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 gets called out for their sloppy & yellow journalism w/ Schweizer story

Newsweek, NBC, ABC, Newsmax and others don't agree with the NYT insinuated charges. "Sloppy journalism" "doesn't hold up" "insinuates scandal where there is none" "peppering their story w/ innuendo for a juicy pay to play story". Way to go NYT.

Needless to say the story produced by the NYT on Schweizers "Clinton Cash" insinuation of wrong doing by SOS Clinton reads like every other piece they write on the Clintons, full of innuendo and insinuation, misleading facts and omitting others.

It took the NYT a few days after getting their goods from conservative activist, Peter Schwiezer, for them to print the Uranium/Clinton story, so at least they fact checked some of Schweizer's details before publishing his POV. But they failed to even find out how the approval process works, so basically, they just re-wrote Schweizer's story.

Did everyone agree with the NYT and Schweizer's insinuations that were very close to accusations? Fox, yes. The typical haters, yes.. lots of accusations to make (Morning Joe, Chuck Todd, the rest of the clowns). Occasionally adding their own random theories. But not everyone agreed:

Obviously camp Clinton disagrees: This excerpt from the debunk.

Relying largely on research from the conservative author of Clinton Cash, today’s New York Times alleges that donations to the Clinton Foundation coincided with the U.S. government’s 2010 approval of the sale of a company known as Uranium One to the Russian government. Without presenting any direct evidence in support of the claim, the Times story — like the book on which it is based — wrongly suggests that Hillary Clinton’s State Department pushed for the sale’s approval to reward donors who had a financial interest in the deal. Ironically, buried within the story is original reporting that debunks the allegation that then-Secretary Clinton played any role in the review of the sale.

As reported by Media Matters, NBC News says "The NYT story doesn't hold up", ABC also agrees, the NYT doesn't hold up.

Newsweek pretty much captures it all:  [Schweizer's book] "reads like a hatched job", and speaks to the painfully poor logic of the entire book.

Disparate facts are treated like a logical series of events—a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this," another argumentative fallacy. 

The other person NYT smears in the deal is Frank Guistra, long-time philanthropist, recipient of last year's first ever Dalai Lama humanitarian award. He had something to say too. He describes the NYT article as:

 "an attempt to tear down Secretary Clinton and her presidential campaign. If this is what passes for investigative journalism in the United States, it is very sad."

Very sad indeed.

Then Howard Dean calls out the NYT for the story, saying their political writers are "sloppy" and "substituting news for judgement". 

Even the NYT own Jack Krugman calls the NYT out.

Gene Lyons, who wrote about flawed NYT reports of Whitewater chimes in: Media Insinuates Scandal where there is None.

New Republic calls NYT out for "peppering their story w/ innuendo" for a "juicy pay to play story" (that amounts to yellow journalism but we already know that's how NYT rolls).

Hell, even NEWSMAX comes to the defense of the Clinton Foundation.

We know how the NYTimes reacts to obvious flaws in their Clinton reporting. They double down. Triple down and then some so I'm sure they'll have more nonsense to report shortly.

NYT makes a deal for opposition research directly from conservative hit-piece writer...

Politico: Fox and NYT Makes Deal with Conservative Writer for Clinton Dirt

Here's the round up so far (and it's only been a day since one of their writers tweeted about their oppo research deal with the conservative hit piece author.

Not affectionate toward HRC, Daily KOS reports: NYTimes takes stenography from GOP hit book

Very unfond of Hillary Clinton, liberal blog 'Crooks and Liars', says, No matter what you think of her, this is something larger

Politico reports: NYT/FOX make a deal for anti-Clinton research

National Memo reports: Murdoch Empire colludes with "liberal media" to promote "Clinton Cash"


NYT Responds on Deal with Conservative Writer for Clinton Dirt, with an odd single sentence statement.

