Thank you!
1
We are now well beyond the time of discussing whether the media is spending "too much time" on this well disproved phony Hillary email scandal. The real question is when and whether the derelict media will come clean on its repeated pattern of substituting opinion and innuendo for fact and expert judgment. While the NY Times is hardly the only media outlet to be culpable of this abdication of journalistic integrity, it has a special responsibility as paper of record. The latest example is the total reluctance to retroactively apply the recent unequivocal DOJ statement vigorously affirming Mrs. Clinton's right to delete emails. Has any media outlet reconsidered any of its past reporting in the light of this clear cut statement of the actual standard of government email proper practice? Whether one is supportive or not of Hillary as a candidate, the public has a right to properly contextualized reporting which fearlessly reports facts in the cold light of day, which also means casting them next to any past errors in reporting. Sadly, it appears more likely in this case that it is the media, not Hillary, which needs to say it is sorry, big time. As taxpayers, we do not need the media aiding and abetting thoroughly wasteful partisan investigations down a rabbit hole through perpetuation of patently baseless narratives whose only inspiration seems to be the titillating whiff of scandal. whether grounded or not.
5
Dean Bacquet thinks the coverage has been fair. He ALWAYS thinks the coverage is fair. He NEVER thinks the Times is unfair. He is impervious to evidence.
I have yet to see a single Times story critical of the way Jeb! Bush has handled his email when he was governor—despite that he did much the same as Hillary Clinton: private email account, erasing messages. "Fair" would be for the Times to go after Jeb! as vigorously as it does Hillary.
I have yet to see a single Times story critical of the way Jeb! Bush has handled his email when he was governor—despite that he did much the same as Hillary Clinton: private email account, erasing messages. "Fair" would be for the Times to go after Jeb! as vigorously as it does Hillary.
6
In regard to the coverage of Mrs. Clinton, one editor said, "There’s a lot to explore, he said, and The Times owes it to its readers to do so."
Well, yes, but the conventions of journalism can collide with and bowl over decency and ordinary restraint.
Do the activities of the Clinton Foundation merit background type coverage, or are they front page news? It depends on what kind of "news peg" you can hang them on. Often, stories become headlines because they are circulating or because some hint of scandal can be attached to them, not because they are inherently worthy.
One cheap trick used by some reporters is to call a local prosecutor with information about a presumed white collar crime. Then, a day after a story is published, call the prosecutor back and ask, "Are you investigating this?" Bam, now the story has legs if the prosecutor answers yes. The point is once stories get generated, they take on a life of their own, with help.
"Whitewater" became an investigation of Bill Clinton's sexual habits which became an impeachment...why? Whitewater wouldn't die, even though there was nothing there. You had this Yale educated, hillbilly president from rural Arkansas with all these other hicks around him and it was a field day for the media. It became a news vortex, generating itself by spinning faster.
There's a great piece in Business Week about Trump's businesses and practices, but it is background, not headline news. Lighten up on Hillary until you've got some real news.
Well, yes, but the conventions of journalism can collide with and bowl over decency and ordinary restraint.
Do the activities of the Clinton Foundation merit background type coverage, or are they front page news? It depends on what kind of "news peg" you can hang them on. Often, stories become headlines because they are circulating or because some hint of scandal can be attached to them, not because they are inherently worthy.
One cheap trick used by some reporters is to call a local prosecutor with information about a presumed white collar crime. Then, a day after a story is published, call the prosecutor back and ask, "Are you investigating this?" Bam, now the story has legs if the prosecutor answers yes. The point is once stories get generated, they take on a life of their own, with help.
"Whitewater" became an investigation of Bill Clinton's sexual habits which became an impeachment...why? Whitewater wouldn't die, even though there was nothing there. You had this Yale educated, hillbilly president from rural Arkansas with all these other hicks around him and it was a field day for the media. It became a news vortex, generating itself by spinning faster.
There's a great piece in Business Week about Trump's businesses and practices, but it is background, not headline news. Lighten up on Hillary until you've got some real news.
7
There is no "there" there in the so-called email scandal. The State Department has said that when she took office, there was no policy keeping her from using private email, just as Colin Powell had done. During her tenure, policy was changed to ask that those using private email addresses make sure government business emails ended up stored on a government server. That was done. Good investigative journalism might question why the endless probing by those determined to bring her down. I guess that's too much to expect from the Times.
5
During the 1990's she and the President were part of one the most scandalous periods in America politics. Impeachment for Bill Clinton's behavior was symptomatic of his administration. There is not reason to expect the Clintons will change their modus operandi. The e-mail scandal shows us this time around, the press better scrutinize the two even more as already Clinton the candidate has shown serious vulnerabilities!
1
I am rwquired to pass a privacy training as a customer service rep and most mid-level people are trained about handling private info on computers and using ports or usb etc... Why we would not think a Sec of State shares this responsibility when anyone could send secret data?
Most readers of thiss email I am weiting have been required to pass a training on HIPPA or HITECH regulations for privacy when it comes to laptops and usb ports so why would we not be educated enough to see the private server is a blatant disregard and arrogance from someone who got her start at Watergate and is hyper-sensitive to her privacy for a public figure.
Putting aside the question of a Times political agenda, I find a high-mindness in the paper's approach to Hillary, one that repeatedly gets it in trouble. It is a prejudgment – a moral prejudgment – that occurs among the editors and reporters perhaps at a subconscious level, so they are not even aware of it. If they haven't already, they need to have some serious talk sessions about it,
2
I think the Public Editor needs to stop labeling every critic of the Times' Clinton coverage a "Hillary Supporter." Frankly, I strongly dislike Hilary Clinton-- but I dislike bad journalism even more. Fair critique is fair critique, no matter where it comes from; the only utility of labeling critics as "partisans" or "supporters" is to suggest bias on the part of the critic, and mute the power of the criticism. The Public Editor, of all people, should refrain from this defensive and unfair framing device.
6
THE FREE PRESS only maintains its freedom through fact vetting and transparency. The Times slip-up in announcing mistakenly a criminal investigation into Hillary's private computer server, while relatively minor to her supporters, was red meat to those who would stoop to anything to knock her out of the running as presidential candidate. What I find maddening on all fronts is the failure to note the fact that all high government officials, including all members of Congress, by logic alone, must receive minute scrutiny by the FBI, CIA and Secret Service, with NSA involvement where deemed to be required to protect national security. To me the notion that Hillary, who while brilliant, is not a trained computer expert, drifted through the decision without careful review by her team of IT specialists is preposterous. I am fairly certain that Hillary's IT staff met with FBI, CIA, Secret Service and NSA personnel tasked with guaranteeing her safety and national security. Had any of the agencies had serious objections to her use of a private server, I'm sure she would have used the government server as requested (if not directed). The fact is that, at the time she was using a private server, it was the general practice among public officials to do likewise. Of all the garbage thrown in her direction, Hillary is being subjected to huge piles of crap. Since the GOP can find nothing substantive to attack her for during her time as Secretary of State, they throw garbage!
6
.
.
When writing about Hillary Clinton, reporters and their editors, says Mr. Baquet, must be “doubly vigilant and doubly cautious.”
Says Ms. Sullivan:
"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."
So, the August 15th Times has an article with this headline:
F.B.I. Tracking Path of Classified Email From State Dept. to [Hillary] Clinton
One of the 2 bylined reporters is Michael Schmidt, who readers might know from previous laughers such as saying that Secy Clinton may have committed a "serious breach" or calling Mrs. Clinton a "target" of a "criminal" referral.
Now, I think that headline makes it sound as if the FBI has been tracking the path that was taken by emails sent from the State Department -- AND that said detective work is leading inexorably to Hillary Clinton as being the sender. (FBI Tracking Path ... to Hillary Clinton) It's humorous, really, in view of Mr. Baquet's assertion of double whatever; for the headline is simply careless in the word order it uses.
The story (to the extent I was able to comprehend it) is actually that someone in the State Department sent classified email TO Secy Clinton; and the FBI is tracking that path to determine who hit "Send". Clearly stated are 2 facts: Mrs. Clinton is NOT the target of the inquiry, and she is NOT suspected of a crime.
How about saying that in a headline?
.
When writing about Hillary Clinton, reporters and their editors, says Mr. Baquet, must be “doubly vigilant and doubly cautious.”
Says Ms. Sullivan:
"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."
So, the August 15th Times has an article with this headline:
F.B.I. Tracking Path of Classified Email From State Dept. to [Hillary] Clinton
One of the 2 bylined reporters is Michael Schmidt, who readers might know from previous laughers such as saying that Secy Clinton may have committed a "serious breach" or calling Mrs. Clinton a "target" of a "criminal" referral.
Now, I think that headline makes it sound as if the FBI has been tracking the path that was taken by emails sent from the State Department -- AND that said detective work is leading inexorably to Hillary Clinton as being the sender. (FBI Tracking Path ... to Hillary Clinton) It's humorous, really, in view of Mr. Baquet's assertion of double whatever; for the headline is simply careless in the word order it uses.
The story (to the extent I was able to comprehend it) is actually that someone in the State Department sent classified email TO Secy Clinton; and the FBI is tracking that path to determine who hit "Send". Clearly stated are 2 facts: Mrs. Clinton is NOT the target of the inquiry, and she is NOT suspected of a crime.
How about saying that in a headline?
4
Actually the issue is that someone in the State Department sent top secret information to Hilary Clinton's private unsecured email account in a form stripped of its top secret classification.
The obvious explanation for same: to avoid sending information marked top secret to an insecure email account.
The person or persons who did this still have not yet been identified, a problem compounded by the fact that Hilary Clinton provided the State Department printouts of these emails without the header information that would have identified the sender.
She then ordered the data on her server to be destroyed.
Hilary Clinton certainly was aware that she was receiving top secret information (easily identified as derived from satellite imagery or intercepted communications), on an insecure email account, but she didn't complain about it.
A criminal investigation will likely reveal the truth of the matter, including who authorized the stripping of the top secret classification from the emailed intelligence documents.
So far, the State Department is also stonewalling on this matter, but the intelligence agencies reportedly have a different ax to grind.
The obvious explanation for same: to avoid sending information marked top secret to an insecure email account.
The person or persons who did this still have not yet been identified, a problem compounded by the fact that Hilary Clinton provided the State Department printouts of these emails without the header information that would have identified the sender.
She then ordered the data on her server to be destroyed.
Hilary Clinton certainly was aware that she was receiving top secret information (easily identified as derived from satellite imagery or intercepted communications), on an insecure email account, but she didn't complain about it.
A criminal investigation will likely reveal the truth of the matter, including who authorized the stripping of the top secret classification from the emailed intelligence documents.
So far, the State Department is also stonewalling on this matter, but the intelligence agencies reportedly have a different ax to grind.
.
@ RB,
Because you know which of several possible issues is "the issue" (your para. 1); and you know the explanation for the issue you identify (your para. 2); and you know what was in the mind of the Secretary of State (your para. 5); you really should write it all up as a freelance piece and get it into a top publication. It would save a lot of people the trouble of considering other plausible scenarios (which you have keenly ruled out).
I have to disagree with you about the likelihood that a criminal investigation would necessarily reveal the truth of the matter.
I have no way of knowing how many criminal investigations you have been involved in, or been privy to in large part. So you may know better than I.
But my personal opinion from experience is that criminal investigations do not yield up "the truth" with any notable frequency.
@ RB,
Because you know which of several possible issues is "the issue" (your para. 1); and you know the explanation for the issue you identify (your para. 2); and you know what was in the mind of the Secretary of State (your para. 5); you really should write it all up as a freelance piece and get it into a top publication. It would save a lot of people the trouble of considering other plausible scenarios (which you have keenly ruled out).
I have to disagree with you about the likelihood that a criminal investigation would necessarily reveal the truth of the matter.
I have no way of knowing how many criminal investigations you have been involved in, or been privy to in large part. So you may know better than I.
But my personal opinion from experience is that criminal investigations do not yield up "the truth" with any notable frequency.
1
On August 2, I was reading the Times and started reading Maureen Dowd's column; almost immediately, i said to my wife, the Times is going after Clinton for some reason; then I saw your piece on "The Tortured Tale of Hillary Clinton...." etc. I turned back to Maureen Dowd and continued to wonder. I know she is an opinion writer and not a reporter but still for some reason fundamentally biased against Clinton. Of course, no public figure is beyond criticism and none should expect easy treatment. Still, the Times is supposed to set the standard, at least in this country, for the best in journalism and it is more than important that your newspaper strive to be fair as well as accurate. The reporting on the "criminal investigation" was neither. The retractions were not too good either. Only your discussion of the history of such reporting was up to par. The Times has to do better than that.
4
.
@ tr:
Years ago, the Times propagated miserable reporting failures and imposed them on the global audience. This set no standard. It constituted dereliction of duty.
The corporate consensus was to create a Public Editor position (and to do other things, like reduce use of anonymous sources).
The hiring authorities apparently think that hiring the most-qualified candidate for Public Editor fulfills their obligations.
As I sometimes state in Comments, it is always my hope that other writers at NYT will learn from Ms. Sullivan's example, and then follow that example. The example is "the best in journalism".
Hope springs eternal.
@ tr:
Years ago, the Times propagated miserable reporting failures and imposed them on the global audience. This set no standard. It constituted dereliction of duty.
The corporate consensus was to create a Public Editor position (and to do other things, like reduce use of anonymous sources).
The hiring authorities apparently think that hiring the most-qualified candidate for Public Editor fulfills their obligations.
As I sometimes state in Comments, it is always my hope that other writers at NYT will learn from Ms. Sullivan's example, and then follow that example. The example is "the best in journalism".
Hope springs eternal.
1
I see that today Bernie Sanders has pulled ahead of Hillary Clinton in the latest New Hampshire poll. The NY Times editorial staff must be so proud of themselves. Everyone who said that Hillary Clinton couldn't be beaten didn't consider how ruthless the NY Times would be in their efforts to torpedo her campaign.
3
.
@ Robert S.,
If Bernie Sanders wins the Presidency (none of these Republicans can get 270 Electoral Votes), leading to a 2018 Republican landslide in Congressional elections, Mr. Baquet will most assuredly still be saying that some article about Hillary Clinton was merely a "screw-up".
As if the problem is/was one malicious -- and possibly defamatory -- faux-news article.
No, he'll just keep sending Amy Chozick and Michael Schmidt out there to cover Mrs. Clinton without fear or favor ...
(Please note: If Mrs. Clinton turns out to actually have committed criminal acts, even if not provable under the rules of evidence, I'll be among the first to say she deserves to be covered as a criminal. Candidates are held to higher standards. Thus far, the flurry of news stories, news analyses, editorials, etc. have revealed nothing. I wouldn't trust the Times on Mrs. Clinton if they reported that she drove through a yellow light the last time she drove on a public road.)
@ Robert S.,
If Bernie Sanders wins the Presidency (none of these Republicans can get 270 Electoral Votes), leading to a 2018 Republican landslide in Congressional elections, Mr. Baquet will most assuredly still be saying that some article about Hillary Clinton was merely a "screw-up".
As if the problem is/was one malicious -- and possibly defamatory -- faux-news article.
No, he'll just keep sending Amy Chozick and Michael Schmidt out there to cover Mrs. Clinton without fear or favor ...
(Please note: If Mrs. Clinton turns out to actually have committed criminal acts, even if not provable under the rules of evidence, I'll be among the first to say she deserves to be covered as a criminal. Candidates are held to higher standards. Thus far, the flurry of news stories, news analyses, editorials, etc. have revealed nothing. I wouldn't trust the Times on Mrs. Clinton if they reported that she drove through a yellow light the last time she drove on a public road.)
3
Well! Unfortunately, the NYT is not anymore what It used to be. The coverage of the CHARLIE hebdo dramatic events in Paris was inaccurate and biased, especially a News feature about "laïcité" which had been refused at the school of journalism.
1
.
.
There is a piece on the website that does not have enough Comments.
http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/04/27/here-comes-the-circus/
Won't you help by adding one, or by Recommending one that is already there?
See also last year's http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2014/08/17/when-being-obsessed-with... .
.
There is a piece on the website that does not have enough Comments.
http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/04/27/here-comes-the-circus/
Won't you help by adding one, or by Recommending one that is already there?
See also last year's http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2014/08/17/when-being-obsessed-with... .
@MTF: I have a comment on the second cited Times Insider post. As I recall, it took several efforts to get that one posted, as well as a rejoinder to a reply. Since my comments have a tendency to be, um, spiky, my success rate in getting them posted is not great, and is far lower on Times Insider posts, not just tjose concerning Chozick.
2
.
Thanks!
I can always hope that my Comment about being obsessed with a former First Lady is just hung up in the moderation queue, since they probably moderate Comments on recent pieces first.
I hope my Comment on the latter piece has not been removed ...
It sure is funny how they put these informative works on a section of the website that is not (to the unknowing eye) easily accessible). It's almost like they don't want people interacting with a piece about Amy Chozick having covered a private citizen from 7 months into the 2d Obama Administration until that citizen declared candidacy for public office; that her aim at first was to develop sources and cultivate relationships; and that her main relationship seems to be with the author of "Clinton Cash."
Maybe former FLOTUS/Senator/Secy didn't like the "Planet Hillary" Magazine cover or the Chozick article about astrophysics. Seems to me like a not-great way to build a relationship with the subject of a full-time beat.
But what do I know? I'm no journalist!!
Thanks!
I can always hope that my Comment about being obsessed with a former First Lady is just hung up in the moderation queue, since they probably moderate Comments on recent pieces first.
I hope my Comment on the latter piece has not been removed ...
It sure is funny how they put these informative works on a section of the website that is not (to the unknowing eye) easily accessible). It's almost like they don't want people interacting with a piece about Amy Chozick having covered a private citizen from 7 months into the 2d Obama Administration until that citizen declared candidacy for public office; that her aim at first was to develop sources and cultivate relationships; and that her main relationship seems to be with the author of "Clinton Cash."
Maybe former FLOTUS/Senator/Secy didn't like the "Planet Hillary" Magazine cover or the Chozick article about astrophysics. Seems to me like a not-great way to build a relationship with the subject of a full-time beat.
But what do I know? I'm no journalist!!
The Times has still not come clean on this story. Who were the sources? Why were they feeding the Times these lies? How did the Times not see through this? Without a full disclosure we will never know the answers to these important questions and will never know how the Times will avoid making another such egregious and consequential error. Saying we "We were in a hurry and did not check properly" or some such excuse does not cut it. Would the Times accept that kind of disclosure from Hillary Clinton? Shame.
5
Critics of the Times assume that there's much the newspaper can do to damage public opinion of Hillary Clinton. That horse has left the barn.
I am a Hillary Clinton support. But, what Matt Purdy, said is true: “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." Hillary Clinton has a lot of baggage (Bill has much more) and there is a major concern that she believes she is above the law. Many people compare her to Richard Nixon, very smart, very capable but paranoid. I believe the NYTimes owes it to the American PUBLIC to evaluate the Clintons. I believe that Milton and our founding fathers in adopting the first amendment would agree.
The story that contained the error, the one that said there was a "criminal" investigation" of Mrs. Clinton, when in fact there was no such thing but instead what is an examination, which would be the appropriate word, and The Times's ultimate acknowledgment of that error are the main point here in terms of the shoddy journalism.
If such an error had gone out on a major wire service (the news services used to be called that because they literally went out over telegraph wires) it would have resulted in what those services called and probably still call a bulletin kill.
A bulletin kill was literally a bulletin recall of a story, putting all newspaper editors and TV and radio news directors and news-readers on notice to kill the story because the wire/news service got it wrong, don't publish or broadcast it, and if you did already then now report we got it wrong.
The only way to have made the central error in the story, given its magnitude -- reporting that someone, in this instance Mrs. Clinton, who is a very serious candidate for president is the subject of a criminal investigation -- the only way to have made that right would been a bulletin kill.
How would or should The Times execute a bulletin kill? By publishing it next day above the Page 1 fold under this headline deck:
Times story on Clinton wrong:
No criminal investigation of former secretary under way or exists;
Paper acknowledges bad reporting, sloppy editing
If such an error had gone out on a major wire service (the news services used to be called that because they literally went out over telegraph wires) it would have resulted in what those services called and probably still call a bulletin kill.
A bulletin kill was literally a bulletin recall of a story, putting all newspaper editors and TV and radio news directors and news-readers on notice to kill the story because the wire/news service got it wrong, don't publish or broadcast it, and if you did already then now report we got it wrong.
The only way to have made the central error in the story, given its magnitude -- reporting that someone, in this instance Mrs. Clinton, who is a very serious candidate for president is the subject of a criminal investigation -- the only way to have made that right would been a bulletin kill.
How would or should The Times execute a bulletin kill? By publishing it next day above the Page 1 fold under this headline deck:
Times story on Clinton wrong:
No criminal investigation of former secretary under way or exists;
Paper acknowledges bad reporting, sloppy editing
10
The story that contained the error, the one that said there was a "criminal" investigation" of Mrs. Clinton, when in fact there was no such thing but instead what is an examination, which would be the appropriate word, and The Times's ultimate acknowledgment of that error are the main point here in terms of the shoddy journalism.
======================
Oh, come on. If it wasn't an examination to see if there were criminal acts committed why would the FBI be doing it?
More reason:
The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured email account is not just a fact-finding venture — it’s a criminal probe, sources told The Post on Wednesday.
The feds are investigating to what extent Clinton relied on her home server and other private devices to send and store classified documents, according to a federal source with knowledge of the inquiry.
“It’s definitely a criminal probe,” said the source. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.
“The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source stressed. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”
http://nypost.com/2015/08/05/fbi-investigation-of-hillarys-emails-is-cri...
======================
Oh, come on. If it wasn't an examination to see if there were criminal acts committed why would the FBI be doing it?
More reason:
The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured email account is not just a fact-finding venture — it’s a criminal probe, sources told The Post on Wednesday.
The feds are investigating to what extent Clinton relied on her home server and other private devices to send and store classified documents, according to a federal source with knowledge of the inquiry.
“It’s definitely a criminal probe,” said the source. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.
“The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source stressed. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”
http://nypost.com/2015/08/05/fbi-investigation-of-hillarys-emails-is-cri...
1
In reporter Amy Chozick’s August 3 article, “Hillary Campaign Weighs Implications of Potential Joe Biden Challenge,” Chozick refers obliquely to what Hillary Clinton thought. “But she did not, at least until this past weekend, seriously anticipate the competition would include Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.”—Chozick writes. Is it not a central precept of journalism that we can never know what someone’s thinking, so reporters indicate only what a person actually said, or what the person said they believe?
Chozick repeatedly speculates about talk in the Clinton campaign, but no quotes are shared by campaign sources with this reporter. There’s a quote from a campaign spokeswoman uttered on “CNN on Sunday.” Was Chozick watching CNN rather than speaking with the Clinton campaign directly for attribution?
“ ‘Joyless’ ” was how one prominent Democratic Party official who supports Mrs. Clinton – and would only criticize the campaign without attribution – described her candidacy,” Chozick writes. Huh? No attribution. Just a dig, not balanced by an offsetting quote. Why didn’t an editor catch that—it’s editorializing, secondhand.
And the article’s kicker: “ ‘Finally Biden may jump in as Hillary slips almost daily,’ ” the conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch wrote on Twitter.” This is the parting thought we’re left with. What does Murdoch’s speculation (coming out of nowhere) on Twitter have to do with anything?
Chozick repeatedly speculates about talk in the Clinton campaign, but no quotes are shared by campaign sources with this reporter. There’s a quote from a campaign spokeswoman uttered on “CNN on Sunday.” Was Chozick watching CNN rather than speaking with the Clinton campaign directly for attribution?
“ ‘Joyless’ ” was how one prominent Democratic Party official who supports Mrs. Clinton – and would only criticize the campaign without attribution – described her candidacy,” Chozick writes. Huh? No attribution. Just a dig, not balanced by an offsetting quote. Why didn’t an editor catch that—it’s editorializing, secondhand.
And the article’s kicker: “ ‘Finally Biden may jump in as Hillary slips almost daily,’ ” the conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch wrote on Twitter.” This is the parting thought we’re left with. What does Murdoch’s speculation (coming out of nowhere) on Twitter have to do with anything?
17
Amen and right on all points.
11
I'm curious as to why the NYT hates the Clintons so much that they're willing to jeopardize their status as "The Paper of Record". I don't know how it looks from the Editor's chair - whether its plausible deniability in the form of "Hey, we're just reporting the news", maybe the Hillary clicks are the only thing keeping the paper afloat, or whatever, but out here it looks intensely, desperately personal - that the Ochs-Sulzbergers weren't invited to the White House, perhaps, or that Maureen Dowd didn't succeed in bringing down a president. Ultimately, it just looks like lying. Readers deserve better.
16
If you look long and hard enough at any person you will see cracks and flaws. My issue with the Times is that it will look long and hard at Clinton while only giving a passing glance to other presidential candidates. Where are the follow the money stories on Jeb! or the Donald? Why does Sanders not get weeks and weeks of scrutiny on his rape fantasy essay written in the '70's? Had Hillary written the same essay in that period, she would have been crucified for it. But Bernie gets to laugh it off as his 50 shades of Grey ( even though he originally said it was an academic piece). By the way, if a republican candidate had that essay in their skeleton closet the media would have driven them out of the race already.
7
Why does Sanders not get weeks and weeks of scrutiny on his rape fantasy essay written in the '70's?
==============
I've wondered about that myself
==============
I've wondered about that myself
3
Probably for the same reason nobody seems all that interested in Rand Paul's frat boy prank of kidnapping a woman so that she could worship him in his incarnation as Aqua Buddah.
1
I have never understood why the Bush family receives such gentle treatment from the Times. They never receive the personalized attacks the Clintons and a few others receive.
The real tragedy here is not the Times' HRC obsession. It's the paper's failure to stand up and stand out against the Internet's destruction of quality daily journalism. Instead of courageously serving as one of the last papers of record, the Times gets defensive -- a la, "the dog ate my homework" -- claiming it has to rush to print to stay ahead of the rapid 24/7 cycle, and lamely falling back on updates to correct mistakes that will never counteract the original provocative headline. Worse, in this case, the managing editor failed to learn from the recent Rolling Stone debacle that when you err big, there's nothing wrong with apologizing, setting the record straight, and even putting that on the front page exactly where the original story was. And maybe even firing someone if the mistake is big enough. Instead, the managing editor's first response was to defend, dodge and weave. Kudos to Sullivan, but the Times needs a wholesale management culture shift to where the company holds itself as accountable as the paper holds everyone else in power.
12
Perhaps the Times' ambivalent coverage of Hillary mirrors the ambivalence of the American Public. For whatever reason, she is a polarizing figure in American politics--even to her supporters. One minute she does or says something you admire, or believe in... the next, she does or says something that sets your teeth on edge. It seems, sometimes, that her chief appeal is that she is the "not Republican." But in reality she's not much of a Democrat, either: she doesn't really stand for anything. Being "the devil you KNOW" is a lukewarm reason for voting for someone... especially when a truly appealing candidate shows up. Which is why Bernie is more of a threat than any of the Republicans running.
2
The NY Times lost its credibility a long time ago. Sorry. I guess just assumed that your drift toward the Fox News style of reporting (on the opposite end of the political spectrum, of course) was intentional.
The Times is clearly more interested in making people believe what the editorial board wants them to than it is in than printing "all the news" and letting people decide for themselves.
The Times is clearly more interested in making people believe what the editorial board wants them to than it is in than printing "all the news" and letting people decide for themselves.
3
I have scanned the comments on this piece and I am surprised that there has not been more commentary on the irony that this piece ran on the back page of the op-ed section on the same day that Maureen Dowd's nasty, not-funny and just plain mean column comparing Hillary's emails to Tom Brady's NFL suspension ran on the first page. Of course, I understand fully the distinction between news reporting and opinion writing. But surely the Times realizes that Dowd's decades-long obsession with the Clintons is a major reason for the perception that the Times has it in for Hillary. Readers have not forgotten her columns during the 2008 Democratic primary, and I say this as an Obama supporter, then and now. I respect Dowd as a writer and a thinker, but I keep wondering what it is about Hillary that drives her over the edge of journalistic skepticism into what comes across as a personal vendetta? (The column was also insensitive to Biden, as Dowd merely used his grief at the death of his son as grist for her hate-on-Hillary mill.) Even if what Dowd wrote turns out to be an accurate prediction -- let's say the FBI finds something in Hillary's email files that forces her to withdraw from the race and Biden comes in -- the Times is not doing its reputation, its readers or the national electorate any favors by giving Dowd free rein to foam at the mouth at the prospect that Hillary (and Bill) could very well wind up back in the White House.
9
Matt Purdy excuses The New York Times's excessive "scrutiny" of Hillary Clinton by saying, "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..."
Well, similar reasons could be given for more diligent scrutiny of Jeb Bush. He is a "leading candidate," a former Governor of a large -- and electorally significant -- state, is the son of one president, the brother of another president, and the grandson of a U.S. Senator. But in spite of all those roles, Mr. Bush and his record as Governor, his record-breaking campaign fundraising (courtesy of secret donors), and his past and current utterances receive very little actual scrutiny by The Times.
For instance: When will The New York Times demand to know the identities of all those campaign donors Jeb Bush felt allowed to keep secret from American voters? Bush devised an "interesting" reading of the campaign donor laws and waited to announce his candidacy till after his Super PAC had raised more than $100,000,000 for him. He apparently interpreted the laws to allow him to keep his donors' names secret forever! Isn't anyone at The Times curious to know why the secrecy?
Do the investigative reporters at The Times not care to investigate Jeb Bush because they like him and want him to win?
One has to wonder why Jeb Bush escapes all the eager-beaver investigative energy The Times's news staff feels so driven to employ on Hillary Clinton.
Well, similar reasons could be given for more diligent scrutiny of Jeb Bush. He is a "leading candidate," a former Governor of a large -- and electorally significant -- state, is the son of one president, the brother of another president, and the grandson of a U.S. Senator. But in spite of all those roles, Mr. Bush and his record as Governor, his record-breaking campaign fundraising (courtesy of secret donors), and his past and current utterances receive very little actual scrutiny by The Times.
For instance: When will The New York Times demand to know the identities of all those campaign donors Jeb Bush felt allowed to keep secret from American voters? Bush devised an "interesting" reading of the campaign donor laws and waited to announce his candidacy till after his Super PAC had raised more than $100,000,000 for him. He apparently interpreted the laws to allow him to keep his donors' names secret forever! Isn't anyone at The Times curious to know why the secrecy?
Do the investigative reporters at The Times not care to investigate Jeb Bush because they like him and want him to win?
One has to wonder why Jeb Bush escapes all the eager-beaver investigative energy The Times's news staff feels so driven to employ on Hillary Clinton.
13
The Times needs to assign a full-time fact-checker to follow Mr. Schmidt around!
I am not a big fan of either Clinton but I do believe the Times' scrutiny has been VERY unfair because it has been SO imbalanced. Why haven't you made a BIGGER fuss over Sheldon Adelson's ties to Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz or about the Koch Bros' history in Wisconsin--and Mr. Walker, by extension?
Also, it's not like Mrs. Clinton, who IS a former first lady, a senator from the paper's home state and secy of state, is some unknown entity or loose cannon when it comes to matters of national security--unlike MANY OF THE GOP candidates! Why aren't you scrutinizing THEIR lack of fundamental knowledge on matters both domestic and foreign? I've never seen so many hollow men in one lineup! Now THAT's a story and an alarming one at that.
I am not a big fan of either Clinton but I do believe the Times' scrutiny has been VERY unfair because it has been SO imbalanced. Why haven't you made a BIGGER fuss over Sheldon Adelson's ties to Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz or about the Koch Bros' history in Wisconsin--and Mr. Walker, by extension?
Also, it's not like Mrs. Clinton, who IS a former first lady, a senator from the paper's home state and secy of state, is some unknown entity or loose cannon when it comes to matters of national security--unlike MANY OF THE GOP candidates! Why aren't you scrutinizing THEIR lack of fundamental knowledge on matters both domestic and foreign? I've never seen so many hollow men in one lineup! Now THAT's a story and an alarming one at that.
9
you don't have to be a clinton supporter to ask what happened re the nytimes' coverage of the email story. it was not handled well. if it weren't hillary clinton i think most without an axe to grind would still say it wasn't handled well. some of us expect more of the nytimes. perhaps experiencing some of the same scrutiny and criticism clinton faces is a teaching moment, as they say.
9
And forthright and honest analysis. While it is certainly fair to quote some of those who objectively or with a Hillary bias very sternly criticize the New York Times for the email investigation story, what about millions who are supportive of the Times?
Hillary has a vast media machine including Media Matters and the legally controversial Correct the Record Super PAC who quickly become attack dogs against anyone and everyone who DARES to scrutinize, question or criticize the Clintons .
It seems apparent in this instance that Hillary and her media machine are going to the carpet with FAUX outrage thinking they can intimidate the NYT and prevent future investigative reporting. I hope they are not succeeding in that attempt.
Hillary has a vast media machine including Media Matters and the legally controversial Correct the Record Super PAC who quickly become attack dogs against anyone and everyone who DARES to scrutinize, question or criticize the Clintons .
It seems apparent in this instance that Hillary and her media machine are going to the carpet with FAUX outrage thinking they can intimidate the NYT and prevent future investigative reporting. I hope they are not succeeding in that attempt.
1
It seems apparent in this instance that Hillary and her media machine are going to the carpet with FAUX outrage thinking they can intimidate the NYT and prevent future investigative reporting. I hope they are not succeeding in that attempt.
===============
I hope not, too. Especially since the New York Post has sources that say it is a criminal investigation and the Washington Post says it isn't a criminal investigation *yet*
===============
I hope not, too. Especially since the New York Post has sources that say it is a criminal investigation and the Washington Post says it isn't a criminal investigation *yet*
As a daily subscriber to the NYT for decades I have been extremely angry and frustrated at my hometown paper. Maureen Dowd has been after her for years and has never written a kind word about her. Dowd comes off as a woman who has an agenda or is vengeful for some perceived snub. But, when news articles during the past several months show bias without facts then I wonder what is the agenda of the NYT.
I have always thought the Times was the best paper in the country but its stories on Mrs. Clinton read more like those one would find in the NY Post. You have given up the moniker "the paper of record" in my opinion.
I have always thought the Times was the best paper in the country but its stories on Mrs. Clinton read more like those one would find in the NY Post. You have given up the moniker "the paper of record" in my opinion.
6
This is precisely why I am not letting myself get excited for a Hillary win this time around. I know that the media, led by the Times, will kill her chances at the 11th hour. I remember the precise moment they did it last time - by giving credence to, and then working themselves into a frenzy over, the absurd Obama campaign accusation that she had mentioned the RFK assassination as a cynical racist tactic. Talk about cynical. These reporters just can't wait for the next candidate that they can get the bigger liberal ego boost out of supporting. Sadly women do not fit the bill for them.
5
This has echoes for me of Judith Miller and her unnamed 'sources'.
If you had sources telling you outright lies, aren't you rather obliged to call them out on this? And tell us how it happened??
I'm not even a Hillary supporter but this is completely inappropriate, to think the Benghazi panel is going to leak every thought in effort to sink a candidate (when we elide Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Perle et al) and that the NYT (not Fox) bit and put it on page one: Criminal Inquiry by Feds into HRC. None of it true.
Who was your source who outright lied to you? Or are your reporters of the same mind? Nice to hear what Baquet thinks but this is more than a "screw up", it's Democratic sabotage and we're mad to see it in your paper.
I'm seriously considering cancelling my Prime-- I don't need this kind of election coverage. And you barely cover Bernie. This is an important election for our country and you're not acting like it with this.
If you had sources telling you outright lies, aren't you rather obliged to call them out on this? And tell us how it happened??
I'm not even a Hillary supporter but this is completely inappropriate, to think the Benghazi panel is going to leak every thought in effort to sink a candidate (when we elide Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Perle et al) and that the NYT (not Fox) bit and put it on page one: Criminal Inquiry by Feds into HRC. None of it true.
Who was your source who outright lied to you? Or are your reporters of the same mind? Nice to hear what Baquet thinks but this is more than a "screw up", it's Democratic sabotage and we're mad to see it in your paper.
I'm seriously considering cancelling my Prime-- I don't need this kind of election coverage. And you barely cover Bernie. This is an important election for our country and you're not acting like it with this.
7
I have commented couple of times already about this matter. First, I am not particularly a HRC supporter, leaning somewhat to Senator Sanders, as I still find that she accepts to much of the neo-liberal consensus of the 1990s and early Oughts as valid. But I do take Mr. Baquet's assurances and quick reach for the the trope of "both siderism" really hard to take. Neither he or Mr. Purdy have acknowledged that that this story was just that in the fictional sense of the term. Also, given their mistakes, Mr. Baquet's refusal to publish the Clinton's Campaign letter to the editor is evidence of both arrogance and stupidity (how often those two words go together). Like the the HRC's campaign was not going to release it? And in doing so, Baquet help make the Times' credibility or lack thereof regarding HRC the story for another weekend news cycle. Finally, the Times and its reporters and editors are apparently fail to realize the extent that they fallen into the trap of group think about the Clintons and accepted memes and tropes Presidential campaigns. Although there is at least some awareness breaking in, you are failing to cover the story of how America as come closer and closer to oligarchy these last 40 years (an oligarchy which includes the senior editors and owners of the Times).
6
As the reporting goes, the NY Times should follow the lead of Huffington Post and move their political views and reviews as 'entertainment' — and label it, PLYBILL.
2
And today we find that the FBI is conducting this "non-criminal" (for the time being) inquiry into Ms. Clinton's mishandling of her email and leaking of classified information.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-looks-into-security-of-clinto...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-looks-into-security-of-clinto...
1
The mistakes made by inferring that a candidate for the president was under criminal investigation are outrageous and compounded by the arrogant refusal to make a fulsome apology and acknowledge the mistakes. And no doubt there will be other problems when a reporter has as his full-time beat the coverage of a single person. Shockingly bad management of risk and the brand, not to mention a complete disservice to us readers.
6
Bad press is better than no press. I'm talking about Bernie Sanders, whom the NYT has never taken seriously enough to cover. Even though he's one of the most popular Democratic candidates. All we get is the occasional inane comment about how he's a socialist.
More broadly, their election coverage is entirely focused on the horse race, policy matters be damned. I think the editors and staff mean well, but they don't have the intellect or perspective to run a serious newspaper. It's just shallow Beltway gossip and popularity contests.
More broadly, their election coverage is entirely focused on the horse race, policy matters be damned. I think the editors and staff mean well, but they don't have the intellect or perspective to run a serious newspaper. It's just shallow Beltway gossip and popularity contests.
3
Hillary Clinton is currently in a two horse race for the Democratic ticket. The Republicans have so many horse....or shall we say..."nags" running that to keep track of that race is much more time consuming. The Democratic ticket will either be Clinton or Joe Biden. Therefore, scrutiny of Hillary Clinton is warranted. After all, she is the second coming of Milhous Nixon.
The difference is...or will be....digital records compared to tapes.
Hillary Clinton would not be a good president, but I might end up voting for her when comparing the alternative "nags" from the other side.
The difference is...or will be....digital records compared to tapes.
Hillary Clinton would not be a good president, but I might end up voting for her when comparing the alternative "nags" from the other side.
I should say right up front that I am not a Republican, so if someone says something like "Colin Powell did the same thing" I say "fine, go after him too."
I appreciate your perspective on this, and most certainly you don't want to go after Hillary Clinton in such a way that is in any way different than anyone else running for president, but if anything I really feel as if the coverage still really isn't honest enough.
A week has gone by, and the recent actions regarding FOIA requests by multiple judges shows that this is becoming more serious, and the hand-wringing over your use of the word "criminal" is distracting from the fact that Hillary's behavior at the State Department and their notion that she is above the law is becoming more and more tenuous. You didn't do this to her, everyone sees that State was not fulfilling any FOIA requests relating to her or her people. Its her behaviour, not something someone is doing to her. Should someone blatantly declaring themselves the "Champion of Women" get away with attacking every woman who made an allegation against her husband? In the Bill Cosby era? You don't go there, and no one else wants to either, but someone vying to be the first female president should answer for this. Obama championed transparency, scolded her at a debate for not being transparent, and then let her do whatever the hell she wanted at State.
Its called "Hillary privilege" and what I see is you guys re just trying to cut through that.
I appreciate your perspective on this, and most certainly you don't want to go after Hillary Clinton in such a way that is in any way different than anyone else running for president, but if anything I really feel as if the coverage still really isn't honest enough.
A week has gone by, and the recent actions regarding FOIA requests by multiple judges shows that this is becoming more serious, and the hand-wringing over your use of the word "criminal" is distracting from the fact that Hillary's behavior at the State Department and their notion that she is above the law is becoming more and more tenuous. You didn't do this to her, everyone sees that State was not fulfilling any FOIA requests relating to her or her people. Its her behaviour, not something someone is doing to her. Should someone blatantly declaring themselves the "Champion of Women" get away with attacking every woman who made an allegation against her husband? In the Bill Cosby era? You don't go there, and no one else wants to either, but someone vying to be the first female president should answer for this. Obama championed transparency, scolded her at a debate for not being transparent, and then let her do whatever the hell she wanted at State.
Its called "Hillary privilege" and what I see is you guys re just trying to cut through that.
1
A week has gone by, and the recent actions regarding FOIA requests by multiple judges shows that this is becoming more serious, and the hand-wringing over your use of the word "criminal" is distracting from the fact that Hillary's behavior at the State Department and their notion that she is above the law is becoming more and more tenuous. You didn't do this to her, everyone sees that State was not fulfilling any FOIA requests relating to her or her people. Its her behaviour, not something someone is doing to her.
==============
Exactly true. It would have been so easy for her to comply with the law and State Department regulations in the first place
==============
Exactly true. It would have been so easy for her to comply with the law and State Department regulations in the first place
To save space, I cut most URLs. Dates denote Pub.Ed. blog posts; a date with the word "column" denotes a Pub.Ed. Sunday Column.
Many wish this Column covered more; I am no different. Better, tho, to raise a small number of points and cover them fully than to lump all problems into one Column. But Mr. Baquet must answer for the whole News side, and he fails.
"The Times can do itself — and its readers — a lot of good by making sure that every story is airtight: solidly sourced, written with particular clarity and impartiality, and edited with a prosecutorial eye." Column, 3/8/15
Did Mr. Baquet, or anyone, read that?
Michael Schmidt fed us a recent story about "criminal" inquiries; his 3/3/15 Page 1 story alleged "serious breach", "inclination toward secrecy", and "nuclear winter". "Airtight"? Ha!
From reporter Michael Barbaro came this attack on someone who dared analyze NYT Hillary coverage: http://tinyurl.com/ockuahg Has Mr. Baquet disciplined Barbaro?
The "Clinton Beat" was supposed to help "develop sources" and provide "inside access" (Column 8/18/13). Did it succeed? If not, why didn't Mr. Baquet pull the plug on it? One source Amy Chozick had access to was an anti-Hillary author who has an "arrangement" with NYT. Does Mr. Baquet find this evenhanded? "I still don’t like the way it looked." (04/23/15)
And all of this follows the horrid "Planet Hillary" Magazine cover. (01/24/14) “If you look at our ... work, ... we have [not] been unfair,” says Baquet.
REALLY??
Many wish this Column covered more; I am no different. Better, tho, to raise a small number of points and cover them fully than to lump all problems into one Column. But Mr. Baquet must answer for the whole News side, and he fails.
"The Times can do itself — and its readers — a lot of good by making sure that every story is airtight: solidly sourced, written with particular clarity and impartiality, and edited with a prosecutorial eye." Column, 3/8/15
Did Mr. Baquet, or anyone, read that?
Michael Schmidt fed us a recent story about "criminal" inquiries; his 3/3/15 Page 1 story alleged "serious breach", "inclination toward secrecy", and "nuclear winter". "Airtight"? Ha!
From reporter Michael Barbaro came this attack on someone who dared analyze NYT Hillary coverage: http://tinyurl.com/ockuahg Has Mr. Baquet disciplined Barbaro?
The "Clinton Beat" was supposed to help "develop sources" and provide "inside access" (Column 8/18/13). Did it succeed? If not, why didn't Mr. Baquet pull the plug on it? One source Amy Chozick had access to was an anti-Hillary author who has an "arrangement" with NYT. Does Mr. Baquet find this evenhanded? "I still don’t like the way it looked." (04/23/15)
And all of this follows the horrid "Planet Hillary" Magazine cover. (01/24/14) “If you look at our ... work, ... we have [not] been unfair,” says Baquet.
REALLY??
10
Margaret Sullivan is one of the best voices the Times has but I'd like to correct her statement that the Times is known for 'liberal bias.' She cites the Times's endorsement of Democrats as evidence.
Don't forget, Ms. Sullivan, the Times not only endorsed Bush's invasion but helped to persuade its readers to endorse it. And yes, the Times, in my recollection, lit the fire of Whitewater and fanned the flames. Both are scandals, the first of course is of more lasting import.
Few people I know would say the Times has a 'liberal bias.' We think of the Times as deeply incorrigibly conservative--perhaps 'establishment.' is a better word here.
Its coverage of Bernie Sanders is a current case in point.
Don't forget, Ms. Sullivan, the Times not only endorsed Bush's invasion but helped to persuade its readers to endorse it. And yes, the Times, in my recollection, lit the fire of Whitewater and fanned the flames. Both are scandals, the first of course is of more lasting import.
Few people I know would say the Times has a 'liberal bias.' We think of the Times as deeply incorrigibly conservative--perhaps 'establishment.' is a better word here.
Its coverage of Bernie Sanders is a current case in point.
6
I would like to have a beer with her. Friends of mine, who are lifelong Republicans, were invited to a White House dinner when Clinton was president. They were both charmed and impressed by both of them, even though they never would've voted Democrat. What is the problem here? Don't we want another intelligent president for at least 4 more years?
7
.
Of him, I can say only that he seems charismatic. But Secy Clinton is charming one-on-one or in a small group. She listens intently, responds empathetically, and laughs genuinely. Pretty wooden at a podium though.
When I saw Sen. Clinton speak, the woman next to me seemed nervous and fiddled with her program. When protesters burst in to assail Sen. Clinton (from the left), I half-expected the woman next to me to join them! She did not. At one point, she asked me if I thought Sen. Clinton would be accessible for audience interaction.
When the time came for that interaction, we proceeded to the front of the room, the young woman still next to me. She began by shaking Sen. Clinton's hand and saying something. Then she talked more and Sen. Clinton (standing on a stage) bent over to hear better. Then Sen. Clinton squatted down so the woman could speak to her more softly; she also held the woman's hand in both of her own. This was clearly about something important to the young woman, and Sen. Clinton had me believing it was important to the Sen. as well. She indicated to the young woman that she had to leave (which was obvious from the staffers pestering her); but she called over a staffer and said something I couldn't hear. The staffer gave the young woman a business card.
I have no idea what was discussed; but Mrs. Clinton appeared genuine and the young woman seemed less troubled. All I got were a hasty autograph and a laugh at my question (shouted at the Senator).
Of him, I can say only that he seems charismatic. But Secy Clinton is charming one-on-one or in a small group. She listens intently, responds empathetically, and laughs genuinely. Pretty wooden at a podium though.
When I saw Sen. Clinton speak, the woman next to me seemed nervous and fiddled with her program. When protesters burst in to assail Sen. Clinton (from the left), I half-expected the woman next to me to join them! She did not. At one point, she asked me if I thought Sen. Clinton would be accessible for audience interaction.
When the time came for that interaction, we proceeded to the front of the room, the young woman still next to me. She began by shaking Sen. Clinton's hand and saying something. Then she talked more and Sen. Clinton (standing on a stage) bent over to hear better. Then Sen. Clinton squatted down so the woman could speak to her more softly; she also held the woman's hand in both of her own. This was clearly about something important to the young woman, and Sen. Clinton had me believing it was important to the Sen. as well. She indicated to the young woman that she had to leave (which was obvious from the staffers pestering her); but she called over a staffer and said something I couldn't hear. The staffer gave the young woman a business card.
I have no idea what was discussed; but Mrs. Clinton appeared genuine and the young woman seemed less troubled. All I got were a hasty autograph and a laugh at my question (shouted at the Senator).
2
Since I've already cancelled my Times digital subscription in response to the initial story two weeks ago and the Times's utter failure to clarify/correct in any meaningful way, I'm not struggling any longer with my feelings about the Times and it's fraught relationship with the Clintons. It is what it is, and I've done all I can. But I have to say that the editors and reporters quoted by Ms. Sullivan about the paper's reporting on Ms. Clinton seem incredibly arrogant and remarkably self assured given the complexity of the issues. Do they not take Jay Rosen and James Fallows seriously? Do they think these critics are just picking on the Times and there's nothing to their criticisms? I, for one, do not. I take their views very seriously and I've come to the conclusion that the Times has become too careless in its search for a story, any story, that will somehow attract readers and hits. I simply don't trust it anymore. I have been a subscriber to the Times for 40 years and that streak is ending in a couple of weeks. I will get by, somehow.
12
To save space, I have cut out URLs. Dates denote Pub.Ed. blog posts; a date with the word "column" denotes a Pub.Ed. Sunday Column.
Many Comments raise the issue of Maureen Dowd's unfair Op-Ed pieces; readers ask Ms. Sullivan to take that on in reviewing whether NYT coverage of Hillary Clinton has been conducted "without fear or favor".
As I recall, the report that led to the creation of the Public Editor post, and the job description, did not address the Opinion side of NYT. Thus, a Pub.Ed. may not need address Op-Eds. However, a 6/22/08 Column did take on Ms. Dowd (noting "the relentless nature of her gender-laden assault on Clinton — in 28 of 44 columns since Jan. 1") as did a 6/27/08 blog. Ms. Sullivan has addressed Opinion pieces too. 02/03/14, 06/02/14, 06/09/14
So which is it? Does the Opinion side fall outside the Pub.Ed.'s purview? If so, we readers need a new monitor for the messed-up Opinion section (and Nick Kristof shouldn't have been scrutinized by Ms. Sullivan); if not, I have a whole bunch of questions for Ms. Sullivan about Opinion pieces.
A halfway approach serves no one; and quite often, the same is true of staff editorials and many Op-Eds.
(Also, it is my understanding that Sunday Columns have word limits. Ms. Sullivan knows best how to work within her limit, if there is one.)
For nostalgia's sake, a quote from the 6/22/08 Column:
Some complaints about Times news coverage seem justified. A “Political Memo” last fall analyzed “the Clinton Cackle” ...
Many Comments raise the issue of Maureen Dowd's unfair Op-Ed pieces; readers ask Ms. Sullivan to take that on in reviewing whether NYT coverage of Hillary Clinton has been conducted "without fear or favor".
As I recall, the report that led to the creation of the Public Editor post, and the job description, did not address the Opinion side of NYT. Thus, a Pub.Ed. may not need address Op-Eds. However, a 6/22/08 Column did take on Ms. Dowd (noting "the relentless nature of her gender-laden assault on Clinton — in 28 of 44 columns since Jan. 1") as did a 6/27/08 blog. Ms. Sullivan has addressed Opinion pieces too. 02/03/14, 06/02/14, 06/09/14
So which is it? Does the Opinion side fall outside the Pub.Ed.'s purview? If so, we readers need a new monitor for the messed-up Opinion section (and Nick Kristof shouldn't have been scrutinized by Ms. Sullivan); if not, I have a whole bunch of questions for Ms. Sullivan about Opinion pieces.
A halfway approach serves no one; and quite often, the same is true of staff editorials and many Op-Eds.
(Also, it is my understanding that Sunday Columns have word limits. Ms. Sullivan knows best how to work within her limit, if there is one.)
For nostalgia's sake, a quote from the 6/22/08 Column:
Some complaints about Times news coverage seem justified. A “Political Memo” last fall analyzed “the Clinton Cackle” ...
2
The "criminal investigation" story was doubly unfair: 1. It was inaccurate. 2. It furthered the seemingly growing public perception that Hillary is untrustworthy. To make amends, I suggest the Times investigate what it is, exactly, the public feels Hillary can't be trusted with? Is it money? Unhealthy alliances with foreign governments? Real estate deals, a la White Water? Blowing kisses to Maureen Dowd? I think you will find trust is not the issue; negative sentiment rises with the up swell of negative stories. The name given to negativity is untrustworthiness. But clearly, Hillary is not in it for the money; she loves her country, real estate is not a factor and she (reluctantly, agreed) would invite Dowd to lunch at the popular girls' table. So, why does she endure the vitriol? Is it possible Hillary thinks public service is honorable and worth it? That could be it. Take a look.
22
Anonymous sourcing has *repeatedly* led the Times astray. Yet here comes Amy Chozick with anonymous disparagement of the subject of her beat today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-w...
Yesterday, she made the risible claim that the death bed imprecation from Beau Biden for his Pop to run was based on "reporting by Maureen Dowd," today she allows that it was reported in JUNE by the Wall Street Journal.
After the Jayson Blair and Judith Miller fiascoes, the Times, in one of Bill Keller's limited positive contributions, convened a committee on accountability. The result was the public memo from Mr. Keller, "Assuring Our Credibility," which I have been assured by both Ms. Sullivan's office and By Philip B Corbett, remains in effect (http://www.nytco.com/wp-content/uploads/assuring-our-credibility.pdf).
In it, Keller flatly states, "we resist granting anonymity for opinion, speculation or personal attacks."
Calling Mrs. Clinton's campaigning "joyless" certainly defies Keller's dictum. Readers should check pages 4-7 for its consideration of the use of anonymous sources, and note how very little the Times conforms to its own explicitly stated rules. Yet Dean Baquet is endlessly promising under Ms. Sullivan's questioning to curtail use of anonymous sources, yet the use is *actually* ever expanding. is Baquet disingenuous in answering, or incompetent in managing his staff, and which is worse?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-w...
Yesterday, she made the risible claim that the death bed imprecation from Beau Biden for his Pop to run was based on "reporting by Maureen Dowd," today she allows that it was reported in JUNE by the Wall Street Journal.
After the Jayson Blair and Judith Miller fiascoes, the Times, in one of Bill Keller's limited positive contributions, convened a committee on accountability. The result was the public memo from Mr. Keller, "Assuring Our Credibility," which I have been assured by both Ms. Sullivan's office and By Philip B Corbett, remains in effect (http://www.nytco.com/wp-content/uploads/assuring-our-credibility.pdf).
In it, Keller flatly states, "we resist granting anonymity for opinion, speculation or personal attacks."
Calling Mrs. Clinton's campaigning "joyless" certainly defies Keller's dictum. Readers should check pages 4-7 for its consideration of the use of anonymous sources, and note how very little the Times conforms to its own explicitly stated rules. Yet Dean Baquet is endlessly promising under Ms. Sullivan's questioning to curtail use of anonymous sources, yet the use is *actually* ever expanding. is Baquet disingenuous in answering, or incompetent in managing his staff, and which is worse?
20
"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.”
George W. and Jeb! Bush are grandsons of a US senator, sons of a former president who was also the head of the CIA, United States Ambassador to the United Nations, and the Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office to the People's Republic of China. Both of the younger Bushes were also state governors who were involved in one of the most questionable presidential elections in US history.
That sounds kind of "unique." Why doesn't Jeb! have his own beat reporter?
George W. and Jeb! Bush are grandsons of a US senator, sons of a former president who was also the head of the CIA, United States Ambassador to the United Nations, and the Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office to the People's Republic of China. Both of the younger Bushes were also state governors who were involved in one of the most questionable presidential elections in US history.
That sounds kind of "unique." Why doesn't Jeb! have his own beat reporter?
30
"...and hurt its reputation for authoritative accuracy — precisely what its most loyal readers count on."
NO! NO! NO! I can only speak for millions of other readers. The Times is not read for its accuracy. It is read because everyone should know what the "most authoritative news source in the world" is saying. The Times lost its credibility selling the Iraq war if not sooner.
As for Hillary, I'll never understand why anybody would support her or oppose her except for blind sexism or a devotion to the status quo.
NO! NO! NO! I can only speak for millions of other readers. The Times is not read for its accuracy. It is read because everyone should know what the "most authoritative news source in the world" is saying. The Times lost its credibility selling the Iraq war if not sooner.
As for Hillary, I'll never understand why anybody would support her or oppose her except for blind sexism or a devotion to the status quo.
4
if you sling mud, you get mud slung back at ya. She is the front runner for the dem party. For now!
I was glad to see, finally, an acknowledgment of inaccuracy in reporting on Hillary Clinton. However, the piece fails to address the larger picture: a long run of reporting on this candidate that is so biased and misleading that it appears to be a deliberate campaign to besmirch her reputation. Whether this comes from the top or is the work of a cadre of unsupervised political reporters, it is the responsibility of the Editor. This has reached the point where it is really damaging the reputation of the Times as a serious newspaper. I have been a subscriber for at least 30 years and, while there have been some lapses over the years, this is the first time I have felt that the paper cannot be trusted to deliver the basic news. Specifically, I do not believe a word of the political reporting.
Aside from its own reputation, the Times should have some concern for the public good and the havoc that irresponsible reporting from the "newspaper of record" can wreak. Let's not forget that Whitewater was actually nothing, a fake scandal fomented by the Times that led to Ken Starr, Linda Tripp, and impeachment.
Aside from its own reputation, the Times should have some concern for the public good and the havoc that irresponsible reporting from the "newspaper of record" can wreak. Let's not forget that Whitewater was actually nothing, a fake scandal fomented by the Times that led to Ken Starr, Linda Tripp, and impeachment.
23
Perhaps the Public Editor should compare the Times' Hilary Clinton coverage under Dean Baquet with its coverage under Jill Abramson. At least such comparison might tell us weather there has been a change over time that coincides with managerial philosophy and policy.
I too worry that the pressures on the Times to compete in this age of Internet-driven instant news is affecting the accuracy and quality of its journalism.
I too worry that the pressures on the Times to compete in this age of Internet-driven instant news is affecting the accuracy and quality of its journalism.
10
Tell Mr. Baquet that the coverage has often been nasty and seemingly personal and it is evident to readers. Read Representative Cumming's HuffPo op-ed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-elijah-cummings/fool-me-once_1_b_79179... about the circumstances regarding this latest broadside and tell me why the NYT keeps trying to deflect attention away from its failure to do due diligence; the NYT needs to say unequivocally that it got it wrong, period, on the front page.
This is not a game and campaigning shouldn't be about making reporters happy; Clinton, like other candidates, is trying to define her own campaign and the media seems to want to be able to define it for her. I find the official NYT explanations unconvincing. The fact that we're still talking about this should be a wake up call.
This is not a game and campaigning shouldn't be about making reporters happy; Clinton, like other candidates, is trying to define her own campaign and the media seems to want to be able to define it for her. I find the official NYT explanations unconvincing. The fact that we're still talking about this should be a wake up call.
20
.
"campaigning shouldn't be about making reporters happy"
Make that the screensaver on the computer of every political reporter, commentator, and columnist in the organization!! Too many of them criticize candidates and officeholders for failure to cater to them.
In my opinion, if some candidate wants to talk to a bunch of Iowans around a table at Kirkwood Community College while reporters are kept at some remove, what matters is whether the people at the table got THEIR questions answered. They will never have another chance. Reporters can ask the candidate about burrito bowls or Scooby-the-van some other time.
Abraham Lincoln is the only president on Mt. Rushmore who was a private citizen immediately before becoming president. How many reporters interviewed HIM during the 1860 campaign?
"campaigning shouldn't be about making reporters happy"
Make that the screensaver on the computer of every political reporter, commentator, and columnist in the organization!! Too many of them criticize candidates and officeholders for failure to cater to them.
In my opinion, if some candidate wants to talk to a bunch of Iowans around a table at Kirkwood Community College while reporters are kept at some remove, what matters is whether the people at the table got THEIR questions answered. They will never have another chance. Reporters can ask the candidate about burrito bowls or Scooby-the-van some other time.
Abraham Lincoln is the only president on Mt. Rushmore who was a private citizen immediately before becoming president. How many reporters interviewed HIM during the 1860 campaign?
6
Lets look at Dowd's assertion that Beau Biden on his death bed attacked the Clinton's and begged his dad to run for President. So far the VP has neither affirmed nor denied this story. Lets imagine that the story is untrue. Either that Dowd was there but she has made this up or in her stomach churning hatred of the Clinton's she heard this story from an unreliable source and so she placed it in her column. In either of those cases then I am sure that we would all agree that it is time for Mrs Dowd to be removed from this paper. Now let us suppose that the story is true but the VP never wanted it published and Ms Dowd knew this. Still her hatred overruled any sense that she shouldn't use the most intimate of moments when it could kill of the campaign of one she hates. I do hope that one of these scenarios is true because the only other alternative is too awful to contemplate. Suppose this is what Beau said to his father and then the VP sought out a columnist that he knew hated Sec. Clinton and shared his son's death bed words as a way to get his campaign going and beat Hillary......I really don't want to believe that for any father who would make public his son's dying words to hurt a competitor....well let us just say that would be breathtaking in its callousness. The background of this story must be researched further. Maybe it is time for the news division to assign a reporter to cover Ms Dowd. After Whitewater and Iraq you are close to the edge
28
The Times assigned someone full time to cover Hillary Rodham Clinton since 2013? I'm beginning to wonder why I pay for a newspaper with an obviously systematic, biased approach to journalism.
17
I'll confess to having read only about a quarter of the 316 comments in this thread, but an overwhelming theme is that the NYT's justifications for posting a perpetual Clinton beat reporter don't stand up to consistent scrutiny. I agree. That Maureen Dowd's latest Hilary hatchet job appeared in the very same edition as this piece by the Public Editor is almost laughable. If the Times simply ran an anti-HRC lead editorial every day until the Iowa caucus, at least it would demonstrate some integrity and honesty.
21
Bottom line. It's been almost two weeks. Still no apology. Meanwhile, the Times runs front page puff pieces on the Koch brothers.
20
Each time Maureen Dowd wrltes one of her viperous attacks against Secretary Clinton she should be required to write an equally negative attack against one of the other candidates. They ALL have skeletons in their closets. She should be required to reveal them to us.
18
I you omit the NYT yet continue with the Clinton baggage carousel analogy, it appears that the Clintons have chosen to ignore their baggage and let it pile up unclaimed.
2
Ms. Sullivan, I have to say that you are extremely good at what you do. It is a tough job, but I am very glad that the Times sees the need for such a role, and finds the resources to fund it.
5
"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."
Mr. Purdy, a NYT editor, justifies this by saying there's much to explore, since she is a former senator, secretary of state, first lady, and she and her family are involved in global philanthropy. What about Jeb Bush? He is a former governor, brother and son to previous presidents, and just as wealthy as the Clintons. Has a Times reporter been assigned to Jeb Bush as a full time assignment? This alone seems like a smoking gun indicating NYT bias against HRC. How ironic that, on the same day the Public Editor carried this column, another Maureen Dowd column bashing HRC appeared in the Week in Review.
Mr. Purdy, a NYT editor, justifies this by saying there's much to explore, since she is a former senator, secretary of state, first lady, and she and her family are involved in global philanthropy. What about Jeb Bush? He is a former governor, brother and son to previous presidents, and just as wealthy as the Clintons. Has a Times reporter been assigned to Jeb Bush as a full time assignment? This alone seems like a smoking gun indicating NYT bias against HRC. How ironic that, on the same day the Public Editor carried this column, another Maureen Dowd column bashing HRC appeared in the Week in Review.
44
Indeed, journalists don't just report on what politicians think about the weather. They like to see themselves as investigators. Did it not occur to the editors that if they assigned a full-time person to cover Mrs. Clinton that a great deal of smoke would be generated, if not light?
5
Why is the Public Editor responses hard to find? Why isn't this the Public Editor on the front page or highlighted and easy to find on the website? What are you afraid of?I feel your readers should be informed about the NYT bias and misreporting concerning HRC. Instead of The Times reporting facts its helped participate in creating the perception of HRC being untrustworthy. The Times and Ms Dowd have helped shape the bogus charge. She's been First Lady, elected NY Senator twice, held the post of Sect of State, successful author, probed, vetted etc. Are you know saying she's not trustworthy? Really? What does it take? How transparent does one have to be? Enough!
27
What the Times fails to understand is that the sheer quantity of Hilary coverage is as much of an issue as the adversarial tone and uneven quality of the reporting itself.
There is an amazing circularity to The Times coverage (and that of the media at large) of Hilary Clinton. Multiple reporters and resources are assigned to cover Hilary, but not the other candidates. Then when all of these resources inevitably report back and provide extensive reporting (often on relatively minor issues) in order to justify their assignments, the Times and the media at large then point to these manufactured reports as justification for further negative scrutiny. None of the other candidates are subject to this journalistic feedback loop.
And of course, the great shame of all this is that the entire e-mail story has no bearing on or relevance to the lives of ordinary Americans. It is strictly an inside-the-Beltway story. The sad consequence of all this is that the Times is wasting resources that it could be spending on covering substantive policy issues.
There is an amazing circularity to The Times coverage (and that of the media at large) of Hilary Clinton. Multiple reporters and resources are assigned to cover Hilary, but not the other candidates. Then when all of these resources inevitably report back and provide extensive reporting (often on relatively minor issues) in order to justify their assignments, the Times and the media at large then point to these manufactured reports as justification for further negative scrutiny. None of the other candidates are subject to this journalistic feedback loop.
And of course, the great shame of all this is that the entire e-mail story has no bearing on or relevance to the lives of ordinary Americans. It is strictly an inside-the-Beltway story. The sad consequence of all this is that the Times is wasting resources that it could be spending on covering substantive policy issues.
29
Totally agree with your points about Hillary (two L's btw) coverage in the Times. And I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter. The Times has a long history of unfair coverage of the Clintons. Easy copy to write; lazy reporting all in all.
6
And of course, the great shame of all this is that the entire e-mail story has no bearing on or relevance to the lives of ordinary Americans. It is strictly an inside-the-Beltway story. The sad consequence of all this is that the Times is wasting resources that it could be spending on covering substantive policy issues.
====================
It is becoming apparent as the email story plays out, that Clinton used her unsecured private server to send emails that contained classified information. This was in violation of procedure and law and is at least as bad as the violations that Gen. Petraeus was recently fined and sentenced to 2 years probation for.
A person running for president showed when she was Sec. of State that she was totally clueless about security requirements and was too incompetent to protect our country's most vital secrets.
I think that's entire relevant to judging her fitness for office - not "inside the Beltway" at all.
====================
It is becoming apparent as the email story plays out, that Clinton used her unsecured private server to send emails that contained classified information. This was in violation of procedure and law and is at least as bad as the violations that Gen. Petraeus was recently fined and sentenced to 2 years probation for.
A person running for president showed when she was Sec. of State that she was totally clueless about security requirements and was too incompetent to protect our country's most vital secrets.
I think that's entire relevant to judging her fitness for office - not "inside the Beltway" at all.
2
Trolls, anonymous sources, "all the news" with limited resources: the problem for Bacquet and the Times is how to separate the noise from the message.
Trolls are becoming more common in Comments etc. That will only get worse.
Quality news is far better than "all the news." The only thing the Times really has to sell is credibility.
The best and safest source is still a quality Times reporter doing his or her own research and basing almost nothing on anonymous sources. Deep Throat is one in a million. The rest of the anonymous sources should be avoided. Even Deep Throat's revelations had to be otherwise verified.
Trolls are becoming more common in Comments etc. That will only get worse.
Quality news is far better than "all the news." The only thing the Times really has to sell is credibility.
The best and safest source is still a quality Times reporter doing his or her own research and basing almost nothing on anonymous sources. Deep Throat is one in a million. The rest of the anonymous sources should be avoided. Even Deep Throat's revelations had to be otherwise verified.
14
This garbage goes back 23 years. Enough already!
12
It is remarkable that Mr Baquet does not see what so many readers do: that he is unable to report fairly on this candidate. Has there ever been a former Governor of a large swing state with a father and brother as former Presidents? Shouldn't this require two full time reporters? Has an african american neurosurgeon ever run? That sounds like it deserves full time treatment too. Every candidate is unique. Mrs Clinton is neither more nor less unique. But here is a radical idea for Mr Baquet: what if the paper decided to actually cover the issues rather than the gossip?
39
If the email incident is "a significant and telling story", the Times owes its readers a complete account of what previous Secretaries of State have done with their email accounts. You have said that Kerry is "the first" one to use his State Department address. You have also said that Powell had his own personal server. Perhaps I missed it, but you are obliged to provide a complete report going back to when email first emerged as an individual communications medium.
28
If the email incident is "a significant and telling story", the Times owes its readers a complete account of what previous Secretaries of State have done with their email accounts.
===============
The Washington Post did the job already. It doesn't make Clinton look good.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/10/the-misle...
Sec. Powell did not have his own server as Clinton did, but admits that he used a commercial private email account for some administrative business at State. Sec. Rice apparently didn't use email at all. It also appears that Sec. Albright, Powell's predecessor didn't use email either.
Also from the Post:
In addition, electronic record archiving regulations were clearer and more modernized by the time Clinton took office than when Powell did. In 2005, after Powell left office, the State Department updated the Foreign Affairs manual to say that day-to-day operations should be conducted on the authorized system.
In 2009, the year Clinton became secretary, federal regulations codified what experts say was a long-held assumption that a contemporary transfer to archives is required of personal e-mails used for official business.
===============
The Washington Post did the job already. It doesn't make Clinton look good.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/10/the-misle...
Sec. Powell did not have his own server as Clinton did, but admits that he used a commercial private email account for some administrative business at State. Sec. Rice apparently didn't use email at all. It also appears that Sec. Albright, Powell's predecessor didn't use email either.
Also from the Post:
In addition, electronic record archiving regulations were clearer and more modernized by the time Clinton took office than when Powell did. In 2005, after Powell left office, the State Department updated the Foreign Affairs manual to say that day-to-day operations should be conducted on the authorized system.
In 2009, the year Clinton became secretary, federal regulations codified what experts say was a long-held assumption that a contemporary transfer to archives is required of personal e-mails used for official business.
A reporter covering Hillary full time? Since 2013? How much coverage are the probable Republican nominees getting? Jeb Bush who has a few things worth investigating? Scott Walker who seems to have or to be assocaited with criminal behavior worth investigating?
Hillary is news. She has flaws. Her caution, perhaps her excessive caution, drives her to behavior like the use of her own private email system - not a wise decision.
But a full-time reporter for Hillary since 2013, when other candidates are hardly investigated? That makes the "Times" part of the problem.
Len Lubinsky
Hillary is news. She has flaws. Her caution, perhaps her excessive caution, drives her to behavior like the use of her own private email system - not a wise decision.
But a full-time reporter for Hillary since 2013, when other candidates are hardly investigated? That makes the "Times" part of the problem.
Len Lubinsky
33
On page 15 of the Saturday, August 1 print edition of the Times, all four headlines, contained the word Clinton. And just for good measure, there was another “Clinton” headline on the opposite page. I guess if you’re paying for a full-time reporter, you have to get your money’s worth.
The paper covers Mrs. Clinton as if she’s already president. It seems as if there are more stories concerning the “president in waiting” than President Obama. When will the editorial page grant its formal endorsement to Hillary? Negative coverage or positive coverage, there’s no such thing as bad press.
The paper covers Mrs. Clinton as if she’s already president. It seems as if there are more stories concerning the “president in waiting” than President Obama. When will the editorial page grant its formal endorsement to Hillary? Negative coverage or positive coverage, there’s no such thing as bad press.
4
Absent the mistake on the email story, which was a simple journalistic error, the coverage of Mrs. Clinton has been more than fair. The volume of complaints is simply an artifact of the way people consume the news, by going to sources which tend to confirm their point of view. It is a shock when they see something that conflicts with the personal narrative in place, and the impulse is to recoil from it and perceive the item to be unfair.
2
Evidenceless piffle.
9
The reporters didn't even see the source documents. That's not journalistic error--it's malpractice. If the Times could report that they'd seen the documents and they confirmed what was written, that would be different, but that didn't happen. This has nothing to do with anything else. The media has a responsibility to get it right.
4
"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."
Simple journalistic error? Failure to fact check a story that a former First Lady, US Senator, and Secretary of State is the subject of a criminal inquiry seems like a little more than a "simple journalistic error," bub.
Simple journalistic error? Failure to fact check a story that a former First Lady, US Senator, and Secretary of State is the subject of a criminal inquiry seems like a little more than a "simple journalistic error," bub.
8
Let's face the obvious truth that reporters and columnists sometimes do get played by vested interests. Sometimes, they are blinded by a rush to judgment, and other times by shared interests. Despite their protest to the contrary, journalists for The Times are no exception. But they need to step back periodically and look at the body of their work, which, in the case of the Clintons, shows a history of bias. The reputation of The Times suffers as a result.
11
A Clinton beat says it all. If someone has HRC assigned as their only subject that reporter will beat the bushes all day long for something to beat on her with and to get paid. The Times has biased its coverage against Clinton in the very way it staffs here differently than other leading candidates. This staffing creates a systemic problem which keeps spewing baggage down the carousel to use the Public Editor's metaphor.
23
And, today's article is no exception quoting Rupert Murdoch as the final paragraph...just more nonsense...The Times can't even live up to its promise to be fair for one day...
You only worry about any of this if you're backing Hillary; for those of us who aren't, it's just a blip on the screen. (If you're getting gored, you scream; if you're not, you've got other fish to fry.) But this much is clear; we all need to know more about the Clinton Global Initiative, which seems like the much graver situation here in terms of conflicts of interest. I would look forward to reading articles by the Times in which they dig in here in great detail--ASAP--before Dems put their eggs in this possibly very troubling basket.
4
Mr. Baquet,
Having a reporter assigned to cover Mrs. Clinton would be fair only if there were a reporter assigned only to cover each other declared candidate. If one were assigned to each Republican, that would be something. But assigning a reporter to a single candidate for whatever reason, and a small team to a huge Republican field is not balanced, is not fair. Various metaphors are being invoked in these comments, but here's one: When you are given a hammer, everything looks like a nail. You have a reporter covering everything Mrs. Clinton does or says, or is said about her. No matter what is reported, that level of coverage in a news source, not a candidate newsletter, is going to look for stuff. That is not fair. Not at all.
My wife, who has not followed the online journal, said of the closing, "We'll see what comes of this promise."
Having a reporter assigned to cover Mrs. Clinton would be fair only if there were a reporter assigned only to cover each other declared candidate. If one were assigned to each Republican, that would be something. But assigning a reporter to a single candidate for whatever reason, and a small team to a huge Republican field is not balanced, is not fair. Various metaphors are being invoked in these comments, but here's one: When you are given a hammer, everything looks like a nail. You have a reporter covering everything Mrs. Clinton does or says, or is said about her. No matter what is reported, that level of coverage in a news source, not a candidate newsletter, is going to look for stuff. That is not fair. Not at all.
My wife, who has not followed the online journal, said of the closing, "We'll see what comes of this promise."
20
Why do you feel that Secretary Clintons use of a private email server is "significant and telling"? Jeb Bush had one as Governor of Florida and only disclosed what he chose and not in a timely matter then proceeded to destroy the server. I'm waiting for an in depth story on the matter. After all it was a violation of state law!
23
I am a loyal subscriber and reader of the NYTimes and have not yet decided which candidate I will vote for in the upcoming presidential election. Still, the inaccurate and unbalanced coverage of Hilary Clinton makes me question whether I can still trust the Times. At the very least, it communicates concern for selling papers more than for good, honest, trustworthy reporting. The Times should issue a visible admission of its error, and a pledge to return to honest reporting that can be trusted.
16
I believe that keeping the identities of anonymous sources secret is correct and valid. But if a source has provided false information that has damaged the subject's reputation--and in this case it seems the source had malicious intent--isn't it the responsibility of the paper to reveal the source? Isn't the supplying of false information now a news item that is incumbent upon the paper to cover to the fullest?
13
Anyone associated with the Benghazi committee's Republican staff by definition has malicious intent when it comes to Mrs. Clinton. I'm more amazed that the Times didn't seem to make an effort to speak with Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the committee, to get a competing viewpoint. Apparently the Times only consulted with the Justice Department and even then managed to misrepresent the situation.
I'm disappointed Ms. Sullivan didn't mention the piece in Media Matters which argues "the Times remains the country's most influential news outlet and the daily has been carrying around an unmistakable Clinton grudge for nearly 20 years." That's the issue that you need to address, Ms. Sullivan, not just the specifics of the current e-mail story.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/27/can-the-new-york-times-salvage-i...
I'm disappointed Ms. Sullivan didn't mention the piece in Media Matters which argues "the Times remains the country's most influential news outlet and the daily has been carrying around an unmistakable Clinton grudge for nearly 20 years." That's the issue that you need to address, Ms. Sullivan, not just the specifics of the current e-mail story.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/27/can-the-new-york-times-salvage-i...
this is my takeaway from reading about this incident: following the lead of sources who demanded anonymity, Times reporters took a story about an interagency disagreement over standards for classifying emails and inflated it with unsubstantiated allegations of criminal behavior by a major political figure. Mistakes are made in reporting stories all the time; yet the more I've read about how this one unraveled, the more it seems there was a willful disregard for professional standards. Ms. Sullivan deserves credit for pursuing the issues here, but unfortunately, the comments of the senior editors don't lead me to believe much will change. Journalism is the big loser from this string of errors and misjudgments. The Times needs to print a formal retraction.
20
Still no apology to Mrs. Clinton! Shame on the NYT.
18
I don't like Climton and never have, but it is so glaringly evident the NYTs hates her. I'm glad someone finally addressed this muckraking. Sadly, this once respected news paper no longer holds to journalistic principles.
15
Let's add another factor Bacquet et al will have to consider: to the extent that online Comments, Likes, and whatever affect his and the Times view of "reaction" to a story, a candidate, or events, it is evident that trolls will be making up a greater and greater percentage of the Comments etc.
This has been clear for awhile in the Times Comments with stories referencing Russia. Lately, I have seen patterns that domestic politics, primarily candidates for President, are becoming the object of trolls.
I have not the slightest doubt that some of the anti-Clinton and pro-Sanders Comments are coming from Republican trolls. (Please note that I am saying SOME. There are many individuals with their own such Comments.) As the campaign heats up, there will be more. When the Republican field is winnowed, I expect similar effort from the Democrats, special interests, and foreign powers that have their own agendas.
The problem for Bacquet and the Times is how to separate the noise from the message, not just with Times Comments and letters, but with reports from other sources about their own feedback. While such feedback from all sources is important, the best and safest source is still a quality Times reporter doing his or her own research and basing almost nothing on anonymous sources. Deep Throat is one in a million. The rest of the anonymous sources should be avoided. Even Deep Throat's revelations had to be otherwise verified.
This has been clear for awhile in the Times Comments with stories referencing Russia. Lately, I have seen patterns that domestic politics, primarily candidates for President, are becoming the object of trolls.
I have not the slightest doubt that some of the anti-Clinton and pro-Sanders Comments are coming from Republican trolls. (Please note that I am saying SOME. There are many individuals with their own such Comments.) As the campaign heats up, there will be more. When the Republican field is winnowed, I expect similar effort from the Democrats, special interests, and foreign powers that have their own agendas.
The problem for Bacquet and the Times is how to separate the noise from the message, not just with Times Comments and letters, but with reports from other sources about their own feedback. While such feedback from all sources is important, the best and safest source is still a quality Times reporter doing his or her own research and basing almost nothing on anonymous sources. Deep Throat is one in a million. The rest of the anonymous sources should be avoided. Even Deep Throat's revelations had to be otherwise verified.
5
Hooray for Maureen Sullivan! She is the latest if an honorable list of excellent Public Editors (i.e., ombudsmen) who try to give the Times's writers and editors a hard second look at their unnecessary mistakes in a demanding profession.
There was a time when many other serious newspapers had their own Public Editor; there were some good ones at the Washington Post (one was Andy Alexander), but the Post used economics as a pale reason to get rid of
their ombudsman, and that position has never been refilled. I'm sure the
senior writers and the editors don't appreciate criticism from within, especially when the criticism his home. This is what has happened in the situation that Ms. Sullivan describes today on the Times (but don't hold your breath the get an admission of lazy reporting from the Times's editor).
There was a time when many other serious newspapers had their own Public Editor; there were some good ones at the Washington Post (one was Andy Alexander), but the Post used economics as a pale reason to get rid of
their ombudsman, and that position has never been refilled. I'm sure the
senior writers and the editors don't appreciate criticism from within, especially when the criticism his home. This is what has happened in the situation that Ms. Sullivan describes today on the Times (but don't hold your breath the get an admission of lazy reporting from the Times's editor).
5
This scrutiny of NY Times by the Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan, is a good start although falls fall short of a full & thorough explanation. NY Times readers who are highly disappointed in the ethics of the NY Times as it concerns Hillary Clinton should read Media Matters on the botched accusation of criminality by Ms. Clinton. Per Media Matters online site referencing a July 28th Vox article, Jonathan Allen reported that House Benghazi Committee Chairman Repubican Trey Gowdy was "fully aware" of the request to the Justice Department before NY Times broke its story. Vox noted that "Gowdy's team has been accused of leaking false statements to reporters before." Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democratic member on the House Select Committee on Benghazi essentially suggested on MSNBC's Hardball that Republicans on the Benghazi Committee were responsible for faulty information, and has previously criticized the "reckless pattern of selective Republican leaks and mischaracterizations of evidence relating to the Benghazi attacks" a claim supported by numerous examples. Any responsible NY Times reporter as well as their supervising Editor would know that Trey Gowdy had an obvious political agenda to smear Hillary Clinton & link her by innuendo to criminality. If the reporters had engaged in fair & thorough investigative journalism they would have checked with the Rep. Elijah Cummings of the Benghazi Committee for his version of the e-mail referral from one Inspector General.
17
What we have seen is the media coverage of Ms. Clinton, and a great deal of questioning her credibility. It is of course to the GOP advantage to keep this in the media. What the Times has not done, was investigate the charges and show it they are true or not. The Times did an investigation of Benghazi, but the GOP continues to say she is responsible for the death of the ambassador there.
A large percentage of the Democratic voters doubt her veracity, but the NYT has not looked into any of the charges. They are remiss in doing so. It is hard to say at this time if she can even get the nomination, and how she will fare against JEB, if he gets the nomination. The personal email issue can be a serious problem, or just something the GOP can use to discredit her. What are the facts. I take her answer to the XL Pipeline to be, "If I get elected, then I will have to look at the facts, am not making up my mind at present."
She has been under constant attack in the WSJ for the past two years, since she became the assumed frontrunner. To be fair the NYT should do an in depth analysis, and give her and her supporters a chance to refute the spurious ones.
I know quite a few Liberals who think she is dishonest, what are the facts regarding these charges, what are her connections to Wall Street? Are the Sanders charges valid? All I see is opinions and what could be called conspiracy theories. Give us the facts, not the opinions of those with and ax to grind.
A large percentage of the Democratic voters doubt her veracity, but the NYT has not looked into any of the charges. They are remiss in doing so. It is hard to say at this time if she can even get the nomination, and how she will fare against JEB, if he gets the nomination. The personal email issue can be a serious problem, or just something the GOP can use to discredit her. What are the facts. I take her answer to the XL Pipeline to be, "If I get elected, then I will have to look at the facts, am not making up my mind at present."
She has been under constant attack in the WSJ for the past two years, since she became the assumed frontrunner. To be fair the NYT should do an in depth analysis, and give her and her supporters a chance to refute the spurious ones.
I know quite a few Liberals who think she is dishonest, what are the facts regarding these charges, what are her connections to Wall Street? Are the Sanders charges valid? All I see is opinions and what could be called conspiracy theories. Give us the facts, not the opinions of those with and ax to grind.
6
One must marvel at Mr. Banquet's vapid notion of fairness. It is perplexing that balancing various complaints of right and left is seen as "fair". I would think that accurate reporting should be the standard.
35
.
2 thoughts on mbik's Comment:
1. When I clicked "Recommend", I was interested to see how many others had already done so in the 14 hours that had elapsed thus far.
2. For some reason, my mind went back to a blog Ms. Sullivan wrote about about a Journalism Class that was developing models for a new online NYT presence. I clicked the link to look at their project. I did not read every word or every page. But I was struck that the students did not seem to discuss the standards of accurate reporting or of high-quality writing.
It is wonderful to have a navigable website that includes features suitable for a cell phone. It is pointless, though, if the end-user navigates to an article with hit-or-miss accuracy and ambiguous (or misleading) presentation.
Words still matter, even in a digital world that has graphics and audio.
2 thoughts on mbik's Comment:
1. When I clicked "Recommend", I was interested to see how many others had already done so in the 14 hours that had elapsed thus far.
2. For some reason, my mind went back to a blog Ms. Sullivan wrote about about a Journalism Class that was developing models for a new online NYT presence. I clicked the link to look at their project. I did not read every word or every page. But I was struck that the students did not seem to discuss the standards of accurate reporting or of high-quality writing.
It is wonderful to have a navigable website that includes features suitable for a cell phone. It is pointless, though, if the end-user navigates to an article with hit-or-miss accuracy and ambiguous (or misleading) presentation.
Words still matter, even in a digital world that has graphics and audio.
3
I think Hillary's decision to have a private server while in a government job goes way beyond arrogantly stupid & stupidly arrogant.
But, in the grand scheme of things, it is nowhere nearly important to the future of our country as the 'false equivalence' 'reporting' by the MSM since the advent of Fox News when the MSM was put on notice it would be called out as 'liberal media elite' if it did not report to the satisfaction of the Murdoch/Ailes/Fox & Pittman/Clear Channel/Limbaugh party line.
I have read stories in this paper over the past year where the foreign correspondent is having a hissy fit over a right wing party winning a few seats in a European parliament.
Meanwhile, here in the USA, the extreme right wing has control of the US House, almost the US Senate & the US supreme court while the MSM says nary a word about how close we appear to be to real fascism, even more real than Marie Le Pen's and the UKIP's. Really, does the Confederate flag give you no clue?
An extremist minority of the Republican Party in the US House is in control of the US House because of - to use the right wing's favorite word - a feckless Speaker of the US House. Joe McCarthy redux is alive & well in the US Senate & calling his Majority Leader a 'flat out liar'. Scalia & his little buddies are off the chain striking down precedents with one do-over case after another.
The 'criminal inquiry' story, Editor's Note & Baquet's response were abysmal, but not the primary problems at NYT.
But, in the grand scheme of things, it is nowhere nearly important to the future of our country as the 'false equivalence' 'reporting' by the MSM since the advent of Fox News when the MSM was put on notice it would be called out as 'liberal media elite' if it did not report to the satisfaction of the Murdoch/Ailes/Fox & Pittman/Clear Channel/Limbaugh party line.
I have read stories in this paper over the past year where the foreign correspondent is having a hissy fit over a right wing party winning a few seats in a European parliament.
Meanwhile, here in the USA, the extreme right wing has control of the US House, almost the US Senate & the US supreme court while the MSM says nary a word about how close we appear to be to real fascism, even more real than Marie Le Pen's and the UKIP's. Really, does the Confederate flag give you no clue?
An extremist minority of the Republican Party in the US House is in control of the US House because of - to use the right wing's favorite word - a feckless Speaker of the US House. Joe McCarthy redux is alive & well in the US Senate & calling his Majority Leader a 'flat out liar'. Scalia & his little buddies are off the chain striking down precedents with one do-over case after another.
The 'criminal inquiry' story, Editor's Note & Baquet's response were abysmal, but not the primary problems at NYT.
5
You might do a little history about your state. Republicans have only had 3 Republican governors since Reconstruction (Sanford and Haley being 2 of them) and in 1959-1961 Fritz Hollings flew the flag over the capital.
Isn't it amazing how FOX News has you stressed out. Is it the FACT that they have the 15 highest rated cable news programs? Or is it the FACT that MSNBC cancelled 2 programs earlier and on Friday it was the last day for the Cycle, Now with Alex Wagner and the Ed Show. And apparently All In with Chris Hayes and Al Sharpton's program are next. So maybe you should consider why FOX is routinely kicking your butt.
From 1933-1945, 1449-1951, 1955-1979, 1987-1993, 2006-2010 Democrats had both chambers.
Democrats had both chambers 47 years
Republicans had both chambers from 1921-1929, 1947-1958, 1953-1954, 1995-2000, 2004-2008 and 2014- present.
Republicans have had both chambers 31 years. So as you can see your party has had the majority 16 more years which explains why until we took both chambers the economy was in the tank.
Nice job of cut and pasting though. Your scattergun approach while puzzling shows you have all the talking points down, if only in a disjointed manner.
Isn't it amazing how FOX News has you stressed out. Is it the FACT that they have the 15 highest rated cable news programs? Or is it the FACT that MSNBC cancelled 2 programs earlier and on Friday it was the last day for the Cycle, Now with Alex Wagner and the Ed Show. And apparently All In with Chris Hayes and Al Sharpton's program are next. So maybe you should consider why FOX is routinely kicking your butt.
From 1933-1945, 1449-1951, 1955-1979, 1987-1993, 2006-2010 Democrats had both chambers.
Democrats had both chambers 47 years
Republicans had both chambers from 1921-1929, 1947-1958, 1953-1954, 1995-2000, 2004-2008 and 2014- present.
Republicans have had both chambers 31 years. So as you can see your party has had the majority 16 more years which explains why until we took both chambers the economy was in the tank.
Nice job of cut and pasting though. Your scattergun approach while puzzling shows you have all the talking points down, if only in a disjointed manner.
I've thought about canceling my subscription all day today, and I bookmarked the Associated Press web sight, but my spouse also uses my NYT subscription and doesn't want to cancel it.
My dilemma is that now it is hard for me to trust the accuracy of any NYT's article (except for those by Charles Blow who I still believe in).
What guarentee can the Times give us that their articles are accurate and fact-based instead of bias and unprofessional? I really am eager to not loose all hope.
My dilemma is that now it is hard for me to trust the accuracy of any NYT's article (except for those by Charles Blow who I still believe in).
What guarentee can the Times give us that their articles are accurate and fact-based instead of bias and unprofessional? I really am eager to not loose all hope.
22
A guarantee would work for you? That's rather simple minded. What an adult does is "read around" & compare stories. Try the BBC, that's probably the second best source of solid reporting.
2
I've read this publication since 1975. It is the best paper in the country, but it does not give the impression of being coldly unbiased, or of being especially honorable. It is the most grand, most well produced and professional paper.
On some issues & stories it is superb, most are good. It covers NYC in wonderful fashion. On the flipside where it is bad it is obviously bad, like a propaganda sheet. The coverage of the fighting in the Donbass of Ukraine is an example. To get the real idea for that you have to go read the BBC, because this paper is committed to making the bad guys in Kiev look good. Another example is coverage of Israel's violence in comparison to violence against her.
So a long time reader like myself is cautious about the Times, but still reads it first. What I'd expect is straight cold hearted journalism for news, and a bias in editorials, and an even mix of punditry. What I get is slanted news depending on the issue, a bias in editorials, and targeted punditry that often seems, so to speak, bought off.
On some issues & stories it is superb, most are good. It covers NYC in wonderful fashion. On the flipside where it is bad it is obviously bad, like a propaganda sheet. The coverage of the fighting in the Donbass of Ukraine is an example. To get the real idea for that you have to go read the BBC, because this paper is committed to making the bad guys in Kiev look good. Another example is coverage of Israel's violence in comparison to violence against her.
So a long time reader like myself is cautious about the Times, but still reads it first. What I'd expect is straight cold hearted journalism for news, and a bias in editorials, and an even mix of punditry. What I get is slanted news depending on the issue, a bias in editorials, and targeted punditry that often seems, so to speak, bought off.
10
So, not a word about whether Trey Gowdy or one of his senior staffer was the "senior source in the US Government". If that's the case - and anonymous sources in Washington DC think it is - then that is a very very serious problem for the NYT that makes even the Judith Miller debacle look small.
14
I can't understand why Hillary is so evasive? Its not like anyone is targeting her in the media or anywhere else is it?
7
The Times critical coverage of Hillary Clinton -- 15 months before the next
presidential election! -- doesn't stop on the front page, or in the editorials.
It has also included the snarky Maureen Dowd who has seemingly had a vendetta against Hilary from the day she stepped into the Times's office.
She is an influential columnist who seems to write to a specific audience,
perhaps her entourage in Washington and NYC, who must applaud her every
column. But she cannot stop herself from inventing sneaky comments and issues ("Biden: What would Beau Say?") to undermine Hillary, while admiring her own writing in the mirror. Is it envy? Who knows?
presidential election! -- doesn't stop on the front page, or in the editorials.
It has also included the snarky Maureen Dowd who has seemingly had a vendetta against Hilary from the day she stepped into the Times's office.
She is an influential columnist who seems to write to a specific audience,
perhaps her entourage in Washington and NYC, who must applaud her every
column. But she cannot stop herself from inventing sneaky comments and issues ("Biden: What would Beau Say?") to undermine Hillary, while admiring her own writing in the mirror. Is it envy? Who knows?
19
So, was there been a full time reporter covering Jeb Bush since 2013? Seeing how he is the son of a former President, the brother of another former President, and former Governor of the State which caused the election chaos which allowed his brother to take office.
26
Amid the irony of this post and Dowd's running concurrently, it's interesting to note some things about the Editor's Picks on Maureen's icky Biden piece. Firstly, none of the Editor's Picks are critical of Dowd's exploitation of the Biden family's tragedy, and yet almost all of the other Readers' Picks are. Sure, maybe some of the EPs would have been top picks anyway, and perhaps some of the top picks were below the Editor's standards for tone, but - It makes me wonder the purpose and utility of Editors' Picks at all. Why do they exist? Who makes them? Do they reflect personal beliefs? Reward earliest posts? Exemplify a strained effort to represent "both sides?" Are they worth it? The editors may as well go undercover and post their own defenses, or upvote, or even censor posts (oh wait, they do!).
13
I noticed the Editor's Picks on the Dowd article on the unseemly Biden piece all appeared to agree with Dowd's notion that VP Biden should run and questioned the validity of the the EP selections. Having posed the same questions previously, I too had thoughts similar to yours. Yesterday, this transgression seemed more obvious than at other times.
1
Thank you for this article. I am also concerned when I read the unrelentingly vicious attacks against Mrs. Clinton on the Op Ed page: it's getting hard to imagine that Ms Dowd used to be a favorite. Times writers might start to think about what a Republican president naming "conservatives" to the Supreme Court, among other things, might do to this country. Already some of the leading candidates are looking to end Social Security and Medicare as we know them. How secure would most of us be then?
12
I criticized the NYT coverage of the Clinton campaign in comments on both the disgraceful Dowd op-ed and accompanying alleged new story on Biden, writing, "What is going on at the New York Times?"
It was the New York Times the first published the article on Whitewater that prompted that long investigation, a politically motivated enterprise that revealed no wrongdoing by the Clintons, but resulted in the politically-motivated Clinton impeachment. The NYT seems to have it in for the Clintons; their coverage of the Clinton has been consistently negative and scandal mongering. None of these many Clinton investigations has produced any evidence at all – not one scintilla - of wrongdoing by either Hillary or Bill Clinton. The aura of scandal that appears to cling to these two is entirely media produced, and the Times has been a major offender.
On Friday night, the day after the inaccurate article about the alleged criminal inquiry was published, my husband and I were driving home from Manhattan, when we noticed Bill Clinton, walking across the Chappaqua town bridge. He looked extremely angry. We suspected that this was because of the Times article, and that he had gone out for a walk to cool down. While we don't always agree with the Clintons on the issues, in this case, we don't blame them. The editors should be ashamed of themselves This was shoddy journalism, and the irresponsible treatment of the Clintons, particularly during a presidential election, is unforgivable.
It was the New York Times the first published the article on Whitewater that prompted that long investigation, a politically motivated enterprise that revealed no wrongdoing by the Clintons, but resulted in the politically-motivated Clinton impeachment. The NYT seems to have it in for the Clintons; their coverage of the Clinton has been consistently negative and scandal mongering. None of these many Clinton investigations has produced any evidence at all – not one scintilla - of wrongdoing by either Hillary or Bill Clinton. The aura of scandal that appears to cling to these two is entirely media produced, and the Times has been a major offender.
On Friday night, the day after the inaccurate article about the alleged criminal inquiry was published, my husband and I were driving home from Manhattan, when we noticed Bill Clinton, walking across the Chappaqua town bridge. He looked extremely angry. We suspected that this was because of the Times article, and that he had gone out for a walk to cool down. While we don't always agree with the Clintons on the issues, in this case, we don't blame them. The editors should be ashamed of themselves This was shoddy journalism, and the irresponsible treatment of the Clintons, particularly during a presidential election, is unforgivable.
4
How about an expose on the unreliable anonymous sources that created the false Clinton story? That would be news. There is no reason a source who lies should be protected.
22
The NYT covers HRC in a similar way it covers Republican candidates, except that HRC is given way more latitude. The Republican candidates are regularly reported to be ignorant, money-grubbing, bought and paid for racist fools, while HRC is judged upon her actual record.
As it pertains to HRC, the NYT has done a fairly accurate job.
As it pertains to HRC, the NYT has done a fairly accurate job.
5
A refreshing contrast to Ms. Dowd's latest exercise in false equivalence. Tom Brady? Deflategate? Really?
What's next - the Illuminati connection?
Glad Margaret Sullivan is doing her part; not so sure about the rest of the Times editors' responses and can't say I agree how significant or telling the story is, actually. Colin Powell says he did the same thing, but Rep. Gowdy doesn't seem to have him in his sights. We shall see how this unfolds, politically and journalistically...A fair shake - and a level playing field - seem very much in order.
What's next - the Illuminati connection?
Glad Margaret Sullivan is doing her part; not so sure about the rest of the Times editors' responses and can't say I agree how significant or telling the story is, actually. Colin Powell says he did the same thing, but Rep. Gowdy doesn't seem to have him in his sights. We shall see how this unfolds, politically and journalistically...A fair shake - and a level playing field - seem very much in order.
14
Thank you, Ms. Sullivan. My thoughts exactly. Particularly after reading yet another predictable anti-Clinton rant by Maureen Dowd -- and if the NYT truly wanted to be unbiased -- your column would be next to Dowd's on the front page of the Review. Side by side.
18
I found this particularly telling:
"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."
And yet Jeb Bush — whose father and brother served as President, and who also run a philanthropic organization — is not subject to the same scrutiny.
The same kind of effort the Times puts into covering Clinton would have be better served for its coverage of, say, the lead up to the Iraq war.
"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."
And yet Jeb Bush — whose father and brother served as President, and who also run a philanthropic organization — is not subject to the same scrutiny.
The same kind of effort the Times puts into covering Clinton would have be better served for its coverage of, say, the lead up to the Iraq war.
19
A longtime subscriber and devotee of the Times, I am baffled by the discombobulating stories regarding Hillary and a "criminal" investigation into her emails. I read the print edition faithfully, daily, and also spend time on the digital edition, and have yet to see a suitable explanation or retraction or whatever journalistic opprobrium would be proper. I am more than happy to defend the Times with some nitpickers who just don't understand our "newspaper of record" brilliance, but that double printing and correcting was so poorly handled---perhaps in an attempt to minimize it---that it erupted in lots of places just looking for anything to demean the Times. Please do something to remove this stain.
13
As a NYT subscriber I hope and suggest that Dean Baquet, executive editor, especially address Ms Dowd about her reckless commentary. If the NYT wants to keep me as a subscriber I suggest they show some balance in their reporting. What's with Ms Dowds snarky and hateful writing solely about the Clintons? after vacationing in the South of France, calling in articles about Uber(?) she's decided not to work very hard by continuing to retread Clinton stories that do nothing but stir up a false narrative about HRC not being trusted? Really! She's been the most scrutinized and vetted public person, and still people continue to dig? Move on!
14
The New York Times coverage of Hillary Clinton is a disgrace. If some writer on the Times was attacking Jeb Bush continually year after year the way Maureen Dowd is allowed to attack Hillary Clinton I doubt they would still have a job. Do the editor's of the Times have so little editorial control over their writers that something like this can be allowed to continue. Someone is paying Ms Dowd's salary and they could certainly advise her that there are many other subjects she could use her considerable writing talents to comment on. If her endless articles about Hillary Clinton weren't so full of hate and so politically harmful I would simply say they have become so predictable that they are boring.
16
The NYT is agraid to treat the Bushes like it treats the Clintons. It would lose to much access and those sweet sweet unnamed source whispers that are the business it is in and its competitive advantage. In its own editorial mind.
The Times has still not apologized or explained it's Whitewater coverage started by Jeff Gerth back in 1992. That story, much like the latest screw up, involved using sources with a political axe to grind who were given far more credulity than they deserved. Same with the Clinton Foundation story this spring. If Times reporters are getting "scoops" from Republican staffers or campaign officials, it is well past time to stop. They are being used and the editors don't seem to care.
15
Instead of worrying about whether the NY Times had "an unfairly critical edge," how about worrying about the facts? If the story is factual, and not just in a narrow, cherry-picked way, then it's irrelevant whether it's critical. Fairness can be judged later.
The story was unfactual. This is what your long-time readers care about. I am politically independent, and have genuinely not decided who to vote for. There are pluses and minuses for all the candidates, or at least most of them other than the one Hair Clown.
But even the Hair Clown should be treated factually and fairly. Not because the Hair Clown deserves it, but because the readers do. And, in light of the newspaper's influence, however diminished and diminishing, the country does.
The latest lapse with the Clinton story did not occur in a vacuum. The NY Times is increasingly focused not on facts -- something you acknowledged in a moment of unwitting candor -- but on interpretation. Many of us who've read you for decades see an ongoing shift from news and careful analysis to a didacticism that approaches propaganda.
In the end, this drift serves your readers poorly, and if unchecked will ruin your publication. And if the NY Times becomes just another liberal blog, that's not going to be good for the country. Bottom line: Straighten up and fly right. People are noticing.
The story was unfactual. This is what your long-time readers care about. I am politically independent, and have genuinely not decided who to vote for. There are pluses and minuses for all the candidates, or at least most of them other than the one Hair Clown.
But even the Hair Clown should be treated factually and fairly. Not because the Hair Clown deserves it, but because the readers do. And, in light of the newspaper's influence, however diminished and diminishing, the country does.
The latest lapse with the Clinton story did not occur in a vacuum. The NY Times is increasingly focused not on facts -- something you acknowledged in a moment of unwitting candor -- but on interpretation. Many of us who've read you for decades see an ongoing shift from news and careful analysis to a didacticism that approaches propaganda.
In the end, this drift serves your readers poorly, and if unchecked will ruin your publication. And if the NY Times becomes just another liberal blog, that's not going to be good for the country. Bottom line: Straighten up and fly right. People are noticing.
21
BRAVO!
2
I'm a female Independent liberal who wouldn't vote for Clinton if she was the only candidate on the ballot, given her history and record to date. So i think the email coverage is important, as are the investigations into the Clinton foundation. I'm even a bit puzzled that her record and judgement in foreign policy issues as SOS hasn't been examined more closely. But even i can't bring myself to read Dowd's columns, there seems to be some sort of wholly unprofessional personal vendetta in there that renders dubious any case she might be attempting to make. And it's unnecessary, if there's a case to be made, the research should make it for you.
And yep, you could up your game on the Sanders coverage. I go to Wapo for that these days.
As for the Republicans - well, Bush isn't the frontrunner quite yet. I'd expect the critical coverage on Republicans to increase after the debates narrow the field a bit more.
And yep, you could up your game on the Sanders coverage. I go to Wapo for that these days.
As for the Republicans - well, Bush isn't the frontrunner quite yet. I'd expect the critical coverage on Republicans to increase after the debates narrow the field a bit more.
6
Maureen Dowd of the Times has spent years writing the most trivial columns attacking Hillary for everything from her hair styles to wardrobes. Not a single word from Ms Dowd on Clinton's recent very detailed stands on climate change and financial reform.
Today's column from Ms Dowd includes a statement about Beau Biden's wish for his father to run and "arguing that the White House should not revert to the Clintons and the country would be better of with Biden values." I question the veracity of this statement. I believe the Times should reveal the source of the comment. I suspect it was manufactured by Ms. Dowd.
Bill Folchi
NYC
Today's column from Ms Dowd includes a statement about Beau Biden's wish for his father to run and "arguing that the White House should not revert to the Clintons and the country would be better of with Biden values." I question the veracity of this statement. I believe the Times should reveal the source of the comment. I suspect it was manufactured by Ms. Dowd.
Bill Folchi
NYC
15
How can one say 'the story was still newsworthy' when the 'story' - that Hillary Clinton was under *criminal* investigation for her actions was actually -oops- that someone else was under non criminal investigation for other actions?
If the Times can't even cop to an egregious error, then weasel worded corrections can hardly be believed.
If the Times can't even cop to an egregious error, then weasel worded corrections can hardly be believed.
14
The NYT invented Whiewater with this untrue headline/story. "Clintons Joined S&L Operator in an Ozark Real Estate Venture," Jeff Gerth, New York Times, March 8, 1992,
11
NYT your anti Hillary positions is verging on the pathological. You are becoming a joke, your veracity akin with Fox news . As a subscriber I watch this decline to Maureen Dowd irrational hostility with concern. Buck up your journalistic standards.
15
Historians will record how the NYT attempted to take down Hillary Clinton with poorly sourced, inaccurate accounts about her emails at the State Department. Who are the anonymous government sources who misled you? Time will tell.
Meanwhile, smart readers will be tracking how the NYT resolves this terrible episode that has tarnished journalists at that publication.
Meanwhile, smart readers will be tracking how the NYT resolves this terrible episode that has tarnished journalists at that publication.
8
I am afraid that the Times' editors and reporters now have an an "ego investment" and a collective group think of animosity at the Clintons and Hilary Clinton in particular. Utlimately whether the Times is "fair" toward Ms. Clinton and the the other candidates is determined by us readers and are judgement by your coverage (or lack of it for progressives like Senator Sanders or Governor O'Malley) and "beat sweetners" for Mr. Bush and Governor Walker. Meanwhile the big story as Rick Perlstein's essay at TPM points out is not reported:
"... Not just concerning who might be our next president, but what it all means for the republic. And not just concerning the candidates, but the behind-the-scenes string-pullers whose names, really, should be almost as familiar to us as Mr. Bush, Mr. Rubio, and, God forbid, Dr. Carson.
Instead, we get the same old hackneyed horse race—like, did you know that Rick Santorum is in trouble? Only one voter showed up at his June 8 event in Hamlin, Iowa. Though neither mentioned that Santorum is still doing just fine with the one voter that matters: Foster Friess, the Wyoming financier who gave his super-PAC $6.7 million in 2012, and promises something similar this year. “He has the best chance of winning,” Friess said. “I can’t imagine why anybody would not vote for him. ..And you’d think having people like that picking the people who govern us would all be rather newsworthy.
You’d be right."
"... Not just concerning who might be our next president, but what it all means for the republic. And not just concerning the candidates, but the behind-the-scenes string-pullers whose names, really, should be almost as familiar to us as Mr. Bush, Mr. Rubio, and, God forbid, Dr. Carson.
Instead, we get the same old hackneyed horse race—like, did you know that Rick Santorum is in trouble? Only one voter showed up at his June 8 event in Hamlin, Iowa. Though neither mentioned that Santorum is still doing just fine with the one voter that matters: Foster Friess, the Wyoming financier who gave his super-PAC $6.7 million in 2012, and promises something similar this year. “He has the best chance of winning,” Friess said. “I can’t imagine why anybody would not vote for him. ..And you’d think having people like that picking the people who govern us would all be rather newsworthy.
You’d be right."
3
I am glad NYT has a Public Editor - a mirror for the newspaper. I have been wondering the same thing and even voiced my concern in my comments. Everything Hillary is under the microscope while the clowns and shenanigans hardly make the radar - except for Trump, of course. I guess Hillary has made Chappaquah,NY her home, become a NY Senator but she is still an outsider.
What other reason could there be?
What other reason could there be?
4
The comments of the Public Editor plus "the substantial revisions and corrections" which The Times has printed to the Original Slander are NOT equal to a proper retraction by the Times in as prominent a place as the original Slander. Not even close.
Yes, mistakes happen, but what is the explanation of The Times to inadequate correction of the mistake. There is no excuse not to remedy the mistake fully. None, and the refusal of the Times to do so is really a personal insult to its loyal readers. Not just a small defect to be overlooked -- a personal insult to our loyalty and intelligence. The Times seems to be just hoping it all goes away, but it will not for me and, I hope. for enough other readers to bring the Times to its senses. We can use this space to trade recommendations about alternatives to taking the Times -- LA Times? CNN? Google? Washington Post? some news aggregator? We do not have to support Journalists Gone Bad !!!
Yes, mistakes happen, but what is the explanation of The Times to inadequate correction of the mistake. There is no excuse not to remedy the mistake fully. None, and the refusal of the Times to do so is really a personal insult to its loyal readers. Not just a small defect to be overlooked -- a personal insult to our loyalty and intelligence. The Times seems to be just hoping it all goes away, but it will not for me and, I hope. for enough other readers to bring the Times to its senses. We can use this space to trade recommendations about alternatives to taking the Times -- LA Times? CNN? Google? Washington Post? some news aggregator? We do not have to support Journalists Gone Bad !!!
9
Joe Biden voted for both the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war. So did Hillary. However, Joe Biden is Mr. Saint & Popularity (see Maureen Dowd's column today) and Hillary lost many fans and voters (me, too) because of this. Perhaps the NYTimes should try to enforce equal scrutiny to Biden and help the voters discover new candidates, who, even rougher around the edges and not so establishment as Hillary and Biden, show stronger convictions, stronger leadership qualities and fresh ideas to old problems? Right now, it seems that it is pretty much impossible for other candidates (Trump, Sanders) to be taken seriously by the NYT because all its columnists are looking backward not forward.
Mind boggling...when the Times prints five (count them FIVE!) HRC puff pieces on a single page, as you did last week and still hundreds write in to object to your negativity! Makes one wonder what ever happened to the slogan, "All the News That's Fit to Print".
1
I finally admitted to myself that the Times is prejudiced against Hillary Clinton when the day after she announced her candidacy there was hardly any coverage on that subject in the paper, while the front page was covered with reporting and commentary on Marco Rubio's announcement that he was running which happened at about the same time. The problem is not just with the editorial page.
16
Really? What about the front page article (at the top of the page) entitled, "Clinton Ends Speculation, Entering the 2016 Contest"?
If you don't believe me, here is the web page that shows the the articles on the front page of the New York Times that day. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-enters-201...
They also ran a whole bunch of other articles, too.
But hey, keep telling yourself they aren't covering her.
If you don't believe me, here is the web page that shows the the articles on the front page of the New York Times that day. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-enters-201...
They also ran a whole bunch of other articles, too.
But hey, keep telling yourself they aren't covering her.
2
I am a devoted NYT reader. I find the Times' coverage of the candidates, both real and wannabees, disturbingly unbalanced. I don't expect the "paper of record" to go easy on any candidate, liberal or conservative, but I am still waiting for the Times to cover all of the candidates with the same depth and "vigor" applied to it's coverage of Hillary Clinton. For example, the Times has also been covering the machinations of Donald Trump for decades, yet in covering this current campaign, I have seen little or no coverage of some of his questionable business dealings including four (4) business bankruptcies, but we have had reportage on every totally legitimate speaker's fees Hillary Clinton (or Bill for that matter) has received as if it were somehow shady. Fox news may use "Fair and Balanced" as a marketing tag that no-one believes, but Fair, Balanced, and TRUE is what we readers, and the world, expect of the New York Times.
16
You must not read the New York Times every day, because I've read a whole bunch of articles about Trump. Many of which are unflattering. (Actually, any truthful article about the man is inherently "negative".) They are all listed here:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/donald_j_tr...
Really, do you people know that you can do searches on the New York Times?
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/donald_j_tr...
Really, do you people know that you can do searches on the New York Times?
3
I am a lifelong Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton both times that he ran for election. (I believe, if memory serves, that Hillary had dropped out before the Illinois presidential primary.) However, I believe that the Times is more than fair in its reporting of Hillary Clinton. Why?
Because time has shown that the Clintons to be wrong on many issues as well as behaving in politically devious ways.
Does that mean that I don't think Republicans, also, have been devious and also deserve equal scrutiny? Of course I do!
What makes the Clintons any more special than any other candidate? So a reporter has been rash in the rush to break a story. Is that a new thing? No.
I think Ms. Sullivan, you have to ask why you think the Clintons shouldn't be treated like the politicians they ARE. Because, they are very good at politics. And today, politics is very, very dirty.
Because time has shown that the Clintons to be wrong on many issues as well as behaving in politically devious ways.
Does that mean that I don't think Republicans, also, have been devious and also deserve equal scrutiny? Of course I do!
What makes the Clintons any more special than any other candidate? So a reporter has been rash in the rush to break a story. Is that a new thing? No.
I think Ms. Sullivan, you have to ask why you think the Clintons shouldn't be treated like the politicians they ARE. Because, they are very good at politics. And today, politics is very, very dirty.
4
It is possible that
The Times is unfair
and
Sec Clinton does stupid things that are press worthy (aka private email)
the world is not a simple place; was it Emerson or Wilde who said that the sign of an intelligent woman is the ability to deal with conflicting thoughts ?
The Times is unfair
and
Sec Clinton does stupid things that are press worthy (aka private email)
the world is not a simple place; was it Emerson or Wilde who said that the sign of an intelligent woman is the ability to deal with conflicting thoughts ?
The tougher the coverage is on a candidate, the more I think it matters how accurate the coverage is. So if a newspaper is going to be very tough on a candidate, the staff needs to make sure, it seems to me, that the amount of accuracy that is required by this level of scrutiny can actually be achieved despite deadlines, sources with agendas, unreliable leaks, and so on.
16
I love NY Times and truly believe that it is the only and best newspaper in the world. I do eagerly wait everyday to read the news coverage daily. But I am perplexed on the attitude of NY Times and the damage they are creating to destroy Hillary.
Let us begin with Republican Party dominated Congress and Senate. Today's Republican Party's only focus is to make the pockets of the fat cats fatter and serve the extremist right wingers to continue to have support "no matter what". We are witnessing how they are passing bills after bills to destroy anything that protect the people which include basic things like air, water, roads, schools. The list goes on. It is unlikely that the Congress and Senate majority will change soon. We need a strong experienced Democrat President elected in 2016. Hillary is not perfect. However, we are selecting a CEO for the country and success depends on experience and leadership. Hillary is the perfect person to counter the sabotage plans created everyday by the Republicans in the Congress and Senate to destroy our great nation. Time management should rethink their strategy. A republican in the White House would wipe out everything to protect the people within a very short time. Damaging Hillary is only helping the muscle of the Wall Street and US Chamber of Commerce.
Let us begin with Republican Party dominated Congress and Senate. Today's Republican Party's only focus is to make the pockets of the fat cats fatter and serve the extremist right wingers to continue to have support "no matter what". We are witnessing how they are passing bills after bills to destroy anything that protect the people which include basic things like air, water, roads, schools. The list goes on. It is unlikely that the Congress and Senate majority will change soon. We need a strong experienced Democrat President elected in 2016. Hillary is not perfect. However, we are selecting a CEO for the country and success depends on experience and leadership. Hillary is the perfect person to counter the sabotage plans created everyday by the Republicans in the Congress and Senate to destroy our great nation. Time management should rethink their strategy. A republican in the White House would wipe out everything to protect the people within a very short time. Damaging Hillary is only helping the muscle of the Wall Street and US Chamber of Commerce.
28
.
medman uses the phrase "only and best".
Out there in the InterWebs, preserved for all time, is audio of me telling Times Columnist Gail Collins that she is "not the best columnist at the Times, but the only columnist at the Times."
(No offense to our Public Editor is intended.)
medman uses the phrase "only and best".
Out there in the InterWebs, preserved for all time, is audio of me telling Times Columnist Gail Collins that she is "not the best columnist at the Times, but the only columnist at the Times."
(No offense to our Public Editor is intended.)
It depends on the reader's personal preferences and political biases. Personally, I find that every move of Hillary Clinton is being reported, substantive or not. And to give appearance of impartiality, the NY Times overcompensates by registering every gaseous outburst of Donald Trump — a journalistic quicksand that makes little difference between carnival noise and civic enlightenment.
On the other hand a serious and mature bid for the presidency by Bernie Sanders is being treated like a sideshow and characterized with facile labels: leftist, socialist, etcetera...But, perhaps this is consistent with the assessment of political matters and elections as a kind of 'opera buffa' or masquerade with a cast of narcissistic tragicomic characters.
Maybe we should all make daily practice of reciting Kipling's "If —"
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/175772
On the other hand a serious and mature bid for the presidency by Bernie Sanders is being treated like a sideshow and characterized with facile labels: leftist, socialist, etcetera...But, perhaps this is consistent with the assessment of political matters and elections as a kind of 'opera buffa' or masquerade with a cast of narcissistic tragicomic characters.
Maybe we should all make daily practice of reciting Kipling's "If —"
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/175772
22
I have felt, over this last year in particular, that there was an emphasis on a negative view and a harshness towards Ms. Clinton over a more balanced approach. I know it is the press's job to explore and air out the political process, but Ms. Clinton seems to be held to a higher standard then anyone else involved in todays presidential race.
39
Hillary Clinton is not perfect, but of the current field on both sides, she's certainly the best qualified to be President. And she will make major history as the first woman in the Oval Office. Nothing written or said before, or in the future, changes these realites.
25
Pathetic.
Self righteous, false equivalency--a Tale of Hilary and rhe NYT????!!!do you people read what you write?--ignoring reliable haters like Dowd, excusing the refusal to do basic journalism in the name of fair reporting.
Pathetic.
Aint nothing gonna change. The NYT is in on it at the highest level, journalism be damned. The record is clear and decades old.
And I dread the woman.
Self righteous, false equivalency--a Tale of Hilary and rhe NYT????!!!do you people read what you write?--ignoring reliable haters like Dowd, excusing the refusal to do basic journalism in the name of fair reporting.
Pathetic.
Aint nothing gonna change. The NYT is in on it at the highest level, journalism be damned. The record is clear and decades old.
And I dread the woman.
18
I admit I am no intellectual but hah, what did you say that followed a logical progression?
My vote goes to Bernie. He travels light and has no need to visit baggage claim.
10
@Charlie—Your analysis of Sanders is correct. However, while traveling light is an asset it's also a liability. Everything for Bernie boils down to income inequality. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. This is a problem for Mr. Samders and why he has hit his ceiling of support.
2
You may be right, but a vote for Bernie is a wasted vote, and one for the RWNJ's.
1
Hillary-> has spent about $20 million. Do you think they aren't organizing to suppress Hillary's ethics eruptions? The New York TImes, our national paper, has a greater responsibility to report thoroughly on presidential candidates rather than to rush to the defense of one candidate or another and censor itself. in spite of what the Hillary Rapid Reaction force thinks, the American people are smart enough to handle information related to choosing presidents. We have to be. There is a pattern with Hillary that goes back decades. We have seen none of that sort of thing with the Obamas and it is not for lack of GOP efforts. It's been a refreshing break form the Clinton style. It's okay if the Clintons reap what they sow. If they can't survive the questions they raise, its on them not journalism. Please don't redact the record. If Hillary is going to be an effective President, she will need the practice.
10
"We have seen none of that sort of thing with the Obamas and it is not for lack of GOP efforts."
Indeed: Over 20 years of character assassination.
Indeed: Over 20 years of character assassination.
