Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts

Saturday, August 1, 2015

Clinton campaign complains of 'egregious' New York Times reporting errors

Clinton New York Times letterThe letter, sent by Clinton's Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri to the Times' executive editor, Dean Baquet, said the campaign was “perplexed by the Times' slowness to acknowledge its errors after the fact, and some of the shaky justifications that Times' editors have made.”
“I feel obliged to put into context just how egregious an error this story was,” the letter continued. “The New York Times is arguably the most important news outlet in the world and it rushed to put an erroneous story on the front page charging that a major candidate for President of the United States was the target of a criminal referral to federal law enforcement. Literally hundreds of outlets followed your story, creating a firestorm that had a deep impact that cannot be unwound. This problem was compounded by the fact that the Times took an inexplicable, let alone indefensible, delay in correcting the story and removing 'criminal' from the headline and text of the story.”
The Times' story, first published on July 23, was originally headlined "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton's Use of Email," and relied on information from unnamed sources. Serious problems with the story became apparent shortly after publication. The inquiry being called for was not a criminal investigation but a “security referral,” and Clinton was not its focus.
On July 24, all of the players in the story -- the Justice Department, the inspectors general and Clinton's campaign -- released public statements saying that the investigation being called for was not criminal. According to Politico's On Media blog, the Times neither removed the word from its headline and its story, nor did it issue a correction, until the following day.
Palmieri's letter lists three other complaints that the campaign has about the story. It stated that the “seriousness of the allegations ... demanded far more care and due diligence,” that the story “relied on questionable sourcing and went ahead without bothering to seek corroborating evidence,” and that “even after the Times' reporting was revealed to be false, the Times incomprehensibly delayed the issuance of a full and true correction.”
The Times' Public Editor Margaret Sullivan tackled the problems with the story in a lengthy blog post, in which she said that competitive pressure had led reporters and editors to move with too much speed and not enough caution.
Sullivan adds that she spoke with the reporters who wrote the story and a top editor who worked on it. While none of those involved in writing and editing the story were willing to reveal their sources to her, she said that she had a sense that the “final confirmation came from the same person more than once.”
Baquet defended his editorial staff to Sullivan. “You had the government confirming that it was a criminal referral,” Baquet said. “I’m not sure what they could have done differently on that.”
Politico reported that a Clinton campaign staffer said that the letter was made public after Baquet refused to publish it in the Times.

Saturday, July 25, 2015

[COMMENTARY] Hillary Clinton’s Worst Fears Are Coming True

The national political press is fixated on the chaotic and contentious Republican presidential primary, and not without good reason. But in devoting so much focus to the race for the GOP nomination, the Democratic side of the aisle has been getting short shrift. Over the course of the summer, a left-wing revolt against and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has evolved into an insurgency, and her campaign is gradually imploding, albeit at a cosmically languid pace. But that tempo is set to accelerate. The tipping point may have been reached on Thursday when one of the presumptive Democratic nominee’s worst fears was realized. 

Hillary Clinton’s campaign team was surely reveling in the national media’s distracted focus on the messy Republican presidential primary late Thursday night when they got the news. Immediately, her campaign team sprang into action and began the familiar process of muddying the waters and misdirecting reporters with a magician’s mastery. The New York Times had revealed that two independent inspectors general requested that the Justice Department open a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton for possibly jeopardizing national security by handling classified information on her personal “homebrew” email server. By morning, however, the Times story had been edited several times. Struck from the account was the contention that Clinton had “mishandled sensitive government information” and in its place was the claim that “information was mishandled” by… someone. The lead reporter on that story confessed that the alterations were made at the Clinton campaign’s “reasonable” request. The Associated Press dutifully followed the Times lead and noted that the IG’s referrals do not suggest wrongdoing by Clinton personally – merely her subordinates at the State Department.

Several hours later, the Justice Department indicated that the referrals they received were not criminal, leading to pushback from New York Times reporters who claimed that their sources were solid. Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the Inspector General’s office is standing by the contention that classified information that was classified as such was sent to Clinton’s private email address. Something bizarre is happening.
All that is clear at the moment is that a classic bit of Clintonian obfuscation skillfully executed by Hillary’s rapid response shop and her campaign’s press secretary, Nick Merrill, is afoot. Reporters and commentators immediately began litigating the story as reported in the Times and not the revelation that Clinton’s email practices are now a criminal matter. The story isn’t the story; the reporters who exposed the story are the story. It’s only a matter of time before Republicans “pounce” and probably “overplay their hand.”

Friday, July 24, 2015

New York Times Edits Clinton Email Story At Her Request

U.S. Democratic Presidential candidate and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during the National Council of La Raza annual conference in Kansas City, Missouri July 13, 2015. REUTERS/Dave Kaup
The New York Times altered its story about two inspectors general calling for an investigation into whether Democratic Party front-runner Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her secret private email server.
The change to the lede paragraph came at the request of the Clinton campaign, Politico reports.
“It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them,” Times reporter Michael Schmidt said, according to Politico.
The current version of the Times story starts:
WASHINGTON — 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.
But the original lede, as captured by NewsDiffs, which tracks changes to posted news stories, implicated Clinton as a target of the probe:
WASHINGTON — 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.
The original version highlighted the accusation that Clinton was the reason for and subject of the call for a criminal investigation, that “Clinton mishandled” classified information. The edited version leaves the impression that the information may have been handled, but only “in connection” to Clinton’s actions.
This was discovered by the left-wing DailyKos Elections Twitter feed.
"Clinton mishandled" & "mishandled in connecttion" w/Clinton's email acct = huge, huge difference


Continue Reading.....

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Chattanooga Marines Reportedly Sacrificed Themselves to Protect Innocents

According to reporting from The New York Times, some of the Marines killed in the Chattanooga shooting were killed trying to draw the gunman’s fire away from another, larger group of innocent bystanders.
“Some of the Marines who were shot to death last week in Chattanooga, Tenn., effectively sacrificed themselves to save the lives of others, diverting the gunman away from a larger group of potential victims, according to a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation into the killings,” reports New York Times reporters Richard Pérez-Peña and Matt Apuzzo.
“This could have been a lot worse,” they quote the anonymous official as saying. “It could have been a horrible, horrible massacre — so much worse.” Officials are expected to give a fuller account of the shooting, perpetrated by Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, in a Wednesday press conference.

Monday, July 20, 2015

Homeland Security Leaders Bent Rules on Private E-Mail

Jeh Johnson, the secretary of homeland security, and 28 of his senior staffers have been using private Web-based e-mail from their work computers for over a year, a practice criticized by cybersecurity experts and advocates of government transparency.
The department banned such private e-mail on DHS computers in April 2014. Top DHS officials were granted informal waivers, according to a top DHS official who said that he saw the practice as a national security risk. The official said the exempt staffers included Deputy Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Chief of Staff Christian Marrone and General Counsel Stevan Bunnell.
Asked about the exceptions on Monday, the DHS press secretary, Marsha Catron, confirmed that some officials had been exempted. "Going forward," she said, "all access to personal webmail accounts has been suspended."
Future exceptions are to be granted only by the chief of staff. Catron said that a "recent internal review" had found the chief of staff and some others were unaware that they had had access to webmail.
The DHS rule, articulated last year after hackers first breached the Office of Personnel Management, states: "The use of Internet Webmail (Gmail, Yahoo, AOