How the NYT messed up the Hillary E-mails story

[francoHFW]

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

By listening to Pubs, DUH.

 

[francoHFW]

From link

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.

 

[midcan5]

After the Iraq screw up you'd think the Times would have learned something? Sad when one our best news sources publishes Fox like material.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

NYTimes better vet the stores they get from Val Jarrett next time

 

[francoHFW]

Wh

NYTimes better vet the stores they get from Val Jarrett next time

What is that supposed to mean? The rest of the world doesn't know Pub dupe propaganda that well....But one can be pretty safe saying it's all BS, Pub dupe.