ignored for the entirety of the piece, only to be tacked on at the end in a successful attempt to make themselves look bad.

Seriously, New York Times...what are you doing?

No comments:

Post a Comment