No one is asking the Times to cover for Clinton. We're simply asking that the coverage be fair. And by every measure it has been less than that.
2
Add my name to the list of folks seriously considering canceling my NYT subscription bc of the Times' non-stopping, unprofessional, petulant coverage of the Clintons.
35
This completely ignores the history. I think it began for the Times with their reporting of the Whitewater "scandal". The fantasies of a mentally ill man were put on the front page as fact and the time line of events was distorted to make his claims appear somewhat plausible. While Jeff Gerth wrote the stories, I have always suspected that Howell Raines was the instigator, and, of course, he was rewarded to two major promotions. I also think class prejudice was involved. After the first mistakes, the Times spent the rest of the Clinton presidency trying to find a scandal to justify their coverage. Ken Starr proved them unsuccessful. If Starr's inquisitors could not find a crime to prosecute, there wasn't one. Sadly, Bill's personal behavior gave the Republicans something to work with. Gene Lyons who wrote a book taking the Times reporting apart in well documented detail may have coined the term "Clinton rules" to describe how the Times reports "news" involving either Clinton, and we saw a good example with the criminal referrals story. I think the Times needs to go back to review coverage of the Clintons beginning when Bill broke on the national scene, and see how much of it fails to meet the canons of journalistic ethics. If Hillary is not our next president, I think the Times will be able to take a large share of the credit.
39
Rawebb,
I think the Times would love to take credit for Hillary's downfall if there is one....that seems to be their goal for compromising the paper's integrity and professionalism.
I think the Times would love to take credit for Hillary's downfall if there is one....that seems to be their goal for compromising the paper's integrity and professionalism.
18
Coverage of Hillary Clinton should be very tough-she has not yet convinced me she's the right Democrat. But I still wonder: what is the male-female share of the Times' newsroom reporting staff and editorial board? Is this playing into how she's covered, perhaps not taking a woman seriously or having other issues that lead reporters or editors to make bad judgment calls when covering her? Remember cleavage-gate?
13
The gender issue is clearly at play--Like race was with President Obama. It is not just racism and sexism although both are there. It is like getting a fast ball for 44 or so strikes and now a curve comes at you (black man with a different life perspective and rhythm of action than, say, the Gipper), and people who have had their fast ball so easy to hit out of the park are now furious that a curve came at them and they feel disenfranchised and threatened or at least disoriented. Well we live in a pluralistic society and it is time to share the power--begin getting over it or history will run over ya.
2
In 1996, William Safire wrote in this newspaper that Hillary Clinton is a congenital liar. He was right. If you choose to support her anyway, take your complaints elsewhere.
16
Prove it. Saffire didn't, and I doubt you can.
Ok, so the Public Editor thinks that the Times is unfair to Hillary Clinton. I completely agree. But why the unfairness? Could it possibly be that Clinton is/or has been too conservative for the paper's leftist editors and editorial board? If so, could it possibly be that the Times' is also "unfair" to Republicans again because of its ideological bent? We are not children; everyone understands where the Times is coming from politicially (i.e. substantially to the left of about 90% of the American people). It is absurd, however, to refuse to connect the dots and not admit that the Times is an ideologically biased news source that is unfair to essentially all political actors to its right, which includes John Boehner as well as Hillary Clinton.
8
Dean Baquet says: "I'm happy to make a promise that she'll be treated fairly," but then says "I don't believe we have been unfair." I've never seen anyone who doesn't recognize that there is a problem correct it.
One has to wonder what role the lack of gender diversity at the highest levels of The TImes plays in its coverage of Mrs. Clinton.
One has to wonder what role the lack of gender diversity at the highest levels of The TImes plays in its coverage of Mrs. Clinton.
31
This column does not answer the complaints of the earlier column. Why a full-time reporter covering Mrs. Clinton since 2013? That surely means the reporter must come up with a column regularly and that means the coverage of minutiae continues. No other candidate gets this coverage. Jeb Bush is unique in family ties but he doesn't get this coverage of minutiae. Remember, corrections of an important story (not name spelling) should be in the same location as the original story--otherwise the correction means nothing. If someone has to say "she'll be treated fairly," then how was she treated before?
31
Liberals think there's too much coverage of Hillary. Conservatives think there is not enough.
3
How does the Times do an introspective on their coverage of Hilary Clinton and not once mention Maureen Dowd's longstanding obsession with her?
40
I disagree. I believe that the NY Times has been covering HRC with gloves given her record, and anything less than published would have seriously undermined the NYT credibility. NYT has published many more favorable articles on her than on any other candidates. Compared to how NTY tried to minimize/ignore Sander and demolish Trump in blistering article upon blistering article (for things much more minor HRC's failures), the coverage on Hillary has been relentless and overall quite polite.
8
I would buy the "unprecedented amount of material to explore" argument if there was half as much exploration of a candidate who was the governor of a major state, and the brother and son of presidents.
17
I completely agree the Times should gets its facts right, even when it means a more deliberate approach to news coverage rather than rushing to get out a story. But I strongly disagree with the idea that Hillary Clinton is subject to an unfair amount of critical coverage. The Clintons dominate politics in our time more than any other family; they are as close to dynasty as we have been in many years. When that is so in a representative form of government the media should be unrelenting, even critical, in its coverage.
Of course, time and again Hillary Clinton has shown that critical coverage is warranted. Most recently she has been dismissive in both her tone and her message regarding the private / public email issue, and in this incident she has shown a fundamental disregard for rules that are designed as a check on government officials. And the way that she and Bill lead their lives is pertinent on whether her populist message as a candidate is a truthful one.
Keep up the work NYT but do get the facts right.
Of course, time and again Hillary Clinton has shown that critical coverage is warranted. Most recently she has been dismissive in both her tone and her message regarding the private / public email issue, and in this incident she has shown a fundamental disregard for rules that are designed as a check on government officials. And the way that she and Bill lead their lives is pertinent on whether her populist message as a candidate is a truthful one.
Keep up the work NYT but do get the facts right.
6
In your article you quote Mr. Baquet — “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.” Happy to make a promise since he doesn't think the paper did anything wrong! More of the same coming your way from the Times, people.
23
The source for the most recent story about Mrs. Clinton was "a senior government official.” Were NYT reporters manipulated by some in the Obama Administration who remain hostile to her candidacy? Valerie Jarrett? Are the benefits of insider anonymous sources being outweighed by the costs?
13
Really? I mean, really?
If The Times wants to be taken seriously in its coverage of Hillary Clinton, it should start by admitting that it has a very large skeleton in its closet in this regard, namely its irresponsible Whitewater story. The Times was scammed by the reporter who wrote the story. Other responsible media groups who went immediately to Arkansas, quickly reported that there was no substance to the story. The Times, however, refused to admit that it was wrong and carried on the fraud. Eventually, it promoted the reporter. When a major Whitewater figure died, the Times falsified his obituary to fit its false reporting of the Whitewater story. Having cost the American people untold millions of dollars with irresponsible reporting and by refusing to admit it, the Times basically forfeits any credibility on Clinton family reporting until it admits its irresponsible behavior and promises not to do it again
32
If The Times wants to be taken seriously in its coverage of Hillary Clinton, it should start by admitting that it has a very large skeleton in its closet in this regard, namely its irresponsible Whitewater story. The Times was scammed by the reporter who wrote the story. Other responsible media groups who went immediately to Arkansas, quickly reported that there was no substance to the story.
=======================
Ah, yes, that Whitewater "fake scandal" where only 15 people went to prison and a sitting President was disbarred for perjury and paid a $1 million settlement for sexual harassment
=======================
Ah, yes, that Whitewater "fake scandal" where only 15 people went to prison and a sitting President was disbarred for perjury and paid a $1 million settlement for sexual harassment
Despite your two columns addressing this issue, it’s clear your editors have an ongoing agenda and sadly they're getting the last unfunny laugh. This morning I see that your piece appears on page 10 of the Sunday Review section, while Maureen Dowd’s evermore snarky column criticizing the Clintons ad nauseam appears on page 1 of the same section.
I also note as of noon today, neither you (nor the Times) have sent out a Tweet linking to your column, while I’ve already received several Tweets linking to Dowd’s column. And BTW, I still remember receiving (along with the Times’ 18 million + other followers) a barrage of Tweets in my news feed linking to Schmidt and Apuzzo's discredited July 23, 2015 “criminal inquiry" story that subsequently appeared on page A-1 the next day. In fairness I would have expected to see your July 27th explanation of this damaging “mess” also appear on page A-1 of the print edition. It never did.
No one expects a free ride for Clinton, but we’re still waiting for the fair shake. Journalistic history will not look kindly on this disgraceful chapter in the life of The New York Times.
I also note as of noon today, neither you (nor the Times) have sent out a Tweet linking to your column, while I’ve already received several Tweets linking to Dowd’s column. And BTW, I still remember receiving (along with the Times’ 18 million + other followers) a barrage of Tweets in my news feed linking to Schmidt and Apuzzo's discredited July 23, 2015 “criminal inquiry" story that subsequently appeared on page A-1 the next day. In fairness I would have expected to see your July 27th explanation of this damaging “mess” also appear on page A-1 of the print edition. It never did.
No one expects a free ride for Clinton, but we’re still waiting for the fair shake. Journalistic history will not look kindly on this disgraceful chapter in the life of The New York Times.
35
Relative to the NYT coverage of the DOJ investigation -- I had received the DOS OIG Report concerning the possibility of DOJ investigation of DOS handling of the emails. Then I read your coverage. And I thought I must have read something other than what was the basis for your article. Turns out -- no it was the same thing. Who would know. I am glad to hear you fixed your coverage later -- but I have not followed up (and therein lies the problem with getting it wrong the first time-- it just sits there as Margaret Sullivan has pointed out).
4
The time has come to end several practices that are destroying American democracy. A constitutional amendment is needed to:
1) bar an immediate family member of a president from seeking or holding the office of president; and
2) an ex-president receives not only salary for life but all sorts of other perks so there is no excuse or reason that an ex-president should be paid for giving a speech or attending an event.
Put an end to the recent practice of serving as president being the new gateway to great wealth. All of us who are not donating to buy influence should be disgusted by their mad scramble for ever more wealth. Yet the Clintons claim to be able to really feel the economic pain of the bottom 90%, like their difficulty in paying their mortgages, while W reduces his speaking fee from $250K to $100K to speak for a charity benefiting those wounded while W was commander in chief.
Both Bush & Clinton have tapped into the fund raising network set up by their related ex-presidents so neither needs the Billionaire patrons other candidates do; but what is the plus in that?
The only real substantive wrong that has been done to any candidate is that which is continuing to be done to Bernie Sanders. Stop referring to Sanders as liberal, Socialist, etc., & report on his ideas. But that won’t happen because it would be unfair to Hillary who will tell us her ideas only after she’s elected.
1) bar an immediate family member of a president from seeking or holding the office of president; and
2) an ex-president receives not only salary for life but all sorts of other perks so there is no excuse or reason that an ex-president should be paid for giving a speech or attending an event.
Put an end to the recent practice of serving as president being the new gateway to great wealth. All of us who are not donating to buy influence should be disgusted by their mad scramble for ever more wealth. Yet the Clintons claim to be able to really feel the economic pain of the bottom 90%, like their difficulty in paying their mortgages, while W reduces his speaking fee from $250K to $100K to speak for a charity benefiting those wounded while W was commander in chief.
Both Bush & Clinton have tapped into the fund raising network set up by their related ex-presidents so neither needs the Billionaire patrons other candidates do; but what is the plus in that?
The only real substantive wrong that has been done to any candidate is that which is continuing to be done to Bernie Sanders. Stop referring to Sanders as liberal, Socialist, etc., & report on his ideas. But that won’t happen because it would be unfair to Hillary who will tell us her ideas only after she’s elected.
8
Put an end to the recent practice of serving as president being the new gateway to great wealth. All of us who are not donating to buy influence should be disgusted by their mad scramble for ever more wealth.
====================
Interesting to note that it is only the Clintons who are really the ones glomming on to the money
====================
Interesting to note that it is only the Clintons who are really the ones glomming on to the money
The problem is that Mr. Sanders is ON RECORD and for many years, as calling HIMSELF a Socialist.
When I was young (a long time ago) I was taught to distinguish opinion from news. This is no longer operative even in the NYTimes. When you report what a candidate said about a policy position and immediately add a sentence about their possible political motivation for stating it, that's opinion. You do this a lot to Hillary Clinton. Also, how about Amy Chozik's headline for July 28th that Hillary is "stumped" on question about pipeline? Even though in her article Chozik reports on the reason Hillary gave for not taking a position. How is that "stumped?" That's a very value laden term. There are many other examples, but I am sure you can find them.
23
I wish the The Times had given as much coverage to Bush and Cheney's outright lies about WMD''s in Iraq as they are now giving to Hillary Clinton.
23
As far as I'm concerned, the Times wounded itself with its Bush/Cheney/WMD coverage, and its non-apology apology did nothing to heal the wound. That's why I don't trust Baquet's assurance that paper will focus more on issues.
Sometimes it's about winning and losing. At least in sports anyway.
1
Given the love for Democrats and hatred of Republicans shown every day in the comments section of editorial pieces, I enjoy a little hammering of Hillary to balance it out.
I do wonder what it means for the Editorial Board to be "run separately" from the news side means.
I do wonder what it means for the Editorial Board to be "run separately" from the news side means.
3
Both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald John Trump are famous New York corporate plutocrat political oligarchs. The NYT focus is natural and normal. Media coverage fairness is a politically partisan subjective human determination. Deciding who to cover a candidate and how to cover that candidate is an editorial decision. All candidates are not created equal in terms of the attention that they have earned and deserve. Hillary Clinton is by far the most prominent current candidate seeking the office of POTUS. Context and perspective matter. Much ado about nothing critical to that selection either way on this specific issue.
3
Of course the time should cover Hillary Clinton, but stick to the facts and be double sure your stories are accurate. It seems that there is no more substance to her emails and benghazi than there was to whitewater and the murder of vince foster. There was a lot bill did wrong when he was president but it had to do with welfare reform, deregulation and similar matters.
8
Like many others who have previously commented, I would think by this time that NYT had published an apology on the front page. Having read this article on Aug.2, I looked at today's front page and see, no apology, but instead: "The vice president’s advisers are reaching out to Democrats who have not yet committed to Hillary Rodham Clinton or are concerned she is vulnerable." Wow, it seems to really fit into someone's agenda. I have nothing against VP BIden, I like him. However, the Times--having previously used their tool Dowd to promote him, while at the same time demonizing Hillary Clinton--needs to take a serious step back and look in the mirror. You will see reflected a ying yang reverse of Fox news, manipulating your agenda in your so-called progressive way. This is NOT progressive, this is patently undemocratic and you should STILL do what everyone commenting has said: Publish an apology to Hillary Clinton on the front page of the NYT, without any double speak as in the "baggage carousel" malarkey.
15
You know, I don't think Clinton is looking for an apology. I think the NYT needs to unequivocally say it got it wrong--no weaseling.
A question not on the subject but on the writing. The piece says "a printed copy"...of the email. Unless the story was trying to avoid the idea that it was a hand-written replica. Who would do that with an email? On email and other devices you can print one and copy many or you may just print one. Would not just saying a "copy" be easier? I know this is a nit on a nit, but the phrase stopped my eye.
Mrs. Clinton only provided the State Department with printed copies of the emails that she decided were relevant to her work there. Presumably to make it harder and slower to process and release them
To me the Times article about Ms. Clinton is similar to Walter Palmer hiding for days then an apology for murdering Cecil because Mr. Palmer did not realize the lion was so beloved.
Something smells just like the Times retraction about the lies they published about the democratic front runner Ms Clinton.
I am aware according to the graph published today in the Times that a small group of very wealthy people are controlling this election for USA next president. Democracy as was Cecil murdered
Something smells just like the Times retraction about the lies they published about the democratic front runner Ms Clinton.
I am aware according to the graph published today in the Times that a small group of very wealthy people are controlling this election for USA next president. Democracy as was Cecil murdered
5
The Times promise they will treat Mrs. Clinton fairly? I'll believe it when I see it. Take the column about her climate change speech. Everything was about how she is doing it because of her campaign managers. The Times has taken the comfortable position that everything she does is calculated, nothing because she may believe it is the right thing to do. Mrs. Clinton is in the same position as "aloof" Obama, "boring" Kerry or "robotic" Gore. Damned if they do something, dammed if they don't. And the Times gleefully embraces the narratives instead of criticizing them.
I believe Mrs. Clinton deserves extra scrutiny because of her history. I think it will show she is capable, principled and will be a good President. But because of it's past history the Times should be extra careful on its coverage of her.
I believe Mrs. Clinton deserves extra scrutiny because of her history. I think it will show she is capable, principled and will be a good President. But because of it's past history the Times should be extra careful on its coverage of her.
14
Let's face it: the Times is hyper critical of anyone whose name is not Barack Obama. He was the only candidate who the Times refused to dissect, and he is the only sitting president who is always given a pass. Always.
16
That's not quite accurate. The Times editorial page endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries and has consistently been critical of Obama's policies on drone strikes, transparency and surveillance program. Maureen Dowd has been equally mean to Obama and the Clintons.
2
Have your read any of Maureen Dowd's columns. She is continually critical of President Obama.
"Have your read any of Maureen Dowd's columns. She is continually critical of President Obama."
_________________
That's not quite correct—she's continually critical of "Barry."
_________________
That's not quite correct—she's continually critical of "Barry."
1
The Times's coverage of presidential candidates if so unrelentingly negative, and so skewed to scandals, gaffes, and the horse race, that almost *nothing* is said about substantive issues and the positive aspects of a candidate's message don't get out.
Furthermore, while some may object to the excessive attention devoted to Mrs. Clinton's lapses (just look at the Republicans, most of whom make Clinton look like Mother Theresa, but who apart from trump get very little negative attention), it's also true that she gets positive coverage the someone like Bernie Sanders doesn't get. Indeed, the coverage of Sanders has been more slanted than the coverage of Clinton -- if he attracts 100,000 people to meetings, the thrust of the article will be "Sanders attracts liberals but gets no support from anyone else." This, too, is biased reporting.
Frankly, the Times does not have a good record with campaign coverage. Often, reporters attempt to create false equivalency between liberals and conservatives. Consider the articles on Al Gore's supposed honesty problem -- a classic Rove smear, designed to hit the oppositino candidate where he is -- strongest -- when Gore was in fact one of the most honest candidates ever to seek the presidency, and his opponent, George W. Bush ran the most dishonest administration in living memory.
As to Bill Clinton, he was pilloried until Newt Gingrich came along. After that, he could do no wrong.
The Times really has to re-examine its political coverage.
Furthermore, while some may object to the excessive attention devoted to Mrs. Clinton's lapses (just look at the Republicans, most of whom make Clinton look like Mother Theresa, but who apart from trump get very little negative attention), it's also true that she gets positive coverage the someone like Bernie Sanders doesn't get. Indeed, the coverage of Sanders has been more slanted than the coverage of Clinton -- if he attracts 100,000 people to meetings, the thrust of the article will be "Sanders attracts liberals but gets no support from anyone else." This, too, is biased reporting.
Frankly, the Times does not have a good record with campaign coverage. Often, reporters attempt to create false equivalency between liberals and conservatives. Consider the articles on Al Gore's supposed honesty problem -- a classic Rove smear, designed to hit the oppositino candidate where he is -- strongest -- when Gore was in fact one of the most honest candidates ever to seek the presidency, and his opponent, George W. Bush ran the most dishonest administration in living memory.
As to Bill Clinton, he was pilloried until Newt Gingrich came along. After that, he could do no wrong.
The Times really has to re-examine its political coverage.
36
While I can see much to value in this article, as well as in the NY Times' continued support for a Public Editor with at least a modicum of autonomy, my concern is elsewhere. As was demonstrated by the whole Judith Miller WMD mess in 2002-2003, this event and the "leaking" of information to the Times that serves specific political agendas **is the problem**. I expect the Times to work hard at getting it right; in this case, there seemed to have been more focus on the value of the story than understanding how it might be part of the process being used by the Anti-Hillary faction to damage her chances of being the next president.
Yes, the Clintons deserve the scrutiny of a full-time reporter, especially given the uniqueness of their situation (as as example, I doubt Mrs. Obama will pursue a similar course in the future). At the same time, the potential for a "double win" here - (1) using the Times as a willing propagator of anti-Hillary disinformation, and (2) having the pleasure of watching the Times have to "walk back" the article and thus lose credibility - would have been seen as an irresistible opportunity to some folks in the political ecosystem. I therefore find it quite dismaying that the Times, given its historic role as "paper of record" for the nation, allowed itself to be in this way (more of less). Seems straightforward to me - how did the editors not miss the potential "red flags" here?
Yes, the Clintons deserve the scrutiny of a full-time reporter, especially given the uniqueness of their situation (as as example, I doubt Mrs. Obama will pursue a similar course in the future). At the same time, the potential for a "double win" here - (1) using the Times as a willing propagator of anti-Hillary disinformation, and (2) having the pleasure of watching the Times have to "walk back" the article and thus lose credibility - would have been seen as an irresistible opportunity to some folks in the political ecosystem. I therefore find it quite dismaying that the Times, given its historic role as "paper of record" for the nation, allowed itself to be in this way (more of less). Seems straightforward to me - how did the editors not miss the potential "red flags" here?
50
Maybe if Hillary would do something good, the media would stop chronicling her mistakes and faults.
What has she done that's meritorious?
Like the rest of us, she occupies space. How does that qualify her to be our leader?
What has she done that's meritorious?
Like the rest of us, she occupies space. How does that qualify her to be our leader?
12
Unlike the rest of us, she has been a US Senator and a Secretary of State.
4
In all honesty, I can't think of anything important that she accomplished or anything she stood for while she had those jobs.
Believe me, I've tried.
If she's nominated, I'll vote for her, but I'm not happy about it.
Believe me, I've tried.
If she's nominated, I'll vote for her, but I'm not happy about it.
@ Sylvia—what has Jeb accomplished? Name Bernie Sanders accomplishments. Or name Rand Paul's, etc. But here let me help you with Hillarys:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/leslie-marshall/2014/02/19/hillary-clinton...
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/leslie-marshall/2014/02/19/hillary-clinton...
1
I don't know how you can write a column detailing the unfair coverage which the New York Times has always given to Hillary Clinton without mentioning Maureen Dowd. Her decades long vendetta against Hillary has been an embarrassment for a long time.
106
Exactly!
1
One more slam at Secretary Clinton by Maureen Dowd
Was she sitting at Beau Biden's death bed to hear his comments regarding Clinton values or just another anonymous source.
I will be cancelling my subscription. I was thinking Friday, why am I reading a newspaper that prints lies?
Was she sitting at Beau Biden's death bed to hear his comments regarding Clinton values or just another anonymous source.
I will be cancelling my subscription. I was thinking Friday, why am I reading a newspaper that prints lies?
57
Oh boy, that'll show em.
3
Hillary, like Bill, has the knack of always claiming neither has done anything wrong. No, very recently Bill Clinton said he was sorry about something while attending the Urban League's conference. Unfortunately, I think he did such to gain favor for Hillary...
In short, I have at times shared with others that if it is a case of the circumstances for one's discrediting or difficulty is the fault of others-- they can't all always be wrong. It's time to take stock of oneself.
The Clinton's have a knack of contributing to the issues that come to the American public about them. The media may never have been able to get to the absolute truth or facts concerning these many and varied outings in the press, however the accumulation of such negative scrutiny in the public eye, I dare say, seems warranted. There may not be a fire where there is smoke, but there is the stench of something burning.
Then, it seems as if the Clinton's can give it with all of the nonchalance they are skilled at displaying, but can't take it. The media can't always be at fault, while the NYT clearly has its faults. The email issue is not going to go away. That the NYT brought it back up again is because there is some depth to the issue. It may take some time to get to the bottom of so many emails over so much time. As for Hillary's explanation and reasons for the actions she took: nice try. Not buying it. She wanted control of her communication; now she has to answer for such. No different rules/excuses.
In short, I have at times shared with others that if it is a case of the circumstances for one's discrediting or difficulty is the fault of others-- they can't all always be wrong. It's time to take stock of oneself.
The Clinton's have a knack of contributing to the issues that come to the American public about them. The media may never have been able to get to the absolute truth or facts concerning these many and varied outings in the press, however the accumulation of such negative scrutiny in the public eye, I dare say, seems warranted. There may not be a fire where there is smoke, but there is the stench of something burning.
Then, it seems as if the Clinton's can give it with all of the nonchalance they are skilled at displaying, but can't take it. The media can't always be at fault, while the NYT clearly has its faults. The email issue is not going to go away. That the NYT brought it back up again is because there is some depth to the issue. It may take some time to get to the bottom of so many emails over so much time. As for Hillary's explanation and reasons for the actions she took: nice try. Not buying it. She wanted control of her communication; now she has to answer for such. No different rules/excuses.
7
This is beyond the pail. Your "Where there's smoke" theory is the highway marker for the wrong turn that the GOP and American media, in general, more than gently encourage readers and listeners to take. I know of no other two people in the history of this country about whom more has been made of less -- and on a relentless basis, using every single method of propaganda and every known logical fallacy. It takes my breath away to observe how perfectly willfully the American people are twisted like pretzels and utterly duped by this ongoing campaign of destruction. A woman who has been campaigning non-stop for more than a year in her husband's run for the presidency and is packed, loaded, and moved from Arkansas to Washington, most assuredly unable to directly supervise any of this activity, is pilloried because several years later she does not know where a box of billing files landed in the frenzy of, no doubt, a completely choreographed and thoroughly managed move. When the theory about the smoking gun in those records does not pan out, the conclusion is not that there is no there there; the conclusion is that Hillary must be hiding something because, after all, the box was found in a closet and everybody knows that people put things in closets to hide them! The issue became some presumed nee
The scrutiny of the Public Editor should extend to Op-Ed columnists. When it comes to Clinton bashing, the charge has been led for 20 years by Maureen Dowd. Take a look at reader reaction to her recent columns about Mrs. Clinton. Readers clearly feel that Mrs. Dowd has a longstanding and unresolved "Hillary problem". As a subscriber since before Bill Clinton was president, I hope that the Public Editor can help Mrs. Dowd to resolve her Hillary problem - or the Times should stop according her a bully pulpit from which to pursue her gratuitous vendetta against the Clintons.
84
The scrutiny of the Public Editor should extend to Op-Ed columnists. When it comes to Clinton bashing, the charge has been led for 20 years by Maureen Dowd. Take a look at reader reaction to her recent columns about Mrs. Clinton. Readers clearly feel that Mrs. Dowd has a longstanding and unresolved "Hillary problem".
===================
Opinion writers aren't allowed to have opinions?
===================
Opinion writers aren't allowed to have opinions?
2
Hillary Clinton is being held to a higher standard than the men. This is the kind of sexism that is hard to combat because it is so difficult for people to disprove and monitor a media giant like the nyt! No wonder her poll numbers are taking a hit...because of all these false impressions being circulated by writers and media groups that do not treat Sanders or Biden or the other males with the same degree of rigor. I sure hope theKoch brothers aren't running the nyt now!
43
No, Hillary Clinton's poll numbers are taking a hit because of ... Hillary Clinton.
Whether it is the continuing saga of the e-mail server, the dance to avoid talking about the Keystone pipeline or the Trans=Pacific Partnership, the less-than-robust words on climate policy, the avoidance of the press to include the roping off of stray pressers, all in Hillary's world is rife for criticism, if not ridicule.
Readers need not fear the demise of the New York Times into Koch-land; maybe into irrelevance, but not Koch-ness.
And Hillary will still travel along, able to sashay to the Democratic nomination without serious headwinds, and probably all the way to the White House. Bill will come along, however buoyantly.
Whether it is the continuing saga of the e-mail server, the dance to avoid talking about the Keystone pipeline or the Trans=Pacific Partnership, the less-than-robust words on climate policy, the avoidance of the press to include the roping off of stray pressers, all in Hillary's world is rife for criticism, if not ridicule.
Readers need not fear the demise of the New York Times into Koch-land; maybe into irrelevance, but not Koch-ness.
And Hillary will still travel along, able to sashay to the Democratic nomination without serious headwinds, and probably all the way to the White House. Bill will come along, however buoyantly.
3
Hillary Clinton is being held to a higher standard than the men.
==================
Baloney.
It's becoming increasingly obvious that as Sec of State, her cavalier attitude to handling classified information lead to security breaches far more damaging than Gen. Petraeus was punished for. The "criminal referral that wasn't" in the article most likely would have been for any other State Department employee.
==================
Baloney.
It's becoming increasingly obvious that as Sec of State, her cavalier attitude to handling classified information lead to security breaches far more damaging than Gen. Petraeus was punished for. The "criminal referral that wasn't" in the article most likely would have been for any other State Department employee.
1
Clinton is being held to a higher standard no doubt. Here is how: Men are given more latitude to play by their own rules and strategize how they see fit. We already know that Collin Powell used personal email as SOS and nobody cared. We know that Jeb! Used a personal server as governor of Florida and nobody cared. We know that male candidates are allowed to run their campaigns without the media constantly pulling back the curtain. When a male candidate decides to stay neutral on a policy issue that is smart politics. When Hillary does it she is inauthentic.
3
The Times's most recent front page Clinton story -- about a Clinton aide who is in a dispute with the State Department over her time sheets -- is yet another example of this paper's unhealthy fixation. What's next? Front page coverage of how many parking tickets Chelsea got last year? That a Clinton aide forgot to tip the pizza deliverer? That "Clinton critics say" that the Secretary neglected to wash her hands once after going to the bathroom?
56
The Times's most recent front page Clinton story -- about a Clinton aide who is in a dispute with the State Department over her time sheets -- is yet another example of this paper's unhealthy fixation.
==================
Hillary's closest aide has bilked the taxpayers out of $10,000 and you don't think that's news?
==================
Hillary's closest aide has bilked the taxpayers out of $10,000 and you don't think that's news?
3
Actually, by definition, there was a conspiracy. It's on Wikipedia. The Arkansas Project. It may not have been vast, but it existed for sure.
