Things the NYT doesn't write about Hillary Clinton

Wednesday Sept 10the Dept of Justice revealed to a federal court:

“There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision".

But the NYT chose not to cover it until late Friday night.

Since the NYT has been breathlessly writing (and mis-writing) about Hillary Clinton's emails since March, majority of them landing on the front page, you would think this would be part of their coverage. Guess again. It took 60 hours from the release of the statement for the NYT to admit it to their readers. The Washington Times (a right wing newspaper) published it first. It then took the NYT another 35 hours after Wash Times released the information, for NYT to publish it.

If you recall, they blame their "criminal probe" false story on a rush to scoop. This story on the other hand was absolutely true, and there was clearly no rush at all.

And when they finally put it into print, it was on page a14 on a Saturday. It makes you wonder, had Buzzfeed and MSNBC not gotten a hold of the information, would the NYT have written about it at all?

Keep in mind, pretty much all other emails stories insinuating wrong-doing, go on page a1. Heck, even NYT analyzing her spontaneity goes on a1. But this major addition to EmaILZ ends up somewhere on the bottom of the 14th page. And after 6 paragraphs of the story that they finally put up on Friday night online, they change the subject to her IT guy refusing to testify to the Benghazi committee.

The NYT is not just biased, they're not just yellow, they're corrupt.

NYT continues to criminalize Hillary Clinton

NYT Michael Schmidt's follow up story to the one he MADE UP a couple of weeks ago, even though he was thoroughly busted, is continuing course, most likely based on what he, Deputy Editor Matt Purdy and Executive Editor Dean Baquet have decided to do about Hillary Clinton. In case for any reason you think "maybe it's not all that nefarious", think again...

Just reading through the NYT it's easy to see how they operate when it comes to trying to criminalize the Clintons, this time it's Hillary's turn. First was July 23rd LITERALLY writing that Hillary Clinton was the subject of a criminal probe when it was absolutely not the case at all. This was actually made up. They printed it, blasted it out to millions of people emails and phones. And it was as far from the truth as possible. After taking 2 days to walk it back, fighting it hour by hour, to the point of leaving up the word "criminal" in the headline and lead even after finding out it wasn't the case.

But any time you read Schmidt's work it's pretty plain to see. This for example. When NYT wants to say something obnoxious, they find a random dude. Either an anon former official or a former employee of somehwere.

Others say (what the????) more than politics is at stake. “I was stunned to see that she didn’t use the State Department system for State Department business, as we were always told we had to do,” said William Johnson, a former Air Force officer who served at the department from 1999 to 2011.

Mr. Johnson said his concerns were only compounded by the discovery of classified information in the emails.

“If I’d done that, I’d be out on bond right now,” he said. He said he believed that someone should be punished — if not Mrs. Clinton, then career employees whose job was to safeguard secrets and preserve public records.

Hi. Yes, that's right, that's what Michael Jeff Gerth Schmidt wrote. And could anyone seriously care any less what some random dude thinks? Doesn't matter, it fits Schmidt's narrative. This random dude, Mr. Johnson's opinion is what Schmidt chooses to share. Here said random dude is going to chime in on the level of the deed in question.

“It’s not the end of the world; she didn’t give away the crown jewels,” Mr. Johnson said. “But this is not how things are supposed to be done.”

Moving on. Here's a significant insinuation of suspect activity by purposeful omission:

The email controversy breaks into three clear phases: Mrs. Clinton’s initial choices about how to set up her email; her decision to destroy messages she judged to be personal; and the discovery of classified information in an account where it is not allowed by law.

But in the entire subsection of "DELETED EMAILS" (dun dun dun), Mr. Schmidt at no time states anything related to the instructions are the sender chooses. It's in the State Dept manual, it applies to other departments, and even other parts of government, Jeb Bush for example chose his emails to archive the exact same way when he used HIS private server to host his private email (Jeb@Jeb.org) for all his official business as Governor of Florida. Mr. Schmidt goes out of his way to mention what random Mr. Johnson thinks about the crown jewels but doesn't mention the State Dept manual for archiving emails? That's odd.

This is also interesting. Mr. Schmidt goes out of his way to mention a former ambassador who was relieved of his duty and cites his use of personal emails as one of the factors.

Scott Gration, ambassador to Kenya, resigned after a 2012 inspector general’s report accused him of flouting government rules, including the requirement that he use State Department email. “He has willfully disregarded Department regulations on the use of commercial email for official government business,” the report said.

Let me clue you in on something, Scott Gration's IG report was lengthy, it included reports of his subordinates hiding in the bathroom when he came around because of how hostile he was, his telling subordinates he was going to shoot them in the head. Not checking his classified information. Etc. But Schmidt is pretending that the employee using personal email rose to the level of an ambassador fired.

And by the way, if you check out or have followed the Benghazi Democrats on Twitter you know EXACTLY how Mr. Cummings feels about what is going on with the Benghazi Committee as it relates to the emails drama you'll find this paragraph by Schmidt strangely worded:

The committee’s top Democrat, Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, said his concern has always been that the Benghazi inquiry — which he said comes on top of “seven or eight” investigations already conducted — would become a tool for Republicans who want to bash Mrs. Clinton. He said he believed that to a considerable degree, that is what has happened. “We have basically an unlimited budget to go after Hillary Clinton,” he said.

But Mr Cummings concerns are beyond the passive "will become a tool", he is claming out loud and in print that the head of the committee is using the committee as as the tool. Big difference. But Mr. Schmidt has worked closely with Gowdy and Issa since March, so he has every reason to keep that part from getting into the news, people might actually see more of what is going on.

Surely there is a reason Mr. Schmidt has never touched on Mr. Cummings part in the Benghazi Committee story. It is a story in and of itself, and I have yet to see if fully told in the NYT.

And you can tell by many of the things I've mentioned above, Mr. Schmidt is purposefully omitting information that might actually educate their readers, but by now you know, that's not what this is about. A matter of length perhaps. Funny, he sure didn't miss some "Mr. Johnson" saying that Hillary Clinton's actions would put someone else in prison.

The NYT publishes "criminal inquiry" after they know it wasn't true.

The NYT seriously botched a story, well, basically made one up. First they wrote a story that Hillary Clinton was the subject of a criminal probe. Blasted it out to millions via email on the Thursday, then quietly removed that claim early Friday morning (without noting the changes). The new story was that there was a "criminal inquiry" related to Hillary Clinton's emails. Turns out that was also false, but according to Dean Banquet, it's because their "sources got it wrong" (that being the 2nd story, no one knows where first one came from and Dean's not talking). But after the NYT found out that there was no "criminal inquiry" at all they continued to publish repeatedly that there was.

It's not just a case of waiting too long to remove, they published it at least 3x after they knew that wasn't the case.  

The story of the NYT July 23rd faulty reporting is indeed extensive, as nothing in their story was correct, but this post is proof that there's more to it than a rush to judgement. Proof of NYT purposefully telling a significant untruth. This was not a mistake, or a rush to scoop, it was publishing a falsehood.

By 9:24am Friday morning it was confirmed by DOJ and other sources that there was "no criminal inquiry" but NYT made the decision at some point that the claim would stay in and they left it in both the lead and the title. In fact, they didn't just not remove it, they republished it. Here's what happened:

-DOJ announces by 9:24am that there is no criminal inquiry
-NYT Republished the "criminal inquiry" falsehood at 10:51am.
-An editor admitted at 12:12pm in a tweet they knew it wasn't a criminal inquiry.
-Republished the falsehood at 2:54pm
-7 hours goes by, they still do not remove it. By this time all major news organizations have removed it, a number of them also tweeting, that there is no criminal inquiry
-Republished the falsehood at 10:05pm.
Update: -Finally removed Saturday morning at what looks to be 9:29am

Which means the NYT knowingly published false information tying a leading presidential candidate to a criminal investigation multiple times over a course a number of hours AFTER knowing it was not the case. Indeed, they lied.

In fact, the writer of the story, Michael Schmidt, who I've written about before, was a guest caller on Hardball Friday late afternoon and did not correct it then even after the host asked him multiple why is it criminal. The host knew because anyone who read the story could see it made no sense.

So why would a newspaper lie about a presidential candidate and try to link it to something criminal when they were already under scrutiny and knew it wasn't at all the case.

NYT let it stay over night and finally removed "criminal inquiry" 9:29am Saturday, 7/25. Also removed were 100's of previously approved and published comments. Those are now at zero and closed.

Here is the change log showing multiple edits were made in the lead but criminal enquiry left in and republished. This isn't by accident.

So just in case you were thinking: The NYT can't lose a scoop, there aren't enough editors, a source burned them.... none of those explain the above. None. The NYT purposely published a known falsehood in their article tying Hillary Clinton to a non-existent "criminal inquiry" for a full day after knowing the truth.

And guess who did it. Hint, a story botched this badly means that higher up hands are on deck. Highest ranking person "directly involved with the story" according to NYT public editor Margaret Sulliview, is Executive Editor, Dean Baquet.

And by the way, what *was* the real story? After 2 days, a total replacement of the first hideous article, 10 edits and 2 written corrections of the replacement article, it boils down to this: 2 agencies arguing over what is classified and whether the State dept is releasing sensitive into when releasing Hillary Clinton's emails to the public.

"WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open an investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday."

That's it. That only after multiple political talk shows and many online media outlets wrongly relayed that Hillary Clinton and/or her handling of her emails, were the target a criminal investigation.

Like I said, there are other serious issues with the article(s) that were noticed almost immediately after their first publish of the original article up to even the last article and can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and other places.

As I was saying, the "emails" writer at NYT has an agenda, now everyone can see it...

Today the email writing falsely indicated government officials were investigating Hillary in a crime probe. Well, that was a lie. But it's par for the course for the NYT.

My last post I showed a few of the tweets written by the NYT "emails" writer showing how clear his agenda is to make Clinton guilty of some type of wrong-doing. Any type would satisfy him so he keeps it up from all angles...

So yesterday, after a week of Trump mania keeps he and his cohorts from space to write nasty things about Hillary Clinton, and after one poll showing not good things for Clinton, time to get to work...writing fiction and pretending it's journalism. Yellow, yellow, yellow.

Here are Politico and Daily KOs catch the NYT being, as usual, shady.

NYT alters Clinton story without correction - Dylan Byers

The New York Times made small but significant changes to an exclusive report about a potential criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's State Department email account late Thursday night, but provided no notification of or explanation for of the changes.
The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state."

That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state."

And

NYT dramatically re-writes Hillary Clinton email after midnight - David Nir

David Nir points out the 2 different versions. The first story:

Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

and the re-write:

Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

And notes thusly:

In the first version, Times reporters Michael Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo say that these nameless government officials are basing their request on possible misdeeds Clinton herself is alleged to have committed; in the latter, that's transformed into an incredibly vague construction: "mishandled in connection with." What does "in connection with" even mean? It could mean almost anything. What's more, this major alteration was made without any notice to the reader. 

Perhaps it is the NYT that needs to be investigated.

NYT email writer pushing the negative narrative...frequently and openly

 The NYT email story writer, who gets lots of clicks for the NYT and also now more airtime on TV has a vested interest in the email story looking sinister, but tell me how this story pushing is ethical journalism. And if you can put DUN DUN DUN! after every tweet, probably someone is pushing some bullshit.

NYT makes no mention of aquisition of the SOS Clinton emails they published...

Not just not who, but no mention altogether. Hmmmm.

NYT gets a hold of 27 pages of unpublished emails between HRC and other government officials and from Sidney Blumenthal, all Blumenthal related, and publishes them online. This moments before the Benghazi Committee subpoenas S. Blumenthal. Coincidence? Beyond unlikely.

Oddly, the NYT makes no mention of anything related to acquisition. Only that they are "selected". Selected from what? (by whom?) and at one point refer to them as "obtained".

They make no mention of from where they came. No mention at all. Not only not who but also nothing even similar to "anonymous source", not "source we cannot disclose", etc. Nothing. They just skip it completely. Oops, just forget that part readers!

But what if there are readers that are curious. Did the source request be to kept anonymous? Is the sender unknown? Or did someone send it and had no desire to have their identity kept private but the NYT just opt not to add it? NYT completely skips it, which means it could be any of those answers but we have no idea. If someone wants to know anything about how they were acquired they will not find it in the paper that published them.

Why not?

Here are the 3 NYT pieces:

An odd but typical one that suggests there's something wrong with someone you've worked with sending you intel from a country of national interest to the U.S.

The summary of what was in the emails.

And the actual emails. This is the first time these have been published.

If the paper is under obligation not to disclose their source, why would they not reveal that obligation? Is it an error? Several people on Twitter have asked the writers why no mention, 1 responded to one of the commenters but without answering the question, nor was anything added later. So you can cross possible oversight off the list of possible explanations.

It's an understatement to say something's not quite right here.

Elijah Cummings, the leading democrat on the Select Benghazi Committee says it was Gowdy, head of GOP Benghazi committee, who sent them. Why does the NYT make no mention of anything related to aquisition what-so-ever? If Elijah Cummings is correct and it was Gowdy, then the NYT is protecting Trey Gowdy from current and future scrutiny of motive, helping him with his latest Benghazi charade. How does the release serve Gowdy? It makes it look like he has a reason to subpoena Blumenthal, but the fact is he's known about Blumenthal's emails for almost a year.

March round-up, *some* of NYT anti-Hilary Clinton negative narratives and stories.... and media pushback

I only covered 7 pieces of the NYT anti-Clinton offensive, and Media Matters also only covered a handful of the HRC articles in the NYT, and there are no overlap in story coverage, so just you can see what a busy month March has been for NYT smears against Hillary Clinton, here's a mini round-up.

This only counts *some* of their *dozens* email stories, and does not include *all* of their negative articles about Hillary Clinton, this is ONE month

At very least 12 egregiously false, misleading, biased and/or negative stories regarding Hilary Clinton, most with typical anti-Hillary talking points, all lacking journalistic integrity, and these are only they ones I and Media Matters have WRITTEN about.  


Media Matters:

1. Original flawed, misleading, deceptive Email non-scandal scandal story
2. Followup story, doubling down on misinformation after being called out
3. NYT pushes evidence-free speculation about Hillary's emails and classified information
5. NYT uses GOP talking points to call into question Hillary's advocacy for women and girls

NYT Narratives (this site):

1. Negative Narrative - Random and bizarre story pushing the idea that Clintons are all about their inner circle
2. Planting doubt about HRC's committment to childhood education
3. Bizarre framing of exoneration proof as proving guilt
4. NYT writes that HRC witholds what should be part of history, her own personal emails are owed to people
5. NYT declares Hillary Clinton is "not relatable", and that even the idea of it is laughable.
6. NYT delivers full and loaded anti Clinton talking points from anti-Hillary super pac! 
7. NYT insults Bill Clinton, including his looks, for no reason
8. NYT delivers more negative memes out of absolutely nowhere. (not counting this in my 12)


I have not included other bits I've noticed bits of narrative language I've seen in other pieces, I have a full time job and I would have to quit to write them all.

Also notable: NYT email writer takes to Twitter to declare a narrative change after his original story proved false.

While on the topic, let's not forget their double standard:
-NYT Double standard on Jeb's emails- Media Matters
-Double standards -Media Matters
-Who's missing - Media Matters
-But hey, are least her competition is teh awsum.

No fewer than 8 outlets weigh in on NYT coverage of Clinton, cuz it's that bad:
Greta Van Susteren: calls it "sloppy" "gossip", poor journalism.
and 7 other outlets call NYT out for their faux coverage drama regarding the email non-scandal scandal.

