New York Times Adds A 64-Word Correction To Its Clinton Email Story

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 on Friday afternoon issued a correction to its article alleging that two inspectors general had asked the U.S. Justice Department to open a criminal inquiry into whether classified information was mishandled on Hillary Clinton’s personal email account.

The correction came in at 64 words. Read the text of it below:

An earlier version of this article and an earlier headline, ​using information from senior government officials, misstated the nature of the referral to the Justice Department regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state. The referral addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that personal email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton.

Latest Livewire

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for marby marby says:

    But, of course, this correction will receive significantly less circulation than the original story which is far more sensational and “scandalous.” This is the modus operandi of our media.

  2. Avatar for bp bp says:

    Never apologise, No shame. " the newspaper of record" is now " the newspaper that sows discord".

  3. “An earlier version of this article and an earlier headline, using information from senior government officials a guy in the Jeb!? campaign, misstated the nature of the referral to the Justice Department lied like a cheap rug regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state shoveling out the turd bunker from 8 years of neocon bacchanalia. The referral addressed the potential compromise of classified information kitten pictures we hope to gin into mock controversy in connection with that personal email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton our meal ticket during the '90s.”

    Fixed.

  4. Yes indeed, they can say “senior government officials” but why don’t they name them?

    “Some people say…”

    Shitty excuse for journalism IMO.

  5. Jesus. They should just change their name to The New York Breitbart Times.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

33 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for buckeyeborn Avatar for srfromgr Avatar for marby Avatar for romath Avatar for rationalleft Avatar for brutus1910 Avatar for arrrrrj Avatar for teenlaqueefa Avatar for irasdad Avatar for sandyh Avatar for mantan Avatar for m3man Avatar for daveyjones64 Avatar for mjshep Avatar for jjrothery Avatar for rssrai Avatar for ignoreland Avatar for darcy Avatar for hora_del_cafe Avatar for zlohcuc Avatar for lizabeth Avatar for beattycat Avatar for ljb860

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: