Friday, July 24, 2015

The New York Times Can't Even Write Corrections Correctly

The slow motion collapse of the New York Times' journalistic integrity continues.
The headline still blares: Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account
And the article now includes this at the bottom:
Correction: July 24, 2015 An earlier version of this article and an earlier headline, using information from senior government officials, misstated the nature of the referral to the Justice Department regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state. The referral addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that personal email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton.
Yep, no further headline change and no acknowledgement that there is no criminal inquiry whatsoever.

To deal with that problem, the same writers (Michael S. Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo) wrote a second piece saying that "It's not our fault, and who knows...maybe there will be a criminal investigation in the future! We need to keep an eye on this because Hillary Clinton is really popular among Democrats." 

I'm not even kidding. Quote:
On Thursday night and again Friday morning, the Justice Department referred to the matter as a “criminal referral” but later on Friday dropped the word “criminal.”
Regardless of the terminology, the referral raises the possibility of a Justice Department criminal investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails as she campaigns for president. Polls show she is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination by a wide margin.
So...what's the "scandal" here? What, exactly, is left for them to hang their hat on? This:
Government investigators have discovered four emails containing what they say is classified information on the personal email account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, the investigators said in a letter to Congress released on Friday...
The government investigators discovered the four emails while reviewing a sampling of 40 emails from Ms. Clinton’s account. Of those, four contained information that should have been marked classified and should have been sent and stored on a secure computer system, I. Charles McCullough III, theinspector (sic) general of the intelligence community, the internal watchdog for the nation’s intelligence agencies, said in the letter to Congress...
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign released a brief statement on Twitter, saying, “Any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted.”
In summation: While using a legal and authorized email account, Hillary Clinton received and possibly sent information that was not deemed classified at the time of transmission. If this is a scandal, it is a profoundly boring bureaucratic one that involves zero wrongdoing by Hillary.

However, there is a real scandal here and it's actually far more troubling. To discover it, the New York Times simply needs to investigate a mirror.

For more on this continuing fiasco, absolutely do not miss this epic taketown of the Times by Kurt Eichenwald in Newsweek.

UPDATE:

Before the crack of dawn on Saturday morning, the New York Times quietly changed their original article, finally removing all references to the word "criminal" and including an updated correction. But their journalistic crime lives on forever in this screenshot:


Also, Kurt Eichenwald, the author of the devastating Newsweek takedown of the NYT, has released a video version that's just as good!


2 comments:

  1. I think my favorite NYT self-justification is the "well, there MIGHT be a criminal investigation in the future" one. What???

    Also, thanks for pointing out in your earlier post that Hillary now has a campaign apparatus in place to rebut this crap, which she didn't have in March.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's insane.

      We've got to share the Newsweek piece far and wide...journalistic justice must be done!

      Delete