Here's a new statement (in full) from the NYT Public Editor on coverage of Hillary. Your opinion, comments?
Margaret Sullivan: "The Tortured Tale of Hillary Clinton and The Times"
The history of the Clintons and The New York Times over the decades is like an airport baggage carousel — with a difference. New pieces keep barreling down the chute, but none of it ever seems to get removed.
The week before last, another steamer trunk tumbled onto the crowded belt. A front-page article described Hillary Clinton as the subject of a request for a criminal inquiry into her email practices while she was secretary of state. After substantial revisions and corrections, the story was still newsworthy — but far less jaw-dropping: There had been a request for a Justice Department inquiry, but not a criminal inquiry, and not one directed at Mrs. Clinton personally.
I wrote a blog post Monday, faulting The Times for too much speed in publishing the story, and too little transparency in correcting and revising it, and for the all-too-familiar reliance on anonymous government sources. Rushing to publish a scoop, The Times failed to make sure that the story was correct, and hurt its reputation for authoritative accuracy — precisely what its most loyal readers count on.
Afterward, Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at Georgetown University, wrote to The Times: “There is far more at stake than a newspaper’s reputation. How about the future of our country and the countless lives that are affected by the outcome of a presidential election?”
My post quickly generated more than a thousand reader comments (a record), many of which had the same complaint: The reporting on Mrs. Clinton from such a dominant news source has an unfairly critical edge.
Arlene Williams, a longtime subscriber, wrote and objected to “what I see as jaded coverage concerning Hillary Clinton.” News articles and opinion columns are “just consistently negative,” she said. And Ben Lieberman of Acton, Mass., said The Times seemed to be “on a mission to cut her down to size.”
These readers aren’t alone. The press critic and New York University professor Jay Rosen wrote on Twitter: “I have resisted this conclusion over the years, but after today’s events it’s fair to say the Times has a problem covering Hillary Clinton.” Rachel Maddow said last week on MSNBC that the attitude of the national press corps, including The Times, is, “Everything Hillary Clinton does is a scandal.” And James Fallows of The Atlantic called what he sees as a Times “Clinton vendetta” a “serious lapse,” linking to a letter the Clinton campaign wrote in response to the Times story.
Back in the days when President Bill Clinton was being impeached after an affair with a White House intern, and the Clintons were being beaten up over the Whitewater real estate deal, Mrs. Clinton described what she saw as the “vast, right-wing conspiracy” behind relentless political persecution.
But surely, one might think, The New York Times could not be part of that. On the contrary, the paper often is slammed for liberal bias; and its editorial board (although run separately from the news side) hasn’t endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956.
With this most recent event as a catalyst, and reader concerns in mind, I talked to Times editors about their approach to covering Candidate Clinton. One top-ranking editor, Matt Purdy, agreed that she gets a great deal of scrutiny, but for good reason: “We are dealing with a situation unique in American history: A leading candidate for president is not just a former senator and secretary of state, but she’s also the wife of a former president and the two of them, along with their daughter, have a large global philanthropy.” There’s a lot to explore, he said, and The Times owes it to its readers to do so.
Since 2013, a Times reporter has been assigned to cover the Clintons as a full-time beat. Other candidates were spared that particular blessing, and at times the whole thing has seemed excessive. For Mrs. Clinton, it has meant that her every move is tracked, often to a fault. Separately, readers objected last April to the way The Times, touting an “exclusive agreement” with the author, reported on aspects of a highly critical book, “Clinton Cash.” And some observers make the case that there’s no substance to the story line about Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email system as secretary of state. (I disagree; it is both a significant and telling story.)
Mr. Purdy and the executive editor, Dean Baquet, insist that this scrutiny is necessary and that it is being done fairly. Because Mrs. Clinton stirs such strong emotions, they say, there are bound to be unending complaints from both her supporters and detractors.
But I agree with this sentiment from a reader, Evan Hannay, who is troubled by some of the Clinton coverage: “Hillary deserves tough questions when they are warranted. But it is undeniable that she is already facing significantly tougher coverage than any other potential candidate.” He thinks The Times should make “a promise to readers going forward that Hillary is not going to be treated unfairly as she so often is by the media.”
Last Thursday, I handed Mr. Baquet a printed copy of Mr. Hannay’s email and asked him to address it.
To that end, he told me that he has urged reporters and editors to focus anew on issues stories. And he pledged fairness. “I’m happy to make a promise that she’ll be treated fairly,” he said, though he added, “If you look at our body of work, I don’t believe we have been unfair.” One testament to that, he said, was an investigative piece written by David Kirkpatrick shortly after the 2012 Benghazi attacks, with conclusions seen as favorable for Mrs. Clinton, who was then secretary of state. It came under heavy attack from the right.
But the Times’s “screw-up,” as Mr. Baquet called it, reinforces the need for reporters and their editors to be “doubly vigilant and doubly cautious.”
Times readers (and on their behalf, I, too) will be watching and evaluating that over the next months. No one should expect a free ride for Mrs. Clinton. But she certainly deserves a fair shake.
(NOTE: THIS ARTICLE IS POSTED TO THE HILLARY GROUP)
= new reply since forum marked as read