Esquire magazine weighs in: The day political journalism died and the people killed it

MediaMatters runs down who the author actually is, and what he does...and puts together a list of *some* of Schweizers lies and inaccuracies (smears).

Salon reports: The right's new expose just went mainstream, NYT got hooked

But would the NYT really spread serious allegations that are totally false. Yes. And its pretty bad. Here's a recent notable one. 

 

NYT pushed lies about chemical weapons in Syria for which there was no proof.

 

But more often they leave out information in order to insinuate or draw improper conclusions:

 

Here's a good example: Issa sent a letter directly to Hillary asking about her email and she ignored it!  

 

Orrrr, Issa sent a broader letter to 18 agencies and didn't hear back from Clinton. Which do you think the times wrote and which do you think is true. Well, NYT Clinton writers don't look at the big picture, only what looks juicy.

 

Nothing new, tons of similar garbage in March in their very busy month, got called out back then as well:

But surely these are professionals. Yeah, no, they're not.

 

And it's always good for business when they can write right-wing hit pieces on the Clintons... here's one of the NYT hit-piece writers bragging that he got on drudge (with his story that proved false)

 

Today on the campaign trail in fact, someone asked SOS Clinton about the book, after answering Clinton then noted Republicans are all about her and not the issues. She was then mocked by NYT writter Maggie H. But it turns out, it Maggie's own paper came to the same conclusion that Hillary had. Top of the imagine, the NYT 2 days ago. Bottom half of image, NYT Maggie twittering derisively about SOS Clinton.

 

 

NYT goes after Bill Clinton, including his looks... they get called out...

As ugly (and as weird) as ever, on a day that the NYT have to skip a 'we-hate-hillary' story, they go after her family, namely her extremely popular husband. At some point they even have to print a correction of one of their narratives.

[NYT Narrative: Bill is old, Hillary is unfriendly, and they think they're royalty]

Bill Clinton calls it out: And he's right, "creative writing" indeed.

Here's just the first quarter of the 'lets diminish Bill Clinton' story:



In that story, of course they manage to insult Hillary Clinton too, randomly referring to her as "less gregarious". Interesting choice of words. Bill is exceptionally gregarious, by comparison the vast majority of people would be less gregarious, if you really wanted to go there you would put "not as gregarious" or make mention of how gregarious *he* is as opposed to saying she is "less gregarious", so....

They continue to find random ways to belittle the former president:

This month in Miami, Mr. Clinton showed he could follow orders

 As I've mentioned before, 1/2 of the stories they write include "foreign donations"

The foundation, which has received millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments, has come under criticism for potential conflicts of interest while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state

And of course pushing the narrative that the Clintons are privileged and live in a bubble (as they randomly accuse them of being in this piece).

"...sends an aide to buy his dress shirts at Bergdorf Goodman, and when he steps out of his S.U.V., he sometimes spreads his arms awaiting an aide to put his jacket on each arm." 

Ironic since one of the reason the NYT dislikes the Clintons is that they are not the NYT fishbowl considers southern trash.

They at some point even refer to him as being chauffeured. They have to issue a correction:

Gawker calls out the press for their sad-ass reporting after NY Mag HRC piece....

Gawker calls out the press for their "bullshit" political reporting, lacks all politics...

As the 2016 presidential election draws closer, America's political press corps is warming up for what they do best: drone on about nothing of consequence. 

Advocates of press freedom are fond of quoting Thomas Jefferson when he said, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." They are less fond of quoting Thomas Jefferson when he said, "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.” Jefferson was no fool. He understood both the vital importance of a free press to a democratic society, and the propensity of journalists to squander that freedom on absolute bullshit.

So why do reporters do this? Because it is easy. It is easier to cover campaigns like this, and it requires less thought, and it leaves journalists less prone to being attacked by one side or another, and it is, in general, purely speculative rubbish which cannot be truly refuted. So it is what we get. 

Read on:

Mark Halperin calls out the hacks and pundits for their creepy Clinton reporting

Even haters call it out:

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.