Bonus: Great piece by Peter Daou on the media's obsessive Hillary-hate

And can't not add this gem from the NYT defense of their disgusting bias toward and corrisponding coverage of Hillary Clinton; no, really, they wrote this: "Bulletproof Clinton Reporting". To be fair, the writer of this piece, Public Editor Margaret Sullivan, has in the past called the NYT out for this ridiculous cover of Hillary Clinton.

 Even those who were gross toward her themselves notice and call it out

NYT 'email scandal' writer declares a narrative change, posts it to Twitter followers..

 From writer M. Schmidt's Twitter on March 10th after "broke rules" story proved false, twice.

Here's what happened. Earlier this month a NYT writer wrote a story titled: 'Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules'.

Turns out the rule that didn't exist during her tenure.

So then they said, well, we think there's another rule she broke.

That turned out also not to be true.

So what's a writer to do who wrote one of the biggest non-scandal scandals in a decade? Change the narrative to keep the story going.

And that's exactly what he did. He posted this on twitter after it became obvious the original story was a non-story. Not even subtle:

Mrs. Clinton rightfully deletes her own personal emails, as per State Dept instructions...

This weekend media (NYT/CNN/etc) are screaming that Hillary deleted her emails, even though  weeks ago she had already declared she did not preserve them. So really the NYT and CNN are not delivering any news about the actual emails but rather relaying witch hunt leader drama.

The new drama is that Hillary Clinton's lawyer sent a letter to Gowdy telling him, basically, 'we already told you no, you can't have her personal emails or personal server, and we already told you we followed the correct process'. Gowdy threw a tantrum for the media knowing they would print his drama, which they did. They even spread his "wiping her server clean" line in several news outlets.

But just in case anyone is curious, here's why it's not a *real* issue that she did not preserve the rest and how you can tell it's sensationalist trash from the media and a witch hunt by the GOP that are quite fortunate to have the NYT, et al gleefully giving them everything they need to keep it up.

Here are the instructions SOS Clinton was to use as to how to archive her emails. It is, as also stated in the instructions, the same procedure for paper filing. As in you don't archive your doodles and your personal notes. You file things of record. So it's like having a headline "HILLARY THREW OUT HER DOODLES AND LAUNDRY LISTS"

Sensationalist media 'ZOMG, SHE DELETED OFF THE SERVER!' But folks, those are the instructions below.

The personal emails and server not being handed over is only an issue for 2 entities. The GOP, which knows they will be running against her in 2016, and the NYT.

Why would a newspaper omit information about the very thing they reported? Here's why:

After the writer of most of the emails stories in the NYT had to clarify that his original story didn't hold water, he had to change the narrative, and it conflicts with the above information. (this is from his personal Twitter account).

NYT delivers full talking points from anti-Hillary super pac

NYT parrots right wing talking point from anti-democrat super pac 'America Rising'...

What more could an anti-Hillary super pac want. Someone delivering their message for free to over a million people in what most people consider to be an honest news source. They struck gold with the NYT.

The NYT all month has been spreading rumors, baseless accusation, and doubling down on deceptive stories, but they times they go even farther. This writer, who's original email piece was debunked, delivers the talking points from anti-Hillary super pac, America Rising.

[Anti-Clinton memes: Calculating, secrecy]

NYT delivers full anti-hillary pac talking points here...

Like many of the anti-Clinton GOP meme words written through their articles, the NYT slips them in by finding quotes from others. This one he takes them directly from the super PAC America Rising. From the NYT, March 3rd, 2015

Unfortunately, Clinton's own political calculation and desire for secrecy, as evidenced by her exclusive use of email accounts...   -Talking point from anti-Hillary super pac, America Rising, delivered by the NYT 

There was NO reason a journalist would need to include their statement on "calucation" and "secrecy", that has nothing to do with journalism. If this was about a law suit they needed to delivery the information regarding the plaintiff, and that's it. The NYT is pushing these on purpose. Make no mistake about it. 

On their website the Superpac brags that they can change media narrative:

Our work influenced the 2014 elections. Bloomberg said we “rattled Democrats who were not used to losing the media’s story lines” in 2014.

We’re also looking forward to influencing the 2016 elections. The Washington Post and CNN have called America Rising the leading group on the right preparing for a Hillary Clinton candidacy and the earliest sustained effort to begin defining future Democratic presidential contenders. Follow our Hillary Clinton coverage here.

And the NYT is either falling for it or purposefully spreading their message in the hopes of influencing the 2016 elections, it's hard to believe it's not the latter.

Edit: Let's go back in time to NYT delivering other anti-Clinton group propoganda: Whitewater.

"The mainstream media (to which we mail ClintonWatch regularly) is now beginning to parrot much of the information and analysis we break."
-- ClintonWatch, November 1993

"Citizens United has been a powerful force behind the exposure of the biggest story to hit Washington D.C. since Watergate."
-- Citizens Agenda, February 1994

Greta Van Susteren calls out the NYT for "gossip" and sloppy journalism...

"Can’t the New York Times do better than this? This is what is wrong with journalism"

Greta on the gossipy tragedy that nyt is passing off as news.

This is what is wrong with journalism — American people are fed what amounts to as gossip and the NYT is happy to feed it. In the old days, journalists would have worked the stories longer (there is no rush to get this published) and harder and either the journalists would have seen the emails themselves or gotten us names of those who supposedly were telling the content.  And other journalists as they read this? Do they call the NYT out? nope, because for the most part this is so common no one sees it as a problem and / or they do it themselves.  

- Greta Van Susteren

NYT forgoes journalism, scandalizes Hillary, and gets called out ...

What is with the NYT and Hillary Clinton? I knew in 2008 they disliked her, they published some seriously poor journalism, from biased to weird to disdainful (she's "mean", she "doesn't say Obama's name warmly enough", it got weird). But for some reason I thought that was just due to love for Obama. But apparently that is not the case at all. And trust me, I was one of those liberals who grew up thinking the NYT was nothing but straight forward journalism, it wasn't until 2008 that it became clear that's not always the case.

Well fast forward to now, 3 weeks ago NYT "broke" a news story, that actually was uncovered in 2013, but who's counting. There was a twist this time. Hillary Clinton "may" or may not have broken the rules... oh, except that rule that she "may have broken" didn't actually even exist at the time, but NYT got around to that detail and that indeed she *hadn't* broken a rule, about 10 days later.

Only this time, their complete lack journalistic integrity was so brazen that a number of outlets called them out on it.  Here are a few of the articles that followed fraudulent reporting by the New York Times as they ran a non-story story of a non-scandal scandal that they further push after being busted..

-Hillary Email Scandal, Not So Fast... - Daily Beast

-NYT Deceptive deception that Clinton may have violated federal rules  -Media Matters

-David Brock calls on the NYT to issue a retraction - Media Matters

-Hillary Clinton did an Email thing that may or may not have been wrong and the NYT   is ON IT. -Wonkette 

-The New York Times Blows it with Misleading Hit Job on Clinton Emails  - Dkos

-NYT Doubles Down in Defense of Sloppy Reporting - Media Matters

-The Beltway Media Embarrasses itself  - Salon

Why the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal is Ridiculous  - Business Insider

--  But they never issued a retraction or corrected the story, creating a snowball of nonsense ---

They even doubled and trippled down, changed the narrative and got excited that it got picked up by Drudge Report. Yes, that's right, Drudge.

Update:

Only CNN issued a correction to pushing a false statement asserted by the NYT:
CNN Debunks false 'rule breaking' story

NYT, refusing to retract in their paper because that is easily trackable, chooses televison medium to admit fault.Times editor admits their story is not quite true. Basically, okay, we said she didn't follow the rules, found out that was not true so now have found another rule that could have been broken so maybe they were right but about something else...maybe.