NYT Slaps A Second Correction On ‘Mess’ Of A Story About Clinton Emails

People pass the New York Times building in New York, Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2012. The New York Times Co.'s stock rose on Thursday, Oct. 11, 2012, after an analyst raised his rating and price target on the shares. (AP ... People pass the New York Times building in New York, Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2012. The New York Times Co.'s stock rose on Thursday, Oct. 11, 2012, after an analyst raised his rating and price target on the shares. (AP Photo/Richard Drew) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

The New York Times appended a second correction over the weekend to a story it published last week about an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email account that she used at the State Department.

The newspaper initially reported Thursday that two inspectors general had asked the U.S. Justice Department to open a criminal inquiry into whether Clinton mishandled classified information on her private email account. After vocal pushback from Clinton’s presidential campaign, the Times updated its story to indicate the Clinton was not the direct target of the alleged request for a criminal inquiry. No clarification or correction was added to the article at that time.

The DOJ pushed back on the story Friday, saying that it was given a referral to investigate the potential mishandling of classified information in connection with the former secretary of state’s private email account. But the nature of the inquiry requested was not criminal, the agency said.

DOJ’s statement prompted the Times to issue a 64-word correction Friday afternoon stating that the article had “misstated the nature of the referral to the Justice Department regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state” based on information from senior government officials.

A second, 58-word correction was added to the article on Sunday:

An article in some editions on Friday about a request to the Justice Department for an investigation regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state referred incorrectly, using information from senior government officials, to the request. It was a “security referral,” pertaining to possible mishandling of classified information, officials said, not a “criminal referral.”

The Time’s public editor, Margaret Sullivan, described the process of walking back the newspaper’s initial reporting as a “mess” in a Monday column.

An editor involved with the story, Matt Purdy, told Sullivan that the newspaper botched the story “because our very good sources had it wrong.” Executive editor Dean Baquet agreed that the blame for the bad information shouldn’t lay with the reporters and editors on the story.

“You had the government confirming that it was a criminal referral,” Baquet told Sullivan. “I’m not sure what they could have done differently on that.”

This post has been updated.

Latest Livewire

Notable Replies

  1. Any more proof needed as to what a worthless rag the NYT has become?

  2. So, it’s not their fault that their “very good sources” were wrong… even when they failed to ask anyone else for confirmation?

    The Dems on the Benghazi committee expressed astonishment that the Times didn’t talk to them before publishing… since they already knew the correct facts and could have set the Times straight before they published.

    In short, the Times regurgitated propaganda spoon-fed to them by Gowdy and other partisan manipulators, then act all shocked when it turns out GOP leaks weren’t accurate.

  3. “Liberal” media, indeed.

  4. The NYT has a longstanding beef with the Clintons, and never misses an opportunity to go after them.

    This little farrago of lies and misinformation is the inevitable result.

    It’s the sort of crap I expect from NRO or one of the other usual right-wing suspects.

    The NYT needs to get its shit together and stop doing the bidding—intentionally or not---- of Trey Gowdy and the rest of the Republican liars.

  5. “You had the government confirming that it was a criminal referral,” Baquet told Sullivan. “I’m not sure what they could have done differently on that.”
    

    How about checking to see which particular part of the “government” was providing the information and what their particular bias might have been. You know, investigating the story rather than just taking your “government sources” word for it. That’s the difference between journalism and stenography.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

60 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for newton123 Avatar for drbb Avatar for anniew Avatar for agio Avatar for mooster Avatar for bluestatedon Avatar for chammy Avatar for toughguy Avatar for arrrrrj Avatar for steviedee111 Avatar for teenlaqueefa Avatar for becca656 Avatar for renfield Avatar for sandyh Avatar for noamsane Avatar for Lacuna-Synecdoche Avatar for frankly_my_dear Avatar for daveyjones64 Avatar for jaybeeraybee Avatar for thunderclapnewman Avatar for saminchicago Avatar for bankerpup Avatar for barkingconscience

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: