Remember they are the ones who have for some strange reason decided to become in effect part of the opposition research of the 2016 Republican party campaign with that Clinton bashing book about CGI by Daniel Halper, Clinton, Inc. It's truly shocking that they have collaborated in this piece of opposition research.
http://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Inc-Audacious-Rebuilding-Political-ebook/dp/B00FJ3AC1A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1437820559&sr=8-1&keywords=daniel+halper+clinton%2C+inc&pebp=1437820563865&perid=1GV7TTC24R5EQ6VWKMTS
Now they are putting out stories without researching them as long as they have an anti-Hillary bias.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/doj-no-hillary-clinton-criminal-inquiry
"Hillary Clinton's campaign team and her allies came out swinging Friday against the New York Times as the newspaper backed off its report that the U.S. Justice Department had been asked to open a criminal probe into her private email account."
"Nick Merrill, a Clinton campaign spokesman, said the Times story was "false" and accused the newspaper of relying on "partisan" sources for its information."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-team-nyt-email-responds
As Howard Dean says: "The New York Times truly has become an embarrassment to American Journalism. Second anti HRC story in three months THEY GOT WRONG!"
This is the problem for the Times. If they want to take on the Fox News agenda they will see their journalistic reputation fall to the level of Fox News.
Newsweek says:
"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."
"So had the Times mixed up a criminal referral—a major news event—with a notification to the department responsible for overseeing FOIA errors that might affect some documents’ release? It’s impossible to tell, because theTimes story—complete with its lack of identification of any possible criminal activity—continues to mention a criminal referral."
"But based on a review of documents from the inspectors general, the problems with the story may be worse than that—much, much worse. The reason my last sentence says may is this: There is a possibility—however unlikely—that theTimes cited documents in its article that have the same dates and the same quotes but are different from the records I have reviewed. I emailed Dean Baquet, the Times’s executive editor, to ask if there are some other records the paper has and a series of other questions, but received no response. (Full disclosure: I’m a former senior writer for the Times and have worked with Baquet in the past.)"
"So, in an excess of caution, I’m leaving open the possibility that there are other documents with the same quotes on the same dates simply because the other conclusion—that The New York Times is writing about records its reporters haven’t read or almost willfully didn’t understand—is, for a journalist, simply too horrible to contemplate."
"Indeed, if the Times article is based on the same documents I read, then the piece is wrong in all of its implications and in almost every particular related to the inspector generals’ conclusions. These are errors that go far beyond whether there was a criminal referral of Clinton's emails or a criminal referral at all. Sources can mislead; documents do not."
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246
So what's going on with the Times? Well first I'd recommend reading the entire Newsweek piece-as you can see the writer is an insider in this world and he knows it intimately.
There are any number of things that may be going on but one thing I think may be at work is the Rush Limbaugh factor.
You know the Times is always said to be run by liberal Democratic apologists. As I suggested in a piece yesterday, this is whole liberal media ideology is very helpful for the Right as it seems to put the burden of proof on the media to prove it's not liberal.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/trumps-trump-card-against-gop.html
Once you start trying to prove a negative, the game is lost and good journalism takes a backseat to politics. Remember that this whole narrative that the Times is so liberal is more a piece of Republican ideology than what we as liberal Democrats know to be true.
http://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Inc-Audacious-Rebuilding-Political-ebook/dp/B00FJ3AC1A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1437820559&sr=8-1&keywords=daniel+halper+clinton%2C+inc&pebp=1437820563865&perid=1GV7TTC24R5EQ6VWKMTS
Now they are putting out stories without researching them as long as they have an anti-Hillary bias.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/doj-no-hillary-clinton-criminal-inquiry
"Hillary Clinton's campaign team and her allies came out swinging Friday against the New York Times as the newspaper backed off its report that the U.S. Justice Department had been asked to open a criminal probe into her private email account."
"Nick Merrill, a Clinton campaign spokesman, said the Times story was "false" and accused the newspaper of relying on "partisan" sources for its information."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-team-nyt-email-responds
As Howard Dean says: "The New York Times truly has become an embarrassment to American Journalism. Second anti HRC story in three months THEY GOT WRONG!"
This is the problem for the Times. If they want to take on the Fox News agenda they will see their journalistic reputation fall to the level of Fox News.
Newsweek says:
"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."
"So had the Times mixed up a criminal referral—a major news event—with a notification to the department responsible for overseeing FOIA errors that might affect some documents’ release? It’s impossible to tell, because theTimes story—complete with its lack of identification of any possible criminal activity—continues to mention a criminal referral."
"But based on a review of documents from the inspectors general, the problems with the story may be worse than that—much, much worse. The reason my last sentence says may is this: There is a possibility—however unlikely—that theTimes cited documents in its article that have the same dates and the same quotes but are different from the records I have reviewed. I emailed Dean Baquet, the Times’s executive editor, to ask if there are some other records the paper has and a series of other questions, but received no response. (Full disclosure: I’m a former senior writer for the Times and have worked with Baquet in the past.)"
"So, in an excess of caution, I’m leaving open the possibility that there are other documents with the same quotes on the same dates simply because the other conclusion—that The New York Times is writing about records its reporters haven’t read or almost willfully didn’t understand—is, for a journalist, simply too horrible to contemplate."
"Indeed, if the Times article is based on the same documents I read, then the piece is wrong in all of its implications and in almost every particular related to the inspector generals’ conclusions. These are errors that go far beyond whether there was a criminal referral of Clinton's emails or a criminal referral at all. Sources can mislead; documents do not."
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246
So what's going on with the Times? Well first I'd recommend reading the entire Newsweek piece-as you can see the writer is an insider in this world and he knows it intimately.
There are any number of things that may be going on but one thing I think may be at work is the Rush Limbaugh factor.
You know the Times is always said to be run by liberal Democratic apologists. As I suggested in a piece yesterday, this is whole liberal media ideology is very helpful for the Right as it seems to put the burden of proof on the media to prove it's not liberal.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/trumps-trump-card-against-gop.html
Once you start trying to prove a negative, the game is lost and good journalism takes a backseat to politics. Remember that this whole narrative that the Times is so liberal is more a piece of Republican ideology than what we as liberal Democrats know to be true.
Ok, but whatever the true psychoanalytic diagnosis is, the fact is the Times has badly stumbled here and has egg on its face. Hillary's team needs to keep reminding them of that as should all liberals.
When they continue to promote Daniel Halper's hatchet job Clinton, Inc we all need to remind them of that.
For whatever reason, the Times has put good journalism in the backseat and Fox News politics is driving the car.
No comments:
Post a Comment