Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(50,030 posts)
Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:29 PM Jun 2016

A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What Next?

It might be a good idea to bookmark this to help rebut accusations against Hillary Clinton.
NY Times

The story – a Times exclusive — appeared high on the home page and the mobile app late Thursday and on Friday and then was displayed with a three-column headline on the front page in Friday’s paper. The online headline read “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email,” very similar to the one in print.

But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

The writers responsible for the inaccuracies were Michael S Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo.

NY Times Public Editor: Clinton Email Story Had "Major Journalistic Problems" That Damaged The Paper's Reputation
New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan published a column examining the problems with the Times' error-riddled story about Hillary Clinton's emails. Sullivan strongly criticized the paper for running a "sensational" story before it was ready and for not being transparent with readers about revising it.

On July 23, the Times published a story by Michael S. Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo claiming that two federal inspectors general had requested a "criminal" referral about whether Clinton had sent classified information via a personal email server. Over the next few days, the paper revised the story numerous times, pulling back on several of its main allegations. In the most recent version of the story, the criminal allegation has been removed, as has the impression that Clinton herself was personally under a probe.

Strike Two for Pair of New York Times Reporters
Assuming Comey is telling the truth, that's two strikes. Schmidt and Apuzzo either have some bad sources somewhere, or else they have one really bad source somewhere. And coincidentally or not, their source(s) have provided them with two dramatic but untrue scoops that make prominent Democrats look either corrupt or incompetent. For the time being, Schmidt and Apuzzo should be considered on probation. That's at least one big mistake too many.
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What Next? (Original Post) LiberalFighter Jun 2016 OP
I would love for journalists to start paying for their years of smears on HRC! Her Sister Jun 2016 #1
The NYT screwed up on this one big time realmirage Jun 2016 #2

Her Sister

(6,444 posts)
1. I would love for journalists to start paying for their years of smears on HRC!
Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:35 PM
Jun 2016

I would have no problem with that!

Nice compilation! Thanks!



(2,117 posts)
2. The NYT screwed up on this one big time
Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:45 PM
Jun 2016

I almost subscribed to them a few weeks ago but then realized how watered down they've become when I perused their site

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Hillary Clinton»A Clinton Story Fraught W...