12
"Other candidates were spared that particular blessing..."
Hmm.
Hillary is a big story, but the Times pursues it like some out-of-their-depth suitors. Be yourself. Be journalists, be a newspaper.
Hmm.
Hillary is a big story, but the Times pursues it like some out-of-their-depth suitors. Be yourself. Be journalists, be a newspaper.
23
I don't believe the Times has a vendetta. They just want to sell papers and if sensational albeit false headlines (remember national inquirer) do that, " Hillary Clinton subject of criminal investigation", that's what they print. After 20 years of constant attempts to accuse her of serious wrongdoing, neither the media not the GOP has been able to come up with a single substantiated charge - not one -how is that possible.
20
News-flash for all the Bernie Sanders whiners: he isn't getting the same volume of coverage in The Times because he has virtually zero chance of winning the presidency.
12
We'll see after the primaries.
1
@ Sam
I would rephrase that as: Bernie Sanders has zero chances of winning the presidency since the MSM (including The Times) have dismissed him as a serious candidate from day one.
I would rephrase that as: Bernie Sanders has zero chances of winning the presidency since the MSM (including The Times) have dismissed him as a serious candidate from day one.
1
Sanders "isn't getting the same volume of coverage in The Times because he has virtually zero chance of winning the presidency."
_____________
The role of the media in that regard should not be ignored.
_____________
The role of the media in that regard should not be ignored.
2
Thank you so much for defending my chosen candidate and a very deserving one. Where I live all things liberal or left are severely trashed on a daily basis and I depend on other news sources to be my view into what is real and the Times has let me down on Hillary Clinton.
19
The link to the Clinton campaign response is helpful, but the entire letter
really deserves to appear on the editorial page, with eye catching and suitably
egg on the face graphic accompaniment.
really deserves to appear on the editorial page, with eye catching and suitably
egg on the face graphic accompaniment.
18
The Clinton campaign asked the Times to print the letter and the Times refused. If the paper really wants to put this to bed, publish the letter prominently and let the chips fall where they may. Other outlets have carried the Times' water on this. The Erik Wemple blog on the Washington Post posted it and it's incomprehensible that the Times doesn't get why it should. This isn't about partisans coming to Clinton's defense--it is about journalistic integrity and the somebody else made the mistake, we just reported it excuse was indefensible when the first mea culpa came out.
1
It is fascinating to me that a debate continues as to whether the NYT is a fair & balanced news organization. Why the charade? It is far from fair/balanced - rather, it is a journalistic machine that seeks to pursue an agenda via selective news topics, heavy use of carefully worded stories, and complete political bias. That this is a surprise to anyone, in fact, IS the surprise.
Another police officer was killed last night in Memphis. Where's the story? Buried as a tiny headline in an obscure place. The article about two Kurdish soldiers killed yesterday is 3x the length and breath of the tiny article about the Memphis officer.
Another police officer was killed last night in Memphis. Where's the story? Buried as a tiny headline in an obscure place. The article about two Kurdish soldiers killed yesterday is 3x the length and breath of the tiny article about the Memphis officer.
12
There is an easy and obvious next step. Write an article contrasting Ms. Clinton's use of email with that of Colin Powell and Jeb Bush. My understanding is that each of them engaged in practices that would be deemed "significant and telling" by the Times' standards as applied to Hillary. It seems the use of email and the archiving practices of a prominent predecessor at State and a political rival would offer interesting context.
37
Amen to the Public Editor's attempts to bring to light the unfair coverage that Hillary Clinton has received at the hands of the NY Times. I am a Bernie Sanders supporter in the primaries, but I am distressed by the constant harassment of Clinton by this paper. No other candidate has received such unfair and skewed scrutiny as Clinton, and they certainly deserve it as much or more than she does.
46
.
@ kay:
Regarding your statement that "I am a Bernie Sanders supporter in the primaries," I have a little unsolicited advice. If you don't wish it, maybe some other reader will. But it's worth no more than it costs (it's free!). :-)
I think Democrats may owe it to themselves to check in their individual states, to find out the eligibility criteria for the Democratic Primary. Sen. Sanders has a 99% chance of being eligible in Iowa and New Hampshire, but other than that, I just don't know. I'm so concerned with the nitty-gritty of elections that I tried to find the answer on several websites, but they only made my head swim.
It won't matter in my state, where Secy. Clinton will surely defeat him in the Primary if she is on the ballot. But I called the party headquarters in the state with the most convention delegates (Calif) and was told that no decision has been made there yet.
The issue is that Senator Sanders may not be registered as a member of the Democratic Party. Twice he won the Vermont Democratic Senate Primary, which was open to non-Democrats; both times he subsequently refused that party's nomination, preferring to run on a non-major-party line.
Each state has different rules. I can conceive of a situation where Sen. Sanders is excluded from a state Democratic Primary. He has not done the sort of thing state party leaders appreciate (like, raise $$ for the party or urge voters to register in the party) As I said, check locally.
@ kay:
Regarding your statement that "I am a Bernie Sanders supporter in the primaries," I have a little unsolicited advice. If you don't wish it, maybe some other reader will. But it's worth no more than it costs (it's free!). :-)
I think Democrats may owe it to themselves to check in their individual states, to find out the eligibility criteria for the Democratic Primary. Sen. Sanders has a 99% chance of being eligible in Iowa and New Hampshire, but other than that, I just don't know. I'm so concerned with the nitty-gritty of elections that I tried to find the answer on several websites, but they only made my head swim.
It won't matter in my state, where Secy. Clinton will surely defeat him in the Primary if she is on the ballot. But I called the party headquarters in the state with the most convention delegates (Calif) and was told that no decision has been made there yet.
The issue is that Senator Sanders may not be registered as a member of the Democratic Party. Twice he won the Vermont Democratic Senate Primary, which was open to non-Democrats; both times he subsequently refused that party's nomination, preferring to run on a non-major-party line.
Each state has different rules. I can conceive of a situation where Sen. Sanders is excluded from a state Democratic Primary. He has not done the sort of thing state party leaders appreciate (like, raise $$ for the party or urge voters to register in the party) As I said, check locally.
Kay, I'm with you all the way. If there are problems with Hillary Clinton's policies - and there are - the issues involved should be dealt with. But they aren't. Instead we have stories that border on character assassination. One of the most uplifting things about Bernie Sanders' campaign is that he focuses on issues, but instead of reporting this, the media ignore him. Apparently a candidate who doesn't indulge in personal attacks isn't newsworthy.
A leading candidate for president is not just a former senator and secretary of state, but also a former militant radical, an owner of vast land holdings, and reportedly someone who has engaged in sex with his employees, whose freedom he has abused in other ways as well. That would be Thomas Jefferson. The Times ought to get on it.
14
It was in 1948 that George Orwell wrote 1984 and first gave us a Newspeak dictionary. The NYT has failed in its role as the Newspaper of Record to protector our ability to communicate by failing to protect our language. I have seen too many of my comments not see the light of day because I refuse to call fascists conservatives.
The Clintons, Obama, and James Earl Carter are not liberals. They are conservatives. Liberals and conservatives occupy the center of politics the New York Times has allowed the far right and its various constituents to claim an appellation to which they are not entitled.
Neocons, theocons, paleocons, fascists and libertarians are not conservatives. When William F Buckley Jr understood that his family's political philosophy of fascism would not fly in the age of TV he adopted the mantle of conservatism. It was no accident that the magazine he founded recently published a piece referring to Bernie Sanders a social democrat and called him a national socialist such distortion of language comes easily after 60 years of practice.
The time has come for the NYT to publish a dictionary of political beliefs that don't obfuscate.
The Hilary problem would not have occurred if she had always been referred to as the moderate conservative democrat which is the only proper political definition of her public policies. If the US had been through to it roots and its evolution there would never have been the Clintons here in Quebec Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham.
The Clintons, Obama, and James Earl Carter are not liberals. They are conservatives. Liberals and conservatives occupy the center of politics the New York Times has allowed the far right and its various constituents to claim an appellation to which they are not entitled.
Neocons, theocons, paleocons, fascists and libertarians are not conservatives. When William F Buckley Jr understood that his family's political philosophy of fascism would not fly in the age of TV he adopted the mantle of conservatism. It was no accident that the magazine he founded recently published a piece referring to Bernie Sanders a social democrat and called him a national socialist such distortion of language comes easily after 60 years of practice.
The time has come for the NYT to publish a dictionary of political beliefs that don't obfuscate.
The Hilary problem would not have occurred if she had always been referred to as the moderate conservative democrat which is the only proper political definition of her public policies. If the US had been through to it roots and its evolution there would never have been the Clintons here in Quebec Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham.
7
.
@ Montreal Moe:
You can check this with Canada's Governor-General, but:
1. Last I looked, the man who lived the longest after leaving the US Presidency strenuously preferred to be called "Jimmy"; and
2. Before declaring an interest in the Democratic Party nomination for President, Bernie Sanders referred to himself innumerable times as a "Democratic Socialist". I absolutely agree that terms inconsistent with that should not be used in labelling his political philosophy; but then again, I am on record as opposing the use of such labels for US politicians because -- as you make clear with your Buckley example -- words such as "liberal" and "conservative" have lost all meaning here.
@ Montreal Moe:
You can check this with Canada's Governor-General, but:
1. Last I looked, the man who lived the longest after leaving the US Presidency strenuously preferred to be called "Jimmy"; and
2. Before declaring an interest in the Democratic Party nomination for President, Bernie Sanders referred to himself innumerable times as a "Democratic Socialist". I absolutely agree that terms inconsistent with that should not be used in labelling his political philosophy; but then again, I am on record as opposing the use of such labels for US politicians because -- as you make clear with your Buckley example -- words such as "liberal" and "conservative" have lost all meaning here.
2
MTF,
I am 67 years old and Jimmy Carter is the only President of my lifetime who commands my complete respect for integrity , wisdom and vision. I thought Obama might have brought about the kind of changes America needs to survive the 21st century.
Maybe Hillary can precipitate the change process but I fear the greatest baggage she brings with her are the values and beliefs of my generation which are ill suited to the radically different world of 2016.
Bernie Sanders brings with him a political and social philosophy that has never been tested in the richest most powerful nations on Earth and maybe that is a formula that might work. Our failures to deal with our new technologies is creating more chaos daily maybr 20th century democratic socialism will alleviate some of the pain.
I am 67 years old and Jimmy Carter is the only President of my lifetime who commands my complete respect for integrity , wisdom and vision. I thought Obama might have brought about the kind of changes America needs to survive the 21st century.
Maybe Hillary can precipitate the change process but I fear the greatest baggage she brings with her are the values and beliefs of my generation which are ill suited to the radically different world of 2016.
Bernie Sanders brings with him a political and social philosophy that has never been tested in the richest most powerful nations on Earth and maybe that is a formula that might work. Our failures to deal with our new technologies is creating more chaos daily maybr 20th century democratic socialism will alleviate some of the pain.
1
.
@ Montreal Moe:
From this side of the world's longest nonmilitarized border, we appreciate your regard for Mr. Carter (another of his nomenclature quirks is that he doesn't like being called "President" outside of formal occasions; and I noted that you respected that).
I'm not sure I'd bet a Toonie, but I think I'd wager a Loonie that a President Hillary Clinton would prove more adaptable to modern times than one might fear. Remember, her daughter is from another generation, and now there's Charlotte as well. [note: wagering online not legal. some phrases above may be metaphoric]
I'm not sure that in a Sanders Presidency there would be enough people loyal to him who also know how to keep the wheels of government turning smoothly; so each of those 2 candidates carries a risk.
Yet HRM Elizabeth II is 22 years older than you; and in a few weeks she will become the longest-reigning British monarch; but the Commonwealth has modernised in fits and starts. Perhaps these former Colonies can do so as well?
@ Montreal Moe:
From this side of the world's longest nonmilitarized border, we appreciate your regard for Mr. Carter (another of his nomenclature quirks is that he doesn't like being called "President" outside of formal occasions; and I noted that you respected that).
I'm not sure I'd bet a Toonie, but I think I'd wager a Loonie that a President Hillary Clinton would prove more adaptable to modern times than one might fear. Remember, her daughter is from another generation, and now there's Charlotte as well. [note: wagering online not legal. some phrases above may be metaphoric]
I'm not sure that in a Sanders Presidency there would be enough people loyal to him who also know how to keep the wheels of government turning smoothly; so each of those 2 candidates carries a risk.
Yet HRM Elizabeth II is 22 years older than you; and in a few weeks she will become the longest-reigning British monarch; but the Commonwealth has modernised in fits and starts. Perhaps these former Colonies can do so as well?
1
Mrs. Clinton gets a fair shake already. Perhaps the reason so much of what she does is treated by this paper and others as faintly scandalous . . . is that there is a scandalous quality about so much of what she does. There is certainly a dodgy quality about how she responds to comments/questions, if she deigns to talk at all. Perhaps other candidates' should have reporters assigned to them, so that their every move is followed, too; perhaps this would make it clear that everyday people, like me, have nobody to vote for in this whole country. The clean ones can't lead, and the leaders play dirty. This leaves . . . ?
5
Perhaps it is just that everything reported about what Hillary does is reported as negative, even when it isn't. If the paper of record (The Times) and columnists like Maureen Dowd always slant their reporting as negative, people believe it.
2
That "doubly cautious" preoccupation is music to the ears of Republican opposition researchers. The ceaseless attacks on Clinton are meant to make the Times and others fear the backlash for being too good to the candidate. Diminishing positive press coverage is a major goal of negative campaigning.
8
I don't trust the NY Times political coverage and have not since Trooper-gate, travel-gate and White-water,which was largely the fault of this paper. This e-mail story is just one more NY Times hit piece. I am not a Clintonista but am proud that she can hit the Times back and make it stick. The criticisms of the NY Times hurt because they are true.
Maureen Dowd's latest editorial reflects the Time's id, as far as I am concerned.
Maureen Dowd's latest editorial reflects the Time's id, as far as I am concerned.
52
“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.”
Feels and smells like a statement from a politician. If Times was fair then why the need for promise? If Times was diligent and fair then why recent " Screw-up" ?
Feels and smells like a statement from a politician. If Times was fair then why the need for promise? If Times was diligent and fair then why recent " Screw-up" ?
40
If Mr. Purdy thinks that Hillary Clinton deserves so much scrutiny because she is the wife of a former president and is herself a former senator and secretary of state, why don't we see equally critical coverage of Jeb Bush, the brother of one president, son of another, former governor of Florida? How about some reporting on Jeb's role in the 2000 election? Or the Terry Schivo debacle? Or his business ties? Or his involvement with terrorists like Orlando Bosch? These were real scandals, real criminal acts occured, unlike the thousands of fake scandals that the Times has trumpeted over the years about Hillary.
If Hillary deserves extra scrutiny, Jeb most certainly deserves at least as much, if not more.
If Hillary deserves extra scrutiny, Jeb most certainly deserves at least as much, if not more.
47
“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.”
If this is the justification how about a candidate who is the son of a living President as well as the brother of a living President? Can we have same scrutiny?
If this is the justification how about a candidate who is the son of a living President as well as the brother of a living President? Can we have same scrutiny?
29
Amen. Let me add that we seldom hear about the good works of the Clinton's' charitable efforts, only "scandals," most of which are not. Let's face it - anyone who has had such a long political life as the Clinton's have will accumulate baggage on the way. I want to see similar exposés of the Bush cargo - "backstage" with Jeb in Florida and the tons of lies, back-room deals and "puppeteering" with which the Bush 43 administration trashed and polarized Americ and how that would be repeated with the same behind-the-scenes characters driving the Republican party, at least when they settle on 2016's puppet.
Also: enough "false equivalency" for the right-wing. Their own media outlets do that far too well.
I am finding myself becoming increasingly disillusioned with the NYT. "All the news that's fit to print' seems to be evolving to "All the news that we think will sell newspapers."
Also: enough "false equivalency" for the right-wing. Their own media outlets do that far too well.
I am finding myself becoming increasingly disillusioned with the NYT. "All the news that's fit to print' seems to be evolving to "All the news that we think will sell newspapers."
1
The paper has had a full-time Clinton reporter since 2013? How many other candidates merit that kind of investment?
12
Here's a thought: Try giving Bernie Sanders and the other candidates for the Democrats equal coverage. I find it tremendously ironic that there are complaints about excess coverage of Clinton when we apparently have to beg for some regarding the other candidates that are running.
8
Ms. Sullivan, while I think you normally do a wonderful job of scrutinizing the Times coverage in the face of reader questions, I have to agree with many commenters that you have now written two columns about the coverage of Mrs. Clinton that not only fail to address the issues raised but serve only to quickly absolve the paper of its own shoddy coverage. Whatever one's personal feelings about Hillary Clinton, it does not excuse an article that was simply 100% wrong with no actual admission of its wrongness. It does not explain why the paper refused to publish the response letter by the Clinton campaign to the article. It does not explain what is now 15 years of Maureen Dowd op-eds, along with the various editorials by others at the Times that have been purely critical of Mrs. Clinton even when she had no public role or even intention of assuming one. By failing to address these issues and by continually providing excuses for Mr. Baquet's and others decision to cover the candidate in this manner, the paper is doomed to repeat its mistakes.
42
How about saying " Sorry Ms Clinton and our readers, we screwed up!" Is that so difficult? This whole episode seemed like a tortured admission from a contorted Gargoyle resting in the clasp of Mephistopheles. Everyday another shoe drops, and NYT digs a little deeper.
How about an investigation of Times itself? What if turns out that Trey Gowda and his minions had been feeding these "criminal" referrals as raw meat to the news hungry NYT reporter on the beat? So what the "good" sources have a nefarious agenda about the next Presidential election? The facts be damned, due diligence set asunder, NYTimes finally got the Clintons!!! Alas the facts still reign supreme in the digital age, NYT seemed reduced to a mere yellow tabloid rag.
How about an investigation of Times itself? What if turns out that Trey Gowda and his minions had been feeding these "criminal" referrals as raw meat to the news hungry NYT reporter on the beat? So what the "good" sources have a nefarious agenda about the next Presidential election? The facts be damned, due diligence set asunder, NYTimes finally got the Clintons!!! Alas the facts still reign supreme in the digital age, NYT seemed reduced to a mere yellow tabloid rag.
16
How about having a discussion with Maureen Dowd, who seems to take the term Vendetta to a new level. I know the Times does allow editorial writers wide berth, but Dowd's myopic focus on the Clintons really goes beyond reason. You might think of having a chat.
45
What a relief! Thank you. And thank all the commentators who agreed with her.
I was a Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008. Then from blindside Barack Obama came & snatched the presidency. (I felt, even before Obama surged, if this man were white they would change the constitution for him to run for a 3rd, even a 4th term. I also felt & told some friends he might not be elected despite my great admiration for him. Now I am glad he was elected. Still I feel HRC could have achieved more than Obama did. If she were attacked too viciously, even Republican women would come to her defense. Since blacks are a minority Obama couldn't get that "sympathy.")
Over the past 20+ years, I often said Bill Clinton lacked charisma. That's why many liberal Democrats have been critical of him. Somehow he has been a magnet for criticism. Both NYT & Wash. Post have been viciously critical of Bill Clinton. Chris Matthews, a liberal icon HAD been a "Persecutor-in-Chief" of Clinton until he became such a megastar; Matthews turned a 180 & called him "President of the World!"
Joe Klein, risking the wrath of his compatriots was a sole defender of Clinton. He wrote in "Natural" journalists lost so much respect during the impeachment period; they haven't yet recovered.
Now see the contrast in press treatment of Bush-41 & Bush-43. I would say it was because Bush-41 lacked charisma & couldn’t command respect. If Nixon had Bush-43's charisma, he might've completed his second term.
I was a Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008. Then from blindside Barack Obama came & snatched the presidency. (I felt, even before Obama surged, if this man were white they would change the constitution for him to run for a 3rd, even a 4th term. I also felt & told some friends he might not be elected despite my great admiration for him. Now I am glad he was elected. Still I feel HRC could have achieved more than Obama did. If she were attacked too viciously, even Republican women would come to her defense. Since blacks are a minority Obama couldn't get that "sympathy.")
Over the past 20+ years, I often said Bill Clinton lacked charisma. That's why many liberal Democrats have been critical of him. Somehow he has been a magnet for criticism. Both NYT & Wash. Post have been viciously critical of Bill Clinton. Chris Matthews, a liberal icon HAD been a "Persecutor-in-Chief" of Clinton until he became such a megastar; Matthews turned a 180 & called him "President of the World!"
Joe Klein, risking the wrath of his compatriots was a sole defender of Clinton. He wrote in "Natural" journalists lost so much respect during the impeachment period; they haven't yet recovered.
Now see the contrast in press treatment of Bush-41 & Bush-43. I would say it was because Bush-41 lacked charisma & couldn’t command respect. If Nixon had Bush-43's charisma, he might've completed his second term.
2
Bill has a ton of charisma. His need for others' praise and attention is what got him in trouble.
3
Had to search all over to find this... it was not on the main part of the page.
7
EXCELLENT EDITORIAL! I've been following The Times as my principle source of news since my college days in the mid 80....no, I think I started following earnestly in high school. Unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that episodes involving Hillary Clinton have NOT been reported entirely fairly by this paper and in fact, since she declared her most recent candidacy, the coverage has has a continual NEGATIVE BIAS towards her. I am a CAREFUL reader. I understand that one word can make the difference in the tone of an article. I was upset when I first read that report on Hillary implying the criminal investigation was imminent and after hearing about the fallacy I seriously considered cancelling my subscription. WHAT AM I TO DO? If I can't count on The New York Times for FAIR AND IMPARTIAL coverage of the liberal leaning candidates that I favor then I don't know where to look. I don't want my paper to whitewash negative items but neither do I want them to react as though they were The Post or Fox News. I expect them to be generally favorable to candidates like Hillary that share a tendency to skew left-of-center and play a role in nurturing a strong Democrat to ultimate victory. Your editorial encourages me but I remain skeptical. Let's see how the next few weeks progress.
11
Thank you Manhattan, I feel the same way.
3
Let's be honest here, the Hillary Clinton supporters who are criticizing the NYT over the coverage of candidate Clinton don't want 'unbiased coverage', they want biased coverage in her favor. The person who thinks the email issue is 'no issue' is really just asking that the NYT ignore anything that may reflect badly on her judgement and past performance.
The real problem is not that the NYT is too critical of Clinton, it is that she has so many issues that demand examination and investigation. Rather than accept that fact her supporters appeal to what they think are like-minded, liberal sensibilities at the NYT in an attempt to limit avenues of inquiry and are surprised and disappointed when reporters 'follow the story', regardless of where it might lead.
Conclusion? If you had a better candidate you might have 'better' coverage.
The real problem is not that the NYT is too critical of Clinton, it is that she has so many issues that demand examination and investigation. Rather than accept that fact her supporters appeal to what they think are like-minded, liberal sensibilities at the NYT in an attempt to limit avenues of inquiry and are surprised and disappointed when reporters 'follow the story', regardless of where it might lead.
Conclusion? If you had a better candidate you might have 'better' coverage.
9
Bravo
2
'Bravo' from me, too.
Today's story about a $10,00 payroll dispute concerning Ms. Clinton's aide is a perfect example of the Times' piling on ... what a ridiculous editorial decision to publish such a poorly reported and pointless article ... I am not sure who is more obsessed with Hillary Clinton, the GOP or the Times ... the Times should be ashamed to publish such drivel ...
19
""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,."
Really? A situation unique in American history? A candidate that was a senator and was secretary of state? Nope... there have been other candidates that have been both, so that is not unique......Wife of a former president, true there have not been other wives of presidents who have run. But sons of former presidents--a few times. And wife of a senator--Elizabeth Dole--so that is not unique. Head of a large global philanthropy--there have been many, many previous candidates have been heads of large, global companies. (remember Mitt Romeny or George HW Bush?)
No, the only important way in which Hillary Clinton is unique is that she is a woman who has a real potential to be president of the United States. THAT is the truly unique part of her candidacy. And, I suspect, THAT is the root of the negative coverage. I am sure Mr. Baquet, Ms. Dowd, et al. will deny that fear of a woman president influences their coverage, but that denial is getting harder and harder to believe. I wish they would take a good introspective look at their own biases. They owe it to NYT readers to get over their own fears or prejudices, and cover all candidates in a tough but fair manner.
Really? A situation unique in American history? A candidate that was a senator and was secretary of state? Nope... there have been other candidates that have been both, so that is not unique......Wife of a former president, true there have not been other wives of presidents who have run. But sons of former presidents--a few times. And wife of a senator--Elizabeth Dole--so that is not unique. Head of a large global philanthropy--there have been many, many previous candidates have been heads of large, global companies. (remember Mitt Romeny or George HW Bush?)
No, the only important way in which Hillary Clinton is unique is that she is a woman who has a real potential to be president of the United States. THAT is the truly unique part of her candidacy. And, I suspect, THAT is the root of the negative coverage. I am sure Mr. Baquet, Ms. Dowd, et al. will deny that fear of a woman president influences their coverage, but that denial is getting harder and harder to believe. I wish they would take a good introspective look at their own biases. They owe it to NYT readers to get over their own fears or prejudices, and cover all candidates in a tough but fair manner.
29
With respect to the Times, the author, and those commenting, I cannot tell you how disappointed I am to see this as the 'official' response to the allegations that they were somehow being unfair to Secretary Clinton. To put it lightly, a woman with as much baggage as she does deserves to receive the treatment she has been getting. Whether it is her bevy of corporate ties that make her a favorite amongst big money interests, or her email debacle which has proven she is inclined to be conniving, these sorts of things need to be examined thoroughly. -Very- thoroughly.
When you look at the press that she is receiving and compare it to the attention that her contenders on both sides have received, you'd think that this was already the general election, and that we were seeing a Clinton / Trump face-off for the White House. In other words, the media has already chosen its favorites. I personally applauded the Times for not falling in lock-step with the rest of the (insert political affiliation here)-wing media. Diversity of opinion, particularly in an institution as influential as the times, is essential for providing meaningful debate and discussion regarding this next election.
When you look at the press that she is receiving and compare it to the attention that her contenders on both sides have received, you'd think that this was already the general election, and that we were seeing a Clinton / Trump face-off for the White House. In other words, the media has already chosen its favorites. I personally applauded the Times for not falling in lock-step with the rest of the (insert political affiliation here)-wing media. Diversity of opinion, particularly in an institution as influential as the times, is essential for providing meaningful debate and discussion regarding this next election.
6
Matt Purdy's "good reason" is an empty sentence that can be edited into a Mad Lib where you can essentially make a list of things related to ANY other candidate in the race....
The potential of a certifiable lunatic like Ted Cruz becoming President (or even becoming a Senator????) along with Jeb Bush's long shady career of using the tarnished silver spoon in his mouth to leave trail of broken businesses and shady profits have far more consequences and rich material than the borderline "gossip" the NYT keeps tossing up as news salad about Ms.Clinton.
The potential of a certifiable lunatic like Ted Cruz becoming President (or even becoming a Senator????) along with Jeb Bush's long shady career of using the tarnished silver spoon in his mouth to leave trail of broken businesses and shady profits have far more consequences and rich material than the borderline "gossip" the NYT keeps tossing up as news salad about Ms.Clinton.
26
You've articulated the reasons not to support other candidates, but not why news gets reported.
2
The Times never was as great as it was reputed to be - the Miller era put the end to that illusion. Now it seems to want to live up to the failure of that reputation. The reporting is increasingly ephemeral. Just look at the front page on the web. But the "serious" reporting is increasingly so.
13
the premise that The Times got it wrong is simply wrong
breaking Federal law is by definition "criminal," and the only person the IG could be referring to is Hillary
breaking Federal law is by definition "criminal," and the only person the IG could be referring to is Hillary
2
breaking Federal law is by definition "criminal," and the only person the IG could be referring to is Hillary
================
If, as the IGs are saying, Sec. Clinton sent classified information using her unsecured email server and her unsecured private device, and didn't identify on the email that he carried classified information, she committed a criminal act.
Just ask Gen. Petraeus about that.
================
If, as the IGs are saying, Sec. Clinton sent classified information using her unsecured email server and her unsecured private device, and didn't identify on the email that he carried classified information, she committed a criminal act.
Just ask Gen. Petraeus about that.
1
I agree with many of the comments here, but one is conspicuously missing. That is this: if the Times spent as much time covering Bernie Sanders' candidacy AT ALL, it would be devoting far less space to badgering, badmouthing and undermining Hillary's candidacy. Note that while I like Mr. Sanders - and believe him to be an honest, forthright, caring and concerned candidate - I am supporting Hillary, for all the reasons I did in 2008 (which are many, contrary to the belief of many). But I cannot help but notice how the Times is not ONLY "going after" Hillary, but also IGNORING Mr. Sanders. Whether it covers Mr. Sanders in a positive or negative light (though one would hope it would simply be a FAIR light), the Times SHOULD be covering his candidacy with the same amount of seriousness as it is covering Hillary's.
8
.
.
A lot of people bring up Judith Miller and Scooter Libby and "Curveball" and WMDs. I say, that's history, just like the non-existent attack on the USS Maddox in the Tonkin Gulf, and the Spanish destruction of the ["Remember the"] Maine.
Let's look at a less historic story to evaluate what happens when a false story is published (and transparency is not afforded to readers).
Page A17 of Sunday's Times will carry a story about an indictment against a Texas Attorney General (first Texas AG indicted in more than 30 years!!).
The story is online and is being cited by other news outlets. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/grand-jury-indicts-texas-attorney-g... The only named sources of information in the story are the AG's lawyer, the AG's spokesman, and one special prosecutor. None is quoted as saying there is an indictment. The indictment is "sealed" [legalese for secret, not-to-be-discussed, non-public, etc., like a "sealed" adoption proceeding] and is supposed to be unsealed when Court is in session. Lawyers are under a gag order.
If no one minds, I think I'll wait till Monday before I say that this man has been indicted on 2 felony counts. And I'll react the same way the next time NYT says a public figure is being criminally charged, and the next time, and the next -- unless there is a named source, a photo in court or in custody, or a copy of the document that contains the charges.
Once burned, twice shy.
.
A lot of people bring up Judith Miller and Scooter Libby and "Curveball" and WMDs. I say, that's history, just like the non-existent attack on the USS Maddox in the Tonkin Gulf, and the Spanish destruction of the ["Remember the"] Maine.
Let's look at a less historic story to evaluate what happens when a false story is published (and transparency is not afforded to readers).
Page A17 of Sunday's Times will carry a story about an indictment against a Texas Attorney General (first Texas AG indicted in more than 30 years!!).
The story is online and is being cited by other news outlets. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/grand-jury-indicts-texas-attorney-g... The only named sources of information in the story are the AG's lawyer, the AG's spokesman, and one special prosecutor. None is quoted as saying there is an indictment. The indictment is "sealed" [legalese for secret, not-to-be-discussed, non-public, etc., like a "sealed" adoption proceeding] and is supposed to be unsealed when Court is in session. Lawyers are under a gag order.
If no one minds, I think I'll wait till Monday before I say that this man has been indicted on 2 felony counts. And I'll react the same way the next time NYT says a public figure is being criminally charged, and the next time, and the next -- unless there is a named source, a photo in court or in custody, or a copy of the document that contains the charges.
Once burned, twice shy.
5
Ms. Sullivan, if anything, I am greatly heartened by the Times's rededication to a responsible newspaper's two major reasons for being: truth first, then fairness. Nothing else matters. Mrs. Clinton is, in many respects, admirable, but she is also contrived. Your editor, Mr. Bacquet, is quite correct in his assertions that Mrs. Clinton's candidacy is poised to replicate Barack Obama's historic victory and therefore she necessarily commands a greater share of the paper's repertorial resources. However, I am quite dismayed by the Times's apparent indifference to the scrum that is the stampede of Republican candidates. My fear is that, without the scrutiny that is Mrs. Clinton's cross, those in the Republican party who have no credentials for the office of president will, in fact, escape the searching scrupulosity that should be a minimum qualification for any New York Times reporter. Secretary Clinton's email stables badly need an airing and a cleaning. Her sideways relationship with the media is no reason for pursuing her relentlessly when other dangers (a host of unqualified men and and one woman) present themselves as presidential material as 2016 looms on the horizon. Our country's future is beset by many dangers and, right now, at least to me, Mrs. Clinton, unattractive as she is to many voters, should not receive attention that will be better directed elsewhere.
2
Hillary Clinton would not be the subject of so much scrutiny if she hadn't been "crowned" the Democratic nominee for the presidency. Others who are running are not getting nearly the same coverage as Mrs. Clinton because she has the money and they don't. She also doesn't like the press and shows it.
13
It is important to note that a significant and growing majority of Americans do not believe Hillary is honest or trustworthy for good reasons.
2
Gosh, I don't know why Clinton dislikes the press. Maybe it's their coverage of her personal appearance (cankles) instead of the issues. Maybe it's because she's bracing for another round of sexist coverage of her campaign. Or maybe it's because she doesn't kiss their butts.
3
Just because you dislike Secretary Clinton doesn't mean it's fair for the press to single her out for negative coverage. That's not how we roll in America.
7
Why not just concede that a profession in which employees can move freely from restaurant reviews to the education beat to campaign coverage is devoid of standards, and that the reporter who actually knows something about her subject is the exception, and a rare one.
The Times has failed the public so often and so consequentially -- with little, grudging or no concession of error -- that it's no wonder readers turn more and more to one-note blogs, where at least the writer is sufficiently interested and obsessive to actually cover the story.
The Times has failed the public so often and so consequentially -- with little, grudging or no concession of error -- that it's no wonder readers turn more and more to one-note blogs, where at least the writer is sufficiently interested and obsessive to actually cover the story.
72
And despite it all, it is eight hundred thousand times better than the alternatives. It's a little sad that this is the best we have, but really, it's the best we have.
2
I grant you every point you make, jrd. But this isn't just a systemic failure of professional training standards. And we've known for years, now, that what drives the management of this newspaper is a bizarre blend of arrogance and ignorance. What's most frightening about this comedy of serial errors, this celebration of bad reporting and editing, is that it could well affect the governance of the nation.
5
Thank you for mentioning this; I can't be the ONLY reader who questions how someone who is a restaurant critic, or food editor, can suddenly be promoted to political commentary -- without a shred of training, background, ability or knowledge. Is there really such an appalling lack of smart young journalists with poli sci backgrounds, that it was necessary to promote the restaurant critic to that position? Or is there an agenda here that nobody wants to talk about?
Scrutinizing the very powerful is very important, but these stories spun out of unsubstantiated suspicions that go on and on and get nowhere are not good journalism. Whitewater? What was the problem/ wrongdoing? Benghazi? Emails? Even the Monica Lewinski story which had substance was blown way out of proportion. Does the Times think it was on the way to Watergate-like revelations in pursuing any of these stories? If so, go for it. Otherwise, you're producing the journalistic equivalent of junk food. I ignored the recent story on Hillary Clinton when I saw it, thinking 'what crap.' Prove me wrong.
115
Exactly! Where's the outrage over the enormous amount of money and time wasted by all these dead-end political investigations--past, present and future?!?
How many Benghazi hearings have we had now? Why aren't you breathing down the GOP necks who are in charge of this ongoing nonsense?!?
Again, I'm not a big fan of either Clinton's but this borders on harassment. Mr. Schmidt needs a minder.
How many Benghazi hearings have we had now? Why aren't you breathing down the GOP necks who are in charge of this ongoing nonsense?!?
Again, I'm not a big fan of either Clinton's but this borders on harassment. Mr. Schmidt needs a minder.
1
What many readers may actually object to in the Times's coverage of Mrs. Clinton is that she keeps tracking mud into her own house with such frequency, and every track realistically needs to be pointed out and analyzed. Having the mud continuously noted can get old if you're a supporter, but the real question needs to be asked, "Why all the mud?"
Rather than faulting the Times for excessive coverage of what can only be regarded as negative NEWS, the Clintons might profitably consider tracking less mud.
Rather than faulting the Times for excessive coverage of what can only be regarded as negative NEWS, the Clintons might profitably consider tracking less mud.
21
That's not the issue at all, Richard. The problem is that the Times went to great lengths to spend two whole years anointing Clinton "the presumptive Democratic nominee," complete with her own beat reporter, long before she declared anything other than a desire to retire from Foggy Bottom. That oft stated presumption served as a quite effective deterrent against any other prospective Democratic candidacies. There was no other potential candidate with a beat reporter to follow her around to book signings and corporate speeches as was afforded to Clinton.
There is plenty of baggage that the Clintons haul around. An army of sherpas is required to manage it. But that's not the issue, either. The Times used anonymous sources who gulled the Times on this story. And tone deaf Matt Purdy simply says that "very good sources got it wrong." Sound familiar? It's the same excuse Judith Miller was using earlier *this year* to make the insupportable claim that she had the WMD story right in these pages, with anonymous sources, wrong sources notwithstanding, in 2003. And it was the same excuse used 13 months ago when Ms. Sullivan asked "When Anonymous Sources Get It Wrong" by business editor Dean Murphy, when anonymous sources floated an insider trading accusation at golfer Phil Mickelson worthy of Oops Perry. What I am offended by is the Times' startling ability to make the same mistake repeatedly without learning not to be naive. Where has journalistic skepticism gone & how to get it back?
There is plenty of baggage that the Clintons haul around. An army of sherpas is required to manage it. But that's not the issue, either. The Times used anonymous sources who gulled the Times on this story. And tone deaf Matt Purdy simply says that "very good sources got it wrong." Sound familiar? It's the same excuse Judith Miller was using earlier *this year* to make the insupportable claim that she had the WMD story right in these pages, with anonymous sources, wrong sources notwithstanding, in 2003. And it was the same excuse used 13 months ago when Ms. Sullivan asked "When Anonymous Sources Get It Wrong" by business editor Dean Murphy, when anonymous sources floated an insider trading accusation at golfer Phil Mickelson worthy of Oops Perry. What I am offended by is the Times' startling ability to make the same mistake repeatedly without learning not to be naive. Where has journalistic skepticism gone & how to get it back?
6
You are really wrong here.
Everybody tracks mud, it's just a matter of who's reporting it.
Look at Bill Cosby. That guy was America's guiding light back when Reagan was President. Do you really think that nobody knew what was up with him ?
Same deal with Brian Williams, and with Bill O'Reilly. Three weeks of bad press can destroy a career. Brian Williams got the full three weeks, O'Reilly somehow only got one. That's the only difference. And Cosby, he's on year two ...
It's all a matter of coverage, and what editorial boards want to run, and what they want to withhold.
Everybody tracks mud, it's just a matter of who's reporting it.
Look at Bill Cosby. That guy was America's guiding light back when Reagan was President. Do you really think that nobody knew what was up with him ?
Same deal with Brian Williams, and with Bill O'Reilly. Three weeks of bad press can destroy a career. Brian Williams got the full three weeks, O'Reilly somehow only got one. That's the only difference. And Cosby, he's on year two ...
It's all a matter of coverage, and what editorial boards want to run, and what they want to withhold.
5
What you view as "mud" to most of is is the normal daily grit everyone has on his or her shoes when they enter their home. There is plenty of real mud on the 20 something and counting GOP candidate platform and it is so deep one needs waders.
4
An acquaintance of mine went to the trouble of counting the hit pieces Maureen Dowd has written about Hillary Clinton over the years and it came to more than 100. That is more than 2 years of Sundays devoted to sliming Mrs. Clinton. Another way of looking at is that over the last quarter century Ms Dowd has devoted almost 10% of her columns to pursuing her vendetta against Mrs. Clinton. And this is not counting the columns devoted to slandering Bill Clinton. And I'm supposed to believe you folks don't have a vendetta?
234
Yes, yes, yes!
It seems that in an effort for the Times to not appear partisan, and please the right-wing knuckled draggers on Fox News, they are willing to level their vast journalistic resources to attacking Hillary Clinton. This needs to stop or not only will they lose this subscriber but their reputation will be left in tatters and not worthy of trust for a very long time. This needs to stop now.
74
Dear Public Editor:
Ms Clinton is a polarizing figure.
Hence, no matter what you report someone will find fault with you.
The NYT caters both to to very rich - real estate section being a good example - and the liberal left.
Not an easy position to be in.
Overall, you are doing well.
Ms Clinton is a polarizing figure.
Hence, no matter what you report someone will find fault with you.
The NYT caters both to to very rich - real estate section being a good example - and the liberal left.
Not an easy position to be in.
Overall, you are doing well.
9
Woof,
How does someone who rests in the center of American political opinion become a polarizing figure? Whether one likes or does not like Hilary Clinton she is a conservative democrat and far from any political extreme. I see nothing in what Mrs. Clinton does to suggest she drives anyone who believes in moderate centrist politics to a political polarity.
Someone like myself who believes we are in need of dramatic change sees in Bernie Sanders an opportunity to start some fundamental needed changes and sees in Mrs Clinton same old same old but that is a long way to polarizing. The loudest hissing and jeering is coming from the poles but reactionary politics are not part and parcel of Secretary Clinton.
Here in Quebec she would always and only be Hilary Rodham but even that would be a step to far for someone of Secretary Clinton's conservative mindset.
How does someone who rests in the center of American political opinion become a polarizing figure? Whether one likes or does not like Hilary Clinton she is a conservative democrat and far from any political extreme. I see nothing in what Mrs. Clinton does to suggest she drives anyone who believes in moderate centrist politics to a political polarity.
Someone like myself who believes we are in need of dramatic change sees in Bernie Sanders an opportunity to start some fundamental needed changes and sees in Mrs Clinton same old same old but that is a long way to polarizing. The loudest hissing and jeering is coming from the poles but reactionary politics are not part and parcel of Secretary Clinton.
Here in Quebec she would always and only be Hilary Rodham but even that would be a step to far for someone of Secretary Clinton's conservative mindset.
1
Although the Times has published 1,000 positive “news” items (such as "Hillary Clinton, Unapologetic Grandma" on July 13th) and has had a full-time reporter assigned to the “Hillary beat,” one negative item printed in error and apologized for has everyone screaming that the Times is anti-Clinton and misogynist
Last Monday the Public Editor’s blog post about this Times error should have been the end of the story
Last Monday the Public Editor’s blog post about this Times error should have been the end of the story
13
At least it should open a conversation about the Times' steadfast refusal to cover any other Democrat seeking the nomination...except for today's joint effort between longtime Clinton antagonist Mo Dowd and Clinton beat reporter Amy Chozick entreating Joe Biden to save us all from Hillary. And after all the Hillary book signings Chozick attended on her Times salary...
10
You clearly don't understand, sir or madam. That this newspaper has assigned a full-time reporter to Mrs. Clinton since before the campaign began is the proof positive that the paper is hyperfocused on her for some reason.
2
lenny-t, the issue is not about a negative article. The issue is that the NY Times has been consistently going to press with MADE UP smears from anonymous sources that were eventually proven to be untrue. The NY Times has a responsibility to do a modicum of fact checking. (Please tell me you're not against getting facts right.) And even with public outrage, the NY Times buries their very weak apology if they bother to make one.
6
Thank you, Ms. Sullivan. This is more like it. Let's hope Baquet and Purdy, especially, also get it and more important, do something about it.
Right now, the most "tortured" part of this tale continues to be Purdy's non-apologies. So Hillary deserves scrutiny because she has been in government, is wealthy, and is linked to a past president? Well then, what about Jeb! Bush with his past governance of Florida (during a giant vote-counting scandal, not to mention other Florida-esque problems), his family's equal or greater wealth, and his links to not one, but two, past presidents? I don't see Purdy digging up dirt on Jeb, or other reporters either, for that matter. I seem to remember a long article lauding Jeb!'s weight loss regime and his healthy diet. What kind of "telling" and important story is that?
And really, no candidate should have to be either wealthy or have a past history in (or with others in) government, to merit scrutiny on their positions and their potential. If Purdy is most interested in writing about celebrities, he needs to transfer to a different section or, better yet, a different branch of journalism.
I expect more serious, and less biased, coverage from the NY Times and no, I do NOT favor breaking (non)-news and salacious scoops over slower, more serious, accurate, and accurately sourced, reporting. Please keep up your good work letting writers and editors know that there are many of us who'd like to see the improvements you have recommended.
Right now, the most "tortured" part of this tale continues to be Purdy's non-apologies. So Hillary deserves scrutiny because she has been in government, is wealthy, and is linked to a past president? Well then, what about Jeb! Bush with his past governance of Florida (during a giant vote-counting scandal, not to mention other Florida-esque problems), his family's equal or greater wealth, and his links to not one, but two, past presidents? I don't see Purdy digging up dirt on Jeb, or other reporters either, for that matter. I seem to remember a long article lauding Jeb!'s weight loss regime and his healthy diet. What kind of "telling" and important story is that?
And really, no candidate should have to be either wealthy or have a past history in (or with others in) government, to merit scrutiny on their positions and their potential. If Purdy is most interested in writing about celebrities, he needs to transfer to a different section or, better yet, a different branch of journalism.
I expect more serious, and less biased, coverage from the NY Times and no, I do NOT favor breaking (non)-news and salacious scoops over slower, more serious, accurate, and accurately sourced, reporting. Please keep up your good work letting writers and editors know that there are many of us who'd like to see the improvements you have recommended.
93
"The reporting on Mrs. Clinton from such a dominant news source has an unfairly critical edge."
I remember the 2007 campaign between Clinton and Obama and the caustic
opinion pieces about Mrs. Clinton penned by Frank Rich. MoDo seems to have taken up the banner in this election cycle with her scathing tirades about Clinton.
I remember the 2007 campaign between Clinton and Obama and the caustic
opinion pieces about Mrs. Clinton penned by Frank Rich. MoDo seems to have taken up the banner in this election cycle with her scathing tirades about Clinton.
58
You're being too generous.The Spinster Dowd was roundly criticized for her sneering coverage of Mrs. Clinton's candidacy in 2008. In addition, Media Matters has documented Miss Dowd's bizarre and virulent decades-long obsession with all things Hillary Clinton.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/opinion/22pubed.html?pagewanted=all
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/18/the-numbers-behind-maureen-dowds...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/opinion/22pubed.html?pagewanted=all
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/18/the-numbers-behind-maureen-dowds...
3
Interesting. I remember the New York Times endorsing Hillary Clinton over Barrack Obama in the 2008 presidential primary. Do Hillary and her supporters claiming constant bias recall that?
1
The comment, the response, and the links referenced Maureen Dowd, not the stand of the NYT editorial board in January of 2008.
I will have to second the feelings of so many of these commenters critical of how NY Times has "mistreated" Mrs. Clinton. My earlier comment on this subject was not even published. As I said then, Mr. Bacquet has to go only because he is the chief editor. Maureen Dowd's article just a few days ago was a total abomination. One does not wish to see such unreasoned diatribe in a paper like the Times even about the Republican candidates who most would consider unfit even for any government position, let alone the presidency of US.
85
mr. baquet has nothing to do with what ms. dowd writes. she works for the editorial page editor, who reports to the publisher.
3
You sure about that? Yes, the news pages and editorial pages are separately managed but not quite the way you describe.
Best to pay close attention to actual facts, NYT, before you publish damaging falsehoods and then issue weak correctives later, that only a few will learn of.
69
Maria - you mean its best to pay close attention to actual facts in defense of democratic party candidates. If it were a republican who was misrepresented, no one here would care - they'd like that.
And liking it sells newspapers.
And liking it sells newspapers.
2
Yes the Times has exhibited egregious bias in the coverage of Ms. Clinton. It has been an overwhelmingly pro-Clinton bias that, as in this case, shows the Times willing to re-write any story the Hillary camp questions and then flagellating themselves in contrition.
The Times has preached the "inevitability" of Hillary from the beginning as it continually denigrates Senator Sanders as "impossible" and virtually ignores O'Malley.
Meanwhile every Republican wingnut from Cruz to Trump gets substantially more coverage than the Democratic challengers.
Perhaps as Mr. Baquet urges his reporters to focus anew on "issues stories" the Times might actually start running some stories about Ms. Clinton's issues and positions rather than just regurgitating her focus group derived pablum. Instead we get hard hitting editorials from the Times like July 13ths, "Hillary Clinton, Unapologetic Grandma".
It is time for the Times to stop genuflecting at the Altar of Clinton and treat her as the shape shifting, focus group defined, ethically and morally conflicted individual that she truly is.
The Times has preached the "inevitability" of Hillary from the beginning as it continually denigrates Senator Sanders as "impossible" and virtually ignores O'Malley.
Meanwhile every Republican wingnut from Cruz to Trump gets substantially more coverage than the Democratic challengers.
Perhaps as Mr. Baquet urges his reporters to focus anew on "issues stories" the Times might actually start running some stories about Ms. Clinton's issues and positions rather than just regurgitating her focus group derived pablum. Instead we get hard hitting editorials from the Times like July 13ths, "Hillary Clinton, Unapologetic Grandma".
It is time for the Times to stop genuflecting at the Altar of Clinton and treat her as the shape shifting, focus group defined, ethically and morally conflicted individual that she truly is.
16
The Times’ political coverage has been abysmal. An incredible amount of fluff has been printed about Hillary Clinton and little about her positions on issues. She will only take on an issue if she sees a political advantage; unlike Sanders, she will not take on an issue through conviction.
17
I agree with everyone here - the Times is in some sort of bubble of its own if it can't see how biased and opinionated its coverage of Hillary Clinton is in its news pages. The relentlessness of covering her person appearance, her personality, her home life all belittle her huge achievements. And the excuse? She's a female politician who might have a shot at being president, so we can cover any angle on that basis. It's no wonder women don't achieve public positions as often as they should in this society. I think she should be treated as the same gender as the other candidates and given respect and a fair shot instead of rehashing criticism that was mostly false to begin with.
166
What are her huge achievements ? Just enlighten me? I understand it's tough for liberals to see the nyt deviate from it's leftwing bias. I understand your pain
2
Honestly, the excessive focus and "heir apparent" business has made me *less* likely to vote for Mrs. Clinton. I feel like she's being forced down my throat. I want a competitive primary, not one that is predetermined by the press or by the big money contributors she and her husband have lined up.
2
Hillary is singled out because she's comfortable allowing herself to get into trouble, and yet she has a delusion that this conduct won't be noticed as she wends her way to 1600.
Fair-minded Americans are permitted to wonder whether she's deranged or just unlucky.
Fair-minded Americans are permitted to wonder whether she's deranged or just unlucky.
I am not even sure that I know what this means as a justification: “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.” Is he rationalizing prejudicial coverage based on the quality of a resume?
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.)" "Telling story" is way too loaded to go unexplained! And, how about covering the "some observers"? (e.g., some of the emails contained non-classified data that was later classified; isn't this the crux of the matter, at least as we know it so far?)
And, finally, as some of your own columnists have so often pointed out, tit-for-tat coverage and commentary does not equal rational or equitable coverage. I am referring to Evan Hannay's 'telling" elaboration on "If you look at our body of work, I don’t believe we have been unfair.” Is he saying that reporting that so-an-so is a murder and a philanthropist is balanced reporting?
I am not really a long-time subscriber, but I'm beginning to think that I deserve an eight-month timeout.
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.)" "Telling story" is way too loaded to go unexplained! And, how about covering the "some observers"? (e.g., some of the emails contained non-classified data that was later classified; isn't this the crux of the matter, at least as we know it so far?)
And, finally, as some of your own columnists have so often pointed out, tit-for-tat coverage and commentary does not equal rational or equitable coverage. I am referring to Evan Hannay's 'telling" elaboration on "If you look at our body of work, I don’t believe we have been unfair.” Is he saying that reporting that so-an-so is a murder and a philanthropist is balanced reporting?
I am not really a long-time subscriber, but I'm beginning to think that I deserve an eight-month timeout.
47
What your first quote means is that Hillary Clinton has been at the intersection of shattering amounts of money from people who want things, and the power to deliver those things, which it appears she has delivered in some cases, and been paid for. Personally, I would love reporters to do digging for actual facts, and determine whether or not malfeasance occurred, and if a candidate intentionally obstructs that digging, I'm fine with reporters interpreting it negatively.
2
The woman has been mocked and lampooned by the right-wing for decades and then people are miffed because she seems cautious. She chooses her words carefully, but then she's called secretive. The press itself has trumpeted her as the presumptive candidate for two years, but then describes her as "entitled."
She'll never be one of the good old boys, no one will ever describe her as someone they'd like to have a beer with, and Maureen Dowd will never have a good word for her. But she's smart, tough, experienced, hard-working and a Democrat. That's good enough for me.
She'll never be one of the good old boys, no one will ever describe her as someone they'd like to have a beer with, and Maureen Dowd will never have a good word for her. But she's smart, tough, experienced, hard-working and a Democrat. That's good enough for me.
222
Thank you for saying this and saying it well. I have been impressed with Secretary Clinton since she was First Lady of Arkansas. I will be an enthusiastic supporter of hers "until the last dog dies."
31
Madeline, very well said.
1
The press shouldn't do either. She's subject to excessive criticism and at the same time, declared the heir apparent long before the primary -- a case of the press making the news with speculation rather than reporting it. And when Sanders comes along, he doesn't fit into the press's picture of who is going to win, so again, the press tries to make the news by declaring, over and over, that he can't. The negative slant of the Sanders articles is risible.
Meanwhile, the Republicans lie through their teeth and the only criticism they get is for making some kind of foolish gaffe.
Meanwhile, the Republicans lie through their teeth and the only criticism they get is for making some kind of foolish gaffe.
6
Frankly, there hasn't been enough solid, journalistic attention paid to Clinton's email server story. But the problem here is the one that was covered in recent previous columns: the Times rushes to get something up online before actually having a full story (and often uses an ill-chosen headline).
7
I just realized this is the first time I have seriously considered cancelling my Times subscription. I would miss some of the coverage. But certainly not the misogny directed at Ms Rodman Clinton continually in NYT and my own anger in reading it. I don't need to pay $15.00 per month for a dish of misogny when I get it for free everyday in this culture. I would donate the $180.00 saved to Ms. Rodman Clinton's campaign. Seems only fitting.
139
I'm paying $70 a month and furious.
2
That sounds like a logical solution to me.
2
Mainstream media is obligated to scrutinize every presidential candidate to the degree and with the same fairness applied to Hillary Clinton. The obligation is to provide the American people facts that they may need to determine who should be their 45th president.
I believe good journalists can
- find and present facts about what candidates are saying/proposing,
- compare what candidates are saying/proposing with past actions/statements,
- objectively analyze the impact that candidates have had as governors, senators...
- provide the American people a sense of the strengths and weakness of each candidate's character.
Hillary Clinton may provide a lot of material for sensational articles/op-eds that titillate readers and increase subscriptions, but democracy demands more.
I believe good journalists can
- find and present facts about what candidates are saying/proposing,
- compare what candidates are saying/proposing with past actions/statements,
- objectively analyze the impact that candidates have had as governors, senators...
- provide the American people a sense of the strengths and weakness of each candidate's character.
Hillary Clinton may provide a lot of material for sensational articles/op-eds that titillate readers and increase subscriptions, but democracy demands more.
14
Now, now, Mr. Purdy: Mrs. Clinton's most likely Republican opponent is the son of one president, brother of another, former governor of a major state, and member of a family of millionaires who has been dogged by many questions about shady business deals. When the Times wrote about them, in April, the story was properly sourced and Mr. Bush was allowed to respond to charges about his activities.
The minute-by-minute account that Mrs. Clinton's campaign has published is extremely credible. The Times, despite Mr. Basquet's use of the word "screw-up," has still not fully retracted its story or apologized to Mrs. Clinton and its readers. And let's not even mention the vague unhingedness that suffuses every Maureen Dowd column about either one of the Clintons.
The minute-by-minute account that Mrs. Clinton's campaign has published is extremely credible. The Times, despite Mr. Basquet's use of the word "screw-up," has still not fully retracted its story or apologized to Mrs. Clinton and its readers. And let's not even mention the vague unhingedness that suffuses every Maureen Dowd column about either one of the Clintons.
197
I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but NYT's attacks on Hillary are nothing new, and many have been over the top. Does the word "Hiltery" ring a bell? I recall a streak where 11 out of 14 columns by Dowd had criticisms of Hillary Clinton {bloggers counted}, including a couple where the subject had nothing to do with her. And a Frank Rich column attacked her competence because her campaign spent $50,000 on food at Dunkin' Doughnuts, treating that as if they'd been dining at Le Cirque.
68
Remember that the NY Times changed articles based on input from the Hilary Campaign. They have not done that for any of the republican candidates...
1
Spare me. The New York Times too tough on Hillary Clinton? Times coverage gives only a fraction of the picture of the Clinton misdeeds and scandals. A small fraction.
As to the objectors whom the Public Editor cites in taking up the cudgels, I can’t speak to Jay Rosen. But Rachel Maddow, of Al Sharpton’s MSNBC? Who is even farther left than Ed Koch’s classic phrase “to the left of Chairman Mao.” James Fallows, once President Carter’s chief White House speechwriter, a long time writer for the Atlantic which consistently champions President Obama and attacks conservatives. The facts in “Clinton Cash” can’t be disputed so include the Times in the shooting of the messenger because it had an agreement with the author.
Years ago we saw one Clinton scandal after another, of Bill, of Hillary, of both. Nothing has changed, including the lies and the cover-ups. The Times indeed deserves credit for not leaving the Hillary Clinton malfeasance to the conservative media.
The Public Editor duly took the Times to the wood shed on the IG inquiry story. This column is a sequel shot across the bow--the Times should watch itself so as not to roil the left or the Public Editor will be back on the case. Which hardly serves the interests of standards of journalism excellence. Eventually, of course, news coverage aside, the Times will endorse Mrs. Clinton in the Democratic primaries and in the presidential election when inevitably she becomes the Democratic nominee.
As to the objectors whom the Public Editor cites in taking up the cudgels, I can’t speak to Jay Rosen. But Rachel Maddow, of Al Sharpton’s MSNBC? Who is even farther left than Ed Koch’s classic phrase “to the left of Chairman Mao.” James Fallows, once President Carter’s chief White House speechwriter, a long time writer for the Atlantic which consistently champions President Obama and attacks conservatives. The facts in “Clinton Cash” can’t be disputed so include the Times in the shooting of the messenger because it had an agreement with the author.
Years ago we saw one Clinton scandal after another, of Bill, of Hillary, of both. Nothing has changed, including the lies and the cover-ups. The Times indeed deserves credit for not leaving the Hillary Clinton malfeasance to the conservative media.
The Public Editor duly took the Times to the wood shed on the IG inquiry story. This column is a sequel shot across the bow--the Times should watch itself so as not to roil the left or the Public Editor will be back on the case. Which hardly serves the interests of standards of journalism excellence. Eventually, of course, news coverage aside, the Times will endorse Mrs. Clinton in the Democratic primaries and in the presidential election when inevitably she becomes the Democratic nominee.
8
Apparently you don't remember that there actually was well-funde
Contrary to Clinton's complaint about unfair coverage, the NYT and other liberal media often refuse to cover or bury inside matters that are front page leads when conducted by others. For example, the Times has given massive coverage to Bill Cosby's sexual crimes, but have ignored the more than ten young single women who have charged Bill Clinton with crimes ranging from rape (Juanita Broderick) to indecent exposure (Paula Jones). Moreover, each of these sex crime accusers have fingered Hillary as orchestrating campaigns to publicly denigrate and terrorize them into silence. The fact that the Clinton's had to pay Paula Jones $800,000 in damages is proof that Hillary's claims of innocence were lies. So Hillary being a sex crime supporter is not as worthy of a magazine lead as Bill Crosby, who's an entertainer, not a candidate for high office?
9
Ms. Sullivan, I thank you for your thoughtful analysis of the shortcomings of the NY Times's treatment of Mrs. Clinton. However, your efforts are not enough to offset the very clear bias against Mrs. Clinton that is continuously displayed by the NY Times editorial staff. Today's hatchet job by Maureen Dowd that masqueraded as a Pro-Biden piece is yet another example. I will be canceling my subscription tomorrow (I tried today, but I left it too late in the day). I am very disappointed - I expected so much more from the NY Times. It is saddening to see how far the NY Times has fallen from its perch as one of the few newspapers in the Western World that a reader could rely on for honest, accurate, agenda-free journalism.
128
" It is saddening to see how far the NY Times has fallen from its perch as one of the few newspapers in the Western World that a reader could rely on for honest, accurate, agenda-free journalism."
Yep, and it's time for Ms. Sullivan to take that on. Because this problem isn't just limited to Hillary Clinton. The Times has changed from a relatively neutral source of objective journalism into an agenda-driven news source like The Guardian.
Yep, and it's time for Ms. Sullivan to take that on. Because this problem isn't just limited to Hillary Clinton. The Times has changed from a relatively neutral source of objective journalism into an agenda-driven news source like The Guardian.
3
We've been waiting for this article for a long time.
24
Re: been waiting for this article. It's not the first time they've done one. I've seen at least 2 others.
The Times put an article about Sen. Rubio's and his wife's traffic tickets on the front page. There has been plenty of harsh coverage on both sides. Clinton is the strong front runner of one of the two major parties. It is not clear how much she will be challenged in the primary process. It is vital that all major news outlets take a hard look at Hillary Clinton given the complications that her husband and foundation and all the crazy speech fees add to the process.
6
.
@ Todd Stuart:
SIX MONTHS before the Iowa Caucuses, there is a front-runner? And not just a front-runner: a "strong" front-runner?
I disagree. Vehemently. I imagine President Howard Dean would disagree as well.
If a front-runner must be designated before anyone has a chance to vote, at least wait until there have been 3 candidate debates! It is on those stages that one learns if a candidate will say "oops", or will refer to "binders full of women".
@ Todd Stuart:
SIX MONTHS before the Iowa Caucuses, there is a front-runner? And not just a front-runner: a "strong" front-runner?
I disagree. Vehemently. I imagine President Howard Dean would disagree as well.
If a front-runner must be designated before anyone has a chance to vote, at least wait until there have been 3 candidate debates! It is on those stages that one learns if a candidate will say "oops", or will refer to "binders full of women".
10
While there is no doubt of the Times ongoing bias in their coverage of Secretary Clinton, the Times doubling down and not admitting any wrongdoing on the criminal inquiry story pertaining to her emails is disturbing.
The story still doesn't make sense. Multiple press reports state the State Dept has two email systems- a secure email system for classified information and an unsecure email system. Secretary Clinton's personal email account on her server was in lieu of using her unsecure government email account. If anyone sent classified information to her, including summarization of classified information to any unsecure email, a criminal referral would be appropriate as it pertains to the sender, not the recipient, unless the email was marked "classified" or the recipient had knowledge that the email included classified information. The Times and other media outlets focus on the server, but how is it relevant? If Clinton uses a private server, classified information was potentially compromised unknown to her. If she used her personal email, but didn't maintain her own server, classified information was maintained on an unsecure server maintained by a vendor. If the classified information was sent to her unsecure government email, how would the result be any different in terms of classified information sent on an unsecure email account? The Times story failed to address this point at all, and the statements from the State Dept. IG needed further vetting and explanation.
The story still doesn't make sense. Multiple press reports state the State Dept has two email systems- a secure email system for classified information and an unsecure email system. Secretary Clinton's personal email account on her server was in lieu of using her unsecure government email account. If anyone sent classified information to her, including summarization of classified information to any unsecure email, a criminal referral would be appropriate as it pertains to the sender, not the recipient, unless the email was marked "classified" or the recipient had knowledge that the email included classified information. The Times and other media outlets focus on the server, but how is it relevant? If Clinton uses a private server, classified information was potentially compromised unknown to her. If she used her personal email, but didn't maintain her own server, classified information was maintained on an unsecure server maintained by a vendor. If the classified information was sent to her unsecure government email, how would the result be any different in terms of classified information sent on an unsecure email account? The Times story failed to address this point at all, and the statements from the State Dept. IG needed further vetting and explanation.
57
This is very well put - is it indeed true that she had a 'secure' email and an 'unsecure' one? I hadn't heard this before, but if so it makes the smear against her even more ludicrous.
6
This is very well put - is it indeed true that she had a 'secure' email and an 'unsecure' one? I hadn't heard this before, but if so it makes the smear against her even more ludicrous.
==================
You are completely missing the point of these stories.
The IGs and security agencies are saying that Sec. Clinton transmitted classified information to others using her unsecured private server and unsecured private devices. In addition to putting this information at virtually certain risk of being hacked, she failed to identify in the emails (as required by procedure & law) that the messages contained classified information.
The agencies are saying that there are likely hundreds of emails like this in the ones she decided to release back to State and on the unsecured flash drive that her lawyer is carrying around.
This demonstrates amazing ignorance and irresponsibiity on Clinton's part.
==================
You are completely missing the point of these stories.
The IGs and security agencies are saying that Sec. Clinton transmitted classified information to others using her unsecured private server and unsecured private devices. In addition to putting this information at virtually certain risk of being hacked, she failed to identify in the emails (as required by procedure & law) that the messages contained classified information.
The agencies are saying that there are likely hundreds of emails like this in the ones she decided to release back to State and on the unsecured flash drive that her lawyer is carrying around.
This demonstrates amazing ignorance and irresponsibiity on Clinton's part.
Multiple press reports state the State Dept has two email systems- a secure email system for classified information and an unsecure email system. Secretary Clinton's personal email account on her server was in lieu of using her unsecure government email account. If anyone sent classified information to her, including summarization of classified information to any unsecure email, a criminal referral would be appropriate as it pertains to the sender, not the recipient, unless the email was marked "classified" or the recipient had knowledge that the email included classified information. The Times and other media outlets focus on the server, but how is it relevant? If Clinton uses a private server, classified information was potentially compromised unknown to her.
===================
What the press reports are saying is that Mrs. Clinton herself transmitted classified information using her unsecured private email. In addition, she also did not note on her emails that had this information that it was classified.
They are saying that the thousands of emails she gave to the State Department to release, that there are likely hundreds of emails where she transmitted classified data using her unsecured private server. This clearly violates procedure and law.
Ask Gen. Petraeus.
===================
What the press reports are saying is that Mrs. Clinton herself transmitted classified information using her unsecured private email. In addition, she also did not note on her emails that had this information that it was classified.
They are saying that the thousands of emails she gave to the State Department to release, that there are likely hundreds of emails where she transmitted classified data using her unsecured private server. This clearly violates procedure and law.
Ask Gen. Petraeus.
The Times' treatment of Hillary Clinton reeks of misogyny. And here we have another non-apology apology, similar to the one about sports writers at the Times discussing female athletes' bodies. I'm disappointed in the Times' constant attacks on Hillary, but not surprised. Any woman who reads your paper regularly can smell your scant and unfair coverage of the female gender a mile away. We don't need Rachel Maddow to point it out to us, though I'm glad she spoke out about it. It's quite sad...because I expected more from a "liberal" newspaper. But I've come to expect men to have a blind spot when it comes to women, even supposedly "liberal" or "feminist" men.
91
Evidence? I am not expressing a judgement, pro or con, here, because I honestly don't know. But the Times has no shortage of female editors and reporters at this point, and the anti-Clinton columnist people are most complaining about here is Maureen Dowd.
Again, I don't know, but I've seen the Times smear male Democratic candidates in its election coverage too (Gore and Bill Clinton come to mind).
Again, I don't know, but I've seen the Times smear male Democratic candidates in its election coverage too (Gore and Bill Clinton come to mind).
1
Margaret Sullivan is doing a good job.
I don't know that it is in her power, in the potential of her position, to effect the changes that she acknowledges need to be made.
Still, she calls them out. She sees them, and says them.
It is refreshing. I hope it becomes even more.
I don't know that it is in her power, in the potential of her position, to effect the changes that she acknowledges need to be made.
Still, she calls them out. She sees them, and says them.
It is refreshing. I hope it becomes even more.
36
What is depressing is the institutional inability to concede error under Ms. Sullivan's perfectly reasonable questioning.
We get non answers like Matt Purdy who says "We got it wrong because our very goid sources got it wrong." How about, "we got it wrong because we relied solely on anonymous sources and regularly fail to adhere to our own explicit standards for their use." How about, "we got it wrong because we learned nothing from an anonymous source steering the Business Section wrong in almost the identical fashion 13 months ago?"
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/17/anonywatch-when-unnamed...
How about "we got it wrong because we pursued a scoop on offer from agenda driven sources who wanted, and to whom we granted, anonymity, and we were so intoxicated that we abandoned all journalistic skepticism?"
How often do Dean Baquet and others need to promise to curtail anonymous sourcing before we readers demand it? By the way, there are three more examples that spent time on today's digital front page: Amy Chozick's plea for a Biden challenge, and two articles about intelligence gone wrong in Syria, where military intelligence can't separate our friends from our enemies.
We get non answers like Matt Purdy who says "We got it wrong because our very goid sources got it wrong." How about, "we got it wrong because we relied solely on anonymous sources and regularly fail to adhere to our own explicit standards for their use." How about, "we got it wrong because we learned nothing from an anonymous source steering the Business Section wrong in almost the identical fashion 13 months ago?"
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/17/anonywatch-when-unnamed...
How about "we got it wrong because we pursued a scoop on offer from agenda driven sources who wanted, and to whom we granted, anonymity, and we were so intoxicated that we abandoned all journalistic skepticism?"
How often do Dean Baquet and others need to promise to curtail anonymous sourcing before we readers demand it? By the way, there are three more examples that spent time on today's digital front page: Amy Chozick's plea for a Biden challenge, and two articles about intelligence gone wrong in Syria, where military intelligence can't separate our friends from our enemies.
86
And... who exactly was the anonymous source? If it was a member of Trey Gowdy's committee that is a very serious problem.
6
[[The reporting on Mrs. Clinton from such a dominant news source has an unfairly critical edge.]]
I was disappointed in the Times for screwing up the criminal inquiry story, but I think that the money and image making in presidential politics needs to be countered by very aggressive reporting.
Clinton's operation is as secretive as Palin's was and they both rely on the same tactic of blaming "the media" for their problems.
She accomplished nothing as Secretary of state (except to create a scandal over her handling of emails), quit the administration and made tens of millions of dollars in the past three years by giving speeches.
I don't like her and - more importantly - I don't trust her.
I was disappointed in the Times for screwing up the criminal inquiry story, but I think that the money and image making in presidential politics needs to be countered by very aggressive reporting.
Clinton's operation is as secretive as Palin's was and they both rely on the same tactic of blaming "the media" for their problems.
She accomplished nothing as Secretary of state (except to create a scandal over her handling of emails), quit the administration and made tens of millions of dollars in the past three years by giving speeches.
I don't like her and - more importantly - I don't trust her.
10
@third coast: I don't like her or trust her, either. So how about the Times report on Bernie Sanders, who is drawing crowds that dwarf Clinton's events? Instead, Mo Dowd and Clinton beat reporter Amy Chozick cook up a heart felt imploration for Joe Biden to challenge Clinton to become what the Times has been calling her for 2 years now, "the presumptive Democratic nominee."
All of this serves to demonstrate how dismal the Times' political coverage has long been.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/riding-the-republican-r...
In this entry from December, 2011, Ms. Sullivan's predecessor, Arthur Brisbane, asks about the Times' refusal to cover the candidacy for the Republican nomination of Ron Paul. Then Political Editor Richard Stevenson gave an answer remarkable in both its tone deafness and in its arrogance: "Not all campaigns are created equal." We pick and choose which campaigns are worthy of coverage, and which are given the back of our hand. As with anonymous sources proven wrong, the Times refused to learn from its 2012 campaign coverage, where the Times treated the campaigns of Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum seriously, while maintaining its indifference to that of Ron Paul. Cain was treated seriously, even though Rachel Maddow correctly identified it as a put on. Stop arrogantly trying to decide what the news is and just report it, OK?
All of this serves to demonstrate how dismal the Times' political coverage has long been.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/riding-the-republican-r...
In this entry from December, 2011, Ms. Sullivan's predecessor, Arthur Brisbane, asks about the Times' refusal to cover the candidacy for the Republican nomination of Ron Paul. Then Political Editor Richard Stevenson gave an answer remarkable in both its tone deafness and in its arrogance: "Not all campaigns are created equal." We pick and choose which campaigns are worthy of coverage, and which are given the back of our hand. As with anonymous sources proven wrong, the Times refused to learn from its 2012 campaign coverage, where the Times treated the campaigns of Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum seriously, while maintaining its indifference to that of Ron Paul. Cain was treated seriously, even though Rachel Maddow correctly identified it as a put on. Stop arrogantly trying to decide what the news is and just report it, OK?
15
You don't know her, either.
2
I have read the whole body of NY Times articles on Hillary Clinton in 2014 and 2015 and I am deeply disappointed in the NY Times lack of professional standards in the majority of articles you write about her. On other matters I have trusted the Times and encouraged my children to read your articles and have sent them to friends all over the world. I've supported you financially when it was not easy to do so. I will watch the articles on Hillary Clinton that come forward. If I continue to see your professional journalism standards again lowered to Fox Entertainment levels against Hillary Clinton, I will immediately withdraw my financial and other support of your paper. Please do not embarrass yourselves further and dishonor the real service your paper used to provide to the world.
169
Your position assumes you know what's true and what's not true regarding Mrs. Clinton. You don't. You can't.
7
.
I have left "literally" 1000s of Comments/Replies on Public Editor pieces.
Denise Williams, using the straightforward eloquence of a citizen and a mother, is the first person to ever lead me to write the following words:
I wish the Public Editor could award "NY Times Picks".
I have left "literally" 1000s of Comments/Replies on Public Editor pieces.
Denise Williams, using the straightforward eloquence of a citizen and a mother, is the first person to ever lead me to write the following words:
I wish the Public Editor could award "NY Times Picks".
14
I cannot disagree with the opinions here that the Times has trouble being fair to Ms. Clinton. The Times reporters and some of its op ed writers seem obsessed with a desire to "expose" anything they can find to hurt her. There seems to be no editorial supervision of this overreaction. As I write this, I am choosing my words carefully. The Times, after all, is America's newspaper of record and cannot be stooping to the level of tabeloid yellow journalism. Or can it? I grew up on the New York Times. Since 1964 the times has published my letters, email comments, etc, and I pay for print and electronic services. Now I am concerned. Can the Times Clinton obsession be an unconscious desire of reporters to get the scoop? Can it be a liberal need to self-destruct in the face of cynical right-wing tactics? Is it willful? Is it careless, a symptom of the death of critical writing and thinking in a time of e-bytes and taking down the confederate flag while imposing voter restrictions on African American citizens. How cynical. I don't know, but it has cost the Times this reader's faith. I will continue to read the Times. What else is there? But I will never again trust the times.
116
I admire the job that Ms. Sullivan does as the Pubic Editor overall, but the Times' editors and reporters' response to her inquiries are never satisfactory. All they do is deny that they have done anything wrong and rationalize what they have done wrong.
We always refer to the FOX echo chamber, but it is clear that there is a Times' echo chamber which is why when it makes a mistake, it is always horrendous. The Times will never recover from its uncritical and prominent role in the Bush Administration's propaganda, but it would earn the confidence of its readers, it showed more awareness and acknowledged its mistakes.
We always refer to the FOX echo chamber, but it is clear that there is a Times' echo chamber which is why when it makes a mistake, it is always horrendous. The Times will never recover from its uncritical and prominent role in the Bush Administration's propaganda, but it would earn the confidence of its readers, it showed more awareness and acknowledged its mistakes.
159
In all fairness, Baquet admitted that they'd screwed up:
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.”
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.”
1
What continues to bother me about the Time's "screw up" - which doesn't begin to describe such poor reporting - is that the clarification never appears on the front page as the accusation always does.
And, has the Time's ever identified the source for the incorrect reporting on the original story? It seems to me we are entitled to that information.
And, has the Time's ever identified the source for the incorrect reporting on the original story? It seems to me we are entitled to that information.
135
I hope Ms Sullivan will be vigilant with regard to the coverage of HRC by the NYT.
I am a longtime subscriber as was my mother before me. The NYT makes mistakes sometimes by omission, sometimes otherwise. They wield a lot of power and they must be held to account.
I don't know how anyone can survive the withering scrutiny candidates are subjected to these days. Pleases let's remember that the job of President is very difficult. We need as many good candidates as possible, HRC among them.
I am a longtime subscriber as was my mother before me. The NYT makes mistakes sometimes by omission, sometimes otherwise. They wield a lot of power and they must be held to account.
I don't know how anyone can survive the withering scrutiny candidates are subjected to these days. Pleases let's remember that the job of President is very difficult. We need as many good candidates as possible, HRC among them.
13
I don't see how the Times "screwed up." We're talking about emails on a private account which were stored on a server in her basement. At this point the investigation recommended by the IGs is not being called a criminal one, but it's obvious where it's leading if the DOJ actually does its job which is not very likely. In the meantime the Hillary camp is free to vent its phony outrage and indignation all it wants. It won't make any difference anyway because she's running such a lousy campaign by running away from the press and acting like she doesn't need to explain anything.
10
You and other critics of HRC using her personal email account for government work never mention the fact that Colin Powell did the same when he was Secretary of State. Why is that?
42
Condalezza Rice, Colin Powell did the same thing when they ran the State Department. Why are they not the subject of investigation if this was such a "criminal" thing? Or is it because they were Republicans and there is a dual standard?
6
Condalezza Rice, Colin Powell did the same thing when they ran the State Department.
=================
No they did not. The Washington Post has shown this is pure baloney.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/10/the-misle...
=================
No they did not. The Washington Post has shown this is pure baloney.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/10/the-misle...
1
I thank you for this article. Of course Hillary as a Presidential candidate deserves scrutiny but she has been in the public life across America since 1991 when Bill declared candidacy. She has served the country honorably. I wish NY Times scrutinized the Decision to go to War with Iraq, Yellow Cake stories like they scrutinize Hillary. How about the other candidates? When NY Times makes a mistake they need to be honest with the readership and provide an apology. Not just hide that it ever happened and ruin a candidate's reputation. When Hillary has friends like NY Times, why is there a need for GOP to attack her? I hope NY Times gets its act together.
98
Like today's laudatory article on Biden might run for president by Maureen O'Dowd who can always be counted on to deliver a withering comment on Hillary or Obama.
Biden made Supreme Court Justice Thomas a reality when he closed the door on Anita Hill. For real insight see the doc "Anita."
Furthermore, he supported curtailing bankruptcy legislation for average Americans to bolster the many corporations registered in his state of Delaware. Then there's the matter of his alleged touch feely approach to women.
Biden made Supreme Court Justice Thomas a reality when he closed the door on Anita Hill. For real insight see the doc "Anita."
Furthermore, he supported curtailing bankruptcy legislation for average Americans to bolster the many corporations registered in his state of Delaware. Then there's the matter of his alleged touch feely approach to women.
28
I have no sense that the Times will ever be fair to Hilary Clinton, based on its record for many years. Led by the OpEd columnists and editors, reporters seem to think it's their mission to destroy her.
99
This is getting tiresome. Readers raise serious questions. The Public Editor states those complaints to various people on the paper’s staff. They defend what they did. The end.
Denying that the problem exists really isn’t helpful.
An excerpt from the Public Editor’s column today unintentionally sheds light on what is really going on:
“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 . . .”
Conservatives have figured out that the Times will react to accusations of “liberal bias” by bending over backwards, echoing and imitating the “reporting” of right-wing media. To avoid charges of not being “fair and balanced,” the NYT can be counted on to provide negative information, including outright lies, against Democrats. False equivalency abounds, with opposing views always presented, whether or not they have any validity or make any sense. Right-wing anonymous sources plant lies with Times reporters and get them published. That happened with this most recent error-filled story about Hillary Clinton because she happens to be the strongest Democratic candidate for president.
Denying that the problem exists really isn’t helpful.
An excerpt from the Public Editor’s column today unintentionally sheds light on what is really going on:
“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 . . .”
Conservatives have figured out that the Times will react to accusations of “liberal bias” by bending over backwards, echoing and imitating the “reporting” of right-wing media. To avoid charges of not being “fair and balanced,” the NYT can be counted on to provide negative information, including outright lies, against Democrats. False equivalency abounds, with opposing views always presented, whether or not they have any validity or make any sense. Right-wing anonymous sources plant lies with Times reporters and get them published. That happened with this most recent error-filled story about Hillary Clinton because she happens to be the strongest Democratic candidate for president.
266
Don't blame the fire department for showing up at the fire.
4
Bending over backwards? I have yet to see any evidence that they have remotely moved to a more even-handed stance.
7
" .. False equivalency abounds .."
Says who? Why do those arrested get legal counsel, often free?
Answer: to deter "lynch mob" like acts by those claiming to own "the truth."
Try installing a private server in your home. See how quickly your bosses and clients rain complaints upon your head. That's her problem, and she alone owns it.
Says who? Why do those arrested get legal counsel, often free?
Answer: to deter "lynch mob" like acts by those claiming to own "the truth."
Try installing a private server in your home. See how quickly your bosses and clients rain complaints upon your head. That's her problem, and she alone owns it.
1
"No one should expect a free ride for Clinton. But she certainly deserves a fair shake."
Ms. Sullivan, I thank you for writing this article, and I believe you are being sincere. Yet, within the past three hours, I received a NYT alert of Maureen Dowd's undignified article where she is promoting the candidacy of VP Joe Biden. An hour or so later, I received an alert that because of sympathy he has received, the VP is seriously thinking about entering the race.
I do not believe in that much coincidence Ms. Sullivan. A week ago, the NYT could not impede Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign by fabricating a "criminal" investigation. Now, it appears Mr. Baquet, Mr. Purdy, et al have a new strategy - i.e., one week later the NYT will use its power to promote a new candidate whom they think could defeat her candidacy.
It is deja vu all over again at the NYT, but I do not think it is 2008. I hope that women, and even the supporters of Bernie Sanders will see that the NYT has no right to act like Fox News!
Ms. Sullivan, I thank you for writing this article, and I believe you are being sincere. Yet, within the past three hours, I received a NYT alert of Maureen Dowd's undignified article where she is promoting the candidacy of VP Joe Biden. An hour or so later, I received an alert that because of sympathy he has received, the VP is seriously thinking about entering the race.
I do not believe in that much coincidence Ms. Sullivan. A week ago, the NYT could not impede Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign by fabricating a "criminal" investigation. Now, it appears Mr. Baquet, Mr. Purdy, et al have a new strategy - i.e., one week later the NYT will use its power to promote a new candidate whom they think could defeat her candidacy.
It is deja vu all over again at the NYT, but I do not think it is 2008. I hope that women, and even the supporters of Bernie Sanders will see that the NYT has no right to act like Fox News!
121
Well said. Add to longtime Clinton antagonist Mo Dowd, a follow up from Clinton beat reporter Amy Chozick, in the upper left corner of the digital front page, which Chozick states is based on Dowd's reporting. Both seem to be imploring Joe Biden to run, which is a striking change in direction when Chozick's 2 1/2 year tenure on a "Hillary Clinton beat" helped dissuade Biden from challenging the candidate *repeatedly* described in the Times as "the presumptive Democratic nominee."
But Sullivan's column might have delved deeper into the how the Times' anonymous sources got this particular Clinton story dead wrong. Here is the trenchant point. The link about anonymity in the Clinton article refers to a 13 month old AnonyWatch blog post: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/17/anonywatch-when-unnamed...
In that event, anonymous sources misstated insider trading allegations about golfer Phil Mickelson, which turned out wrong. Then, Business Editor Dean Murphy said that he knew who the sources were and that "we had no reason to doubt them-but they got it wrong." That is chillingly close to Matt Purdy's failed explanation of the anonymous sources being wrong in the Clinton story. Here is Purdy's take: "We got it wrong because our very good sources got it wrong."
So after getting a stroy embarrassingly wrong 13 months ago, the Times got it wrong bigger and badder because they didn't learn the lesson from a past mistake.
But Sullivan's column might have delved deeper into the how the Times' anonymous sources got this particular Clinton story dead wrong. Here is the trenchant point. The link about anonymity in the Clinton article refers to a 13 month old AnonyWatch blog post: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/17/anonywatch-when-unnamed...
In that event, anonymous sources misstated insider trading allegations about golfer Phil Mickelson, which turned out wrong. Then, Business Editor Dean Murphy said that he knew who the sources were and that "we had no reason to doubt them-but they got it wrong." That is chillingly close to Matt Purdy's failed explanation of the anonymous sources being wrong in the Clinton story. Here is Purdy's take: "We got it wrong because our very good sources got it wrong."
So after getting a stroy embarrassingly wrong 13 months ago, the Times got it wrong bigger and badder because they didn't learn the lesson from a past mistake.
39
.
We frequent readers are familiar with Ms. Sullivan's well-stated opposition to overuse of anonymous sources (or, as I would frame it, the over-GRANTING of anonymity status to sources without sharing with readers the true reason for granting anonymity).
What deserves full-column treatment, in my view, is a discussion of how anonymity aids the reader, how it hurts the reader, and whether it needs to be safeguarded when the source proves to be wrong. By wrong, I mean anything from wrongish all the way up to defamatory.
We are privileged to have, as Public Editor, a media critic/analyst as skilled as Prof. Jay Rosen or nearly anyone else she has quoted. Let's get more of her analysis on the role of anonymity in journalism aside from the embarrassing examples that make the AnonyWatch posts.
We frequent readers are familiar with Ms. Sullivan's well-stated opposition to overuse of anonymous sources (or, as I would frame it, the over-GRANTING of anonymity status to sources without sharing with readers the true reason for granting anonymity).
What deserves full-column treatment, in my view, is a discussion of how anonymity aids the reader, how it hurts the reader, and whether it needs to be safeguarded when the source proves to be wrong. By wrong, I mean anything from wrongish all the way up to defamatory.
We are privileged to have, as Public Editor, a media critic/analyst as skilled as Prof. Jay Rosen or nearly anyone else she has quoted. Let's get more of her analysis on the role of anonymity in journalism aside from the embarrassing examples that make the AnonyWatch posts.
12
Great idea, @MTF.
4
The Times' coverage of Hillary Clinton, before & after she declared, can be described (Ms. Sullivan clearly has here) as being like Jekyll & Hyde.
From the time that Ms. Clinton left government, & Times upper management decided to assign Amy Chozick to a dedicated beat, all coverage of the former First Lady, Senator & Secretary of State was accompanied by the construct that Mrs. Clinton was the "presumptive Democratic nominee." No other prospective candidate, inside government or not, had their own beat reporter. This itself was willful journalistic malpractice. It deterred other potential candidates from entering a race against the presumptive candidate. Chozick dutifully followed Ms. Clinton to book signings and other low wattage events. No other putative candidate could find his/her name so regularly written in the Times, least of all with that "presumptive" tag appended.
The end result of this choice has been to deprive any other Democratic challengers of any oxygen left in the room. Only burgeoning crowds and heavy criticism has impelled the Times to abandon its dismissive attitude toward the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. And if the Times paid a dollar for every article about the candidacies of Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chaffee, it's doubtful a reader could get a single subway ride from the payout.
But what to make of today's joint effort by Chozick and longtime Clinton antagonist Mo Dowd to seemingly entice a Joe Biden challenge to Clinton's heremony?
From the time that Ms. Clinton left government, & Times upper management decided to assign Amy Chozick to a dedicated beat, all coverage of the former First Lady, Senator & Secretary of State was accompanied by the construct that Mrs. Clinton was the "presumptive Democratic nominee." No other prospective candidate, inside government or not, had their own beat reporter. This itself was willful journalistic malpractice. It deterred other potential candidates from entering a race against the presumptive candidate. Chozick dutifully followed Ms. Clinton to book signings and other low wattage events. No other putative candidate could find his/her name so regularly written in the Times, least of all with that "presumptive" tag appended.
The end result of this choice has been to deprive any other Democratic challengers of any oxygen left in the room. Only burgeoning crowds and heavy criticism has impelled the Times to abandon its dismissive attitude toward the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. And if the Times paid a dollar for every article about the candidacies of Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chaffee, it's doubtful a reader could get a single subway ride from the payout.
But what to make of today's joint effort by Chozick and longtime Clinton antagonist Mo Dowd to seemingly entice a Joe Biden challenge to Clinton's heremony?
41
Perhaps the answer is to give Jeb! and a few others more of the same treatment that Hillary gets.
20
Mark, even better, why don't we plant the "presumptive Republican nominee" label on Trumplestiltskin and treat the rest of the rag tag collection as afterthoughts?
13
That last word should be "hegemony."
1
Thank you, Public Editor, for pursuing the theme of Mrs. Clinton's treatment by the Times. You are on the side of fairness and transparency and I applaud you for your stand.
26
The Times has forgotten that it was central to creating the narrative about the Clintons to which it continues to contribute articles that support a discredited line. Remember where it all started: a Whitewater land deal, inaccurate reports on which the Times got from a source later found to be a low life political operative. The Clintons are politicians but, beginning with Whitewater, the Times has worked hard to perpetuate the narrative it began that Bill and Hillary are more scandalous than most.
11
Remember where it all started: a Whitewater land deal, inaccurate reports on which the Times got from a source later found to be a low life political operative. The Clintons are politicians but, beginning with Whitewater, the Times has worked hard to perpetuate the narrative it began that Bill and Hillary are more scandalous than most.
=================
Ah, the Whitewater "fake scandal" that ended with 15 people sent to prison and a sitting President who was disbarred for perjury and had to pay nearly $1 million to settle a sexual harassment charge.
Um, if they aren't more scandalous than most, the Clintons certainly hang out with lots of scandalous people.
=================
Ah, the Whitewater "fake scandal" that ended with 15 people sent to prison and a sitting President who was disbarred for perjury and had to pay nearly $1 million to settle a sexual harassment charge.
Um, if they aren't more scandalous than most, the Clintons certainly hang out with lots of scandalous people.