The New York Times published a lengthy editors’ note late Monday that went a step further toward owning up to its mistaken story about a criminal probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account.
The note came after the newspaper’s public editor, Margaret Sullivan, wrote a column calling the story a “mess” and suggesting the newspaper wasn’t transparent enough about revisions to the original story.
Two corrections had been added to the original story between its publication late Thursday and Saturday. The first noted that the story had been changed to make it clear that Clinton herself was not the subject of an alleged request for a criminal inquiry, and the second noted that the Justice Department said the request for a probe into Clinton’s private email account wasn’t “criminal” in nature after all. The editors’ note stated that both corrections should have been made sooner.
But the newspaper continued to lay the blame for the mistaken information at the feet of its reporters’ sources, as executive editor Dean Baquet had in an interview with Sullivan, the public editor. The editors’ note emphasized that the initial story on the alleged request for a criminal probe “was based on multiple high-level government sources.”
“As other news organizations followed up on The Times’s report, the Justice Department confirmed to them that a ‘criminal’ investigation had been requested,” the editors’ note read. “Officials also gave that description again to Times reporters who were rechecking their initial story.”
“But later in the day, the Justice Department and the inspectors general said that the request was not a ‘criminal referral’ but rather a ‘security referral,’ meant to alert the F.B.I. about a potential mishandling of classified information,” the note continued. “It was not clear how the discrepancy arose.”
Even if they don’t want to release the names of the sources, they should at least make clear if they were members of the GOP Benghazi!!!1! committee or staffers in the Justice Dept. That way the reader can determine if it’s a partisan witch hunt (I know, I know, who could suspect the GOP of such a thing).
It seems to me, a newspaper has no particular obligation to protect the identity of a source that burns them as opposed to a source who is a whistle blower.
Their sources were Darrell Issa and Trey Gowdy staffers - chairs of two of the multiple Benghazi hearings and investigations. (All of which have found no wrongdoing or coverup, by the way.) Gowdy has stretched the timing for the release of his report to be right before the 2016 elections.
Edit to correct toTrey Gowdy, not Tom Cotton as chair.
A not unreasonable suspicion. Also, do you mean Trey Gowdy?
Yes, Trey Gowdy. D’oh. Thanks for the correction.
Understandable, you need a taxonomic key to the batshit to tell these people apart sometimes.