NYT changes story after Clinton complains

[michal1980]

http://www.politico.com//blogs/media/2015/07/new-york-times-alters-clinton-email-story-211176.html

Why am I not surprised.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Oooo! I get to use Politico now!!!

Thanks OP!!

 

[Bowfinger]

Perhaps the initial version of the story had wording inaccuracies that were corrected when the Clinton team called them out. Without having the actual IG memo, we can only speculate. Regardless, the important news will be whether Justice decides to investigate.

 

[cabri]

Perhaps the initial version of the story had wording inaccuracies that were corrected when the Clinton team called them out. Without having the actual IG memo, we can only speculate. Regardless, the important news will be whether Justice decides to investigate.

I suspect that Justice will not do anything.

 

[HomerJS]

Is Hillary Clinton the subject if the inquiry request? If not the revision is more accurate.

Having said that if she just ran her emails through .gov this wouldn't be an issue

 

[Jhhnn]

Read the fucking article, gentlemen. Way down at the bottom-

UPDATE (2:12 p.m.): The Times issued the following correction on Friday afternoon:

"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."

The Times corrected the story, that's all.

Or not. Maybe it's all just part of the New World Order conspiracy like Benghazi.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm sure if a not-preferred candidate makes a request to change the wording of an article to be less damaging the NYT will oblige within minutes as well. Sure. Of course.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm sure if a not-preferred candidate makes a request to change the wording of an article to be less damaging the NYT will oblige within minutes as well. Sure. Of course.

Now it looks like it wasn't a criminal investigation at all, the NYT just got it wrong.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...hillary_clinton_s_state_department_email.html

What's funny about that is if the NYT had issued a similar wrong report about a conservative candidate I absolutely guarantee that you guys would have been freaking out about how the evil librul NYT issued a hit piece on a conservative. Since it's about Hillary though, you're instead outraged about the correction.

I like how no matter what the input/outputs are the conclusion is always the same: the evil liberal NYT is conspiring against conservatives.

 

[PokerGuy]

Now it looks like it wasn't a criminal investigation at all, the NYT just got it wrong.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...hillary_clinton_s_state_department_email.html

What's funny about that is if the NYT had issued a similar wrong report about a conservative candidate I absolutely guarantee that you guys would have been freaking out about how the evil librul NYT issued a hit piece on a conservative. Since it's about Hillary though, you're instead outraged about the correction.

Where did I say I was "outraged" at the correction? If indeed it was an actual correction of a factual mistake, then I'm glad they made the correction. The reality is that if it was a typical hit piece on a conservative, there wouldn't have a been a correction, or if there was it would be a half-hearted one at a later date.

I like how no matter what the input/outputs are the conclusion is always the same: the evil liberal NYT is conspiring against conservatives.

Well duh, and the earth revolves around the sun. It's the NYT's we're talking about. Any other obvious truths you'd like to discuss?

 

[Mxylplyx]

The reality is that if it was a typical hit piece on a conservative, there wouldn't have a been a correction, or if there was it would be a half-hearted one at a later date.

Only your own warped reality reinforced by the non-stop blathering of fox news and talk radio about the evil "mainstream media". The NYTimes issued the correction because that is what an ethical news organization is expected to do when it screws up, which the NYTimes obviously did in this case.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'm sure if a not-preferred candidate makes a request to change the wording of an article to be less damaging the NYT will oblige within minutes as well. Sure. Of course.

You are correct. Credible journalists take accuracy very seriously. If anyone shows them a story has factual errors, they will respond quickly.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You are correct. Credible journalists take accuracy very seriously. If anyone shows them a story has factual errors, they will respond quickly.

That's all fine and good, except for one thing...there were no factual errors in the original story. Essentially they reworded the story to suit her desired spin.

New York Times says there was ‘no factual error’ in Hillary Clinton e-mail referral story
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ror-in-hillary-clinton-e-mail-referral-story/

Then a few minutes ago they flip-flopped.

New York Times: There IS a factual error in Clinton e-mail story
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...e-is-a-factual-error-in-clinton-e-mail-story/

New York Times appends correction to altered Hillary Clinton story
http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawi...-correction-to-altered-hillary-clinton-story/

This is starting to get entertaining.

 

[Bowfinger]

That's all fine and good, except for one thing...there were no factual errors in the original story. They reworded the story to suit her desired spin ffs.

New York Times says there was ‘no factual error’ in Hillary Clinton e-mail referral story
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ror-in-hillary-clinton-e-mail-referral-story/

You should read your own link:

Update (3:20 p.m.): The Times has now added a correction to the story.
[ ... ]
UPDATE: We asked Fallon whether he took issue with the New York Times’s explanation that there was no factual error to correct. He responded, “Their lede last night has so far been directly contradicted by the Associated Press and via an on-the-record statement from the Ranking Member of the House Oversight Committee.” That statement comes from Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), who has issued a statement saying that the State Department’s inspector general “never asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton’s email usage,” reads the statement. “Instead, he told me the Intelligence Community IG notified the Justice Department and Congress that they identified classified information in a few emails that were part of the FOIA review, and that none of those emails had been previously marked as classified.”

“This is the latest example in a series of inaccurate leaks to generate false front-page headlines — only to be corrected later,” said Cummings.

Seems the Washington Post has corrected its story as well.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You should read your own link:
Seems the Washington Post has corrected its story as well.

See my edit.

 

[Bowfinger]

See my edit.

OK. So you acknowledge your comment, " Essentially they reworded the story to suit her desired spin." is not accurate? Because that's really the heart of this purported issue. Did the NYT show favoritism towards Clinton, or is this just another example of proper journalism being smeared by the usual attackers? While we don't have a copy of the IG memo, the best information we have to date suggests the initial NYT article created an inaccurate spin, while their subsequent changes have improved accuracy.

Meanwhile, once we can get past the smears, the real story is the IGs have asked for an investigation. That is newsworthy, not the OP's useless partisan drivel.

 

[Jhhnn]

The reality is that if it was a typical hit piece on a conservative, there wouldn't have a been a correction, or if there was it would be a half-hearted one at a later date.

Desperate speculative shit flinging presented as fact.

I mean, it must be true because you believe it, right?

 

[halik]

I understand it's standard practice for political campaigns to reach out to news outlets and correct stories they see as inaccurate.

 

[fskimospy]

I understand it's standard practice for political campaigns to reach out to news outlets and correct stories they see as inaccurate.

Yes. It's also standard practice for political campaigns to leak stories about their opponents that they think will be unflattering. That's probably what happened here.

 

[boomerang]

The story here is not the story as it was reported or amended in the newspaper. The story is that the inspector general of the intelligence community determined that classified information was in fact contained in emails sent from her private server. This directly contradicts what Hillary told the nation on March 10th of this year.

This was discovered in 40 emails randomly sampled. Within the 55,000 she submitted there is undoubtedly many more.

She is not going to survive this politically and she may not survive it without serving some time.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/investigation-sought-into-hillary-clintons-emails-1437714369

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/

Further, it has been reported that her attorney and her staff were involved in the determination that resulted in tens of thousands of emails being deleted. Did these individuals have the proper security clearance to view these emails? There may be other individuals facing charges before this is over.

Boehner today demanded that her server be turned over immediately. IIRC, it was requested at a minimum 60 days ago. She has continually and is currently proclaiming her innocence and her commitment to cooperation. It's way past time to put her money where her mouth is.

 

[werepossum]

The story here is not the story as it was reported or amended in the newspaper. The story is that the inspector general of the intelligence community determined that classified information was in fact contained in emails sent from her private server. This directly contradicts what Hillary told the nation on March 10th of this year.

This was discovered in 40 emails randomly sampled. Within the 55,000 she submitted there is undoubtedly many more.

She is not going to survive this politically and she may not survive it without serving some time.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/investigation-sought-into-hillary-clintons-emails-1437714369

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/

Further, it has been reported that her attorney and her staff were involved in the determination that resulted in tens of thousands of emails being deleted. Did these individuals have the proper security clearance to view these emails? There may be other individuals facing charges before this is over.

Boehner today demanded that her server be turned over immediately. IIRC, it was requested at a minimum 60 days ago. She has continually and is currently proclaiming her innocence and her commitment to cooperation. It's way past time to put her money where her mouth is.

I disagree. Her supporters will maintain that no matter what she does, Republicans would do worse and she's the best chance to defeat them. And the New York Times, when she is the Democrat nominee, will absolutely endorse her, no matter who is the Republican nominee. There will of course be some emails which come to light which were not turned over and should have been, but at that point Mrs. Clinton still has the option to just say "oops" and turn them over as they are brought forth, or just claim that those emails were Lernered in a horrible computer crash and all the emails which could be recovered have already been turned over.

By D.C. standards, this isn't even that bad, just what we all suspect goes on all the time.

 

[nickqt]

Liberal media!

Liberal media!

Take two shots, back-to-back!

This 2016 campaign is going to cause some serious alcohol abuse.

 

[sportage]

Nothing to see here... Moving on...
Maybe the heat "is" getting to the press?
This phony distraction is taking up time we need to focus on Donald Trump.
What was Donald up to today? What did he say? And whom did it piss off?

 

[Blackjack200]

The real question is why does the Times have a problem covering Clinton, and what caused this complete breakdown in their newsroom.

At no point in the story does the Times mention what this memo—and the other it cited—was really all about: that the officials at the Freedom of Information office in the State Department and intelligence agencies, which were reviewing emails for release, had discovered emails that may not have been designated with the correct classification. For anyone who has dealt with the FOIA and government agencies, this is something that happens all the time in every administration. (Advice to other journalists: That is why it’s smart to file multiple FOIA requests for the same document; different FOIA officials will declare different items unreleasable, so some records can be turned over where a sentence has been blacked out because one reviewer decided it was classified, while another deemed it unclassified.)

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246

 

[werepossum]

The real question is why does the Times have a problem covering Clinton, and what caused this complete breakdown in their newsroom.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246

It's certainly nice to know that in this time of cutbacks, at least Newsweek has remained on Mrs. Clinton's payroll. Perhaps the Times should take note and adjust prices accordingly.

Well . . . at least one Newsweek opinion writer anyway.

 

[boomerang]

I disagree. Her supporters will maintain that no matter what she does, Republicans would do worse and she's the best chance to defeat them. And the New York Times, when she is the Democrat nominee, will absolutely endorse her, no matter who is the Republican nominee. There will of course be some emails which come to light which were not turned over and should have been, but at that point Mrs. Clinton still has the option to just say "oops" and turn them over as they are brought forth, or just claim that those emails were Lernered in a horrible computer crash and all the emails which could be recovered have already been turned over.

By D.C. standards, this isn't even that bad, just what we all suspect goes on all the time.

Time will tell. I expect her to drop out. I don't think this would have gone this far without somebody green lighting it. It all could have been made to go away but it has not. Emails, servers, the foundation, it's a revolving door of one thing after another that keeps surfacing and receding in a seemingly endless cycle that all could have been controlled and managed but that's not happening. She has made it clear to someone that she will not play ball and that someone is in control. She's not interested in finishing the fundamental transformation that Obama has been so successful in implementing. This is the closest the progressives have been in over a hundred years and I just don't see them letting her in the top slot when they know she's only on board with what's good for the Clinton's and not for the progressive vision. It doesn't make sense to put her in place when there may be somebody else that can be more easily controlled. They are just too close.

Yeah, it's conspiracy theory type shit. But it's happening and there's a reason why. When do politician's go after other politician's? When they try to go off the reservation or when they go rogue. She went rogue a long time ago and has a track record of doing whatever she damn well pleases. She can't be controlled and she's not on board. She's the antithesis of a sure thing for the progressive movement.