Saturday, July 25, 2015

NYT: Strong on the Hillary Attack - Feeble on the Walk-Back

The New York Times stirred up a hornets nest late Thursday night with a stunningly inaccurate smear on Hillary Clinton's character and State Department tenure.  Throughout yesterday a series of protests from a variety of sources called them out on the legitimacy of their story.  A few minor (and grudging) revisions resulted.

Today, the Corrections section issued this.

Corrections: July 25, 2015

The second it looks defensive.  I did not hear anyone saying the NYT requested an investigation.
Here is the latest revision of the header and lede.

Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email

Here is the correction in the footer of the article.
Correction: July 25, 2015

An earlier version of this article, along with the headline, misstated, using information from senior government officials, the nature of the inspectors general’s request. It addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal email account. It did not specifically seek an investigation into Mrs. Clinton.
Read more >>>>
The shabby and less than full-throated "walk back" fails to mention that the key word redacted from the header and the lede was the word criminalThat is the word that was burned into memory of Americans who saw that header whether they bothered to read the article or not.  Nowhere does the NYT mention its egregious blunder in using that word.

More importantly, neither have they removed Hillary's name from the header.  The issue is not Hillary's "use of email."  It is whether any of the emails should have been classified.  None of them were classified at the time Hillary received them.  There remains contention between the State Department and the intelligence community over whether or not some of these emails should be or should have been classified.  None of these emails originated with Hillary.

Far beyond than a simple set of progressing "corrections," the New York Times owes Hillary Clinton a front page public apology with a big header as does every publication and news source that sank its teeth into this story like so many crocodiles.

Years of blogging have taught me that many, many people do not bother to read.  Headers catch the eye,  and that is the full message.  Some even comment based on the header to an article they have not bothered to read.  Then a version of the game of telephone ensues wherein an erroneous message takes root as truth and spreads like a stain.

Hillary will tell you that she's used to this kind of character assassination.  That does not mean that we, her supporters, should slough it off.

The NYT ought to apologize  to Hillary Clinton publicly and loudly with a big  prominent headline. forthwith!

Corollary to this comes the news from CNN about an hour ago that Hillary will testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, as she has long said she gladly would do and has asked to do, on October 22,  four days before her birthday.  Contrary to CNN's remarks, this throws no "wrench" into Hillary's campaign plans.  As she  has insisted, her testimony will be public.

Thank you, Mary Jo Payne, for this petition!

Demand front page apology for Hillary

We love you, Hillary!  We have your back!