How The New York Times Bungled the Hillary Clinton Emails Story
*With thanks to DeepModem Mom who read this story first and put it in the HRC Group.
Conclusions: " recklessness, ignorance or intentional deception" .....I think all three!
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246
What the hell is happening at The New York Times?
In March, the newspaper published a highly touted article about Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email account that, as I wrote in an earlier column, was wrong in its major points. The Times’s public editor defended that piece, linking to a lengthy series of regulations that, in fact, proved the allegations contained in the article were false. While there has since been a lot of partisan hullaballoo about “email-bogus-gate”—something to be expected when the story involves a political party’s presidential front-runner—the reality remained that, when it came to this story, there was no there there.
Then, on Thursday night, the Times dropped a bombshell: Two government inspectors general had made a criminal referral to the Justice Department about Clinton and her handling of the emails. The story was largely impenetrable, because at no point did it offer even a suggestion of what might constitute a crime. By Friday morning, the Times did what is known in the media trade as a “skin back”—the article now said the criminal referral wasn’t about Clinton but about the department’s handling of emails. Still, it conveyed no indication of what possible crime might be involved.
The story seemed to further fall apart on Friday morning when Representative Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) issued a statement saying that he had spoken to the inspector general of the State Department and that there had been no criminal referral regarding Clinton’s email usage. Rather, Cummings said, the inspectors general for State and the intelligence community had simply notified the Justice Department—which issues the regulations on Freedom of Information Act requests—that some emails subject to FOIA review had been identified as classified when they had not previously been designated that way.
(more) http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246
= new reply since forum marked as read
which, BTW, is the whole point ...
Next up ... link after link to HRC "Untrustworthiness" polling numbers.
I think anyone who supports Hillary should do the same. I am not saying this will have any impact on the slanted coverage, and the urge to sensationalize all things Hillary, but it certainly made me feel better.
Post the inflammatory article, edit it or take it down later. Then print a "correction" in a day or two.
In the meantime, other media outlets pick up the original story and run with it. The correction will never be addressed.
The "story" was on CBS and PBS news last night. Big AP article in my local rag this morning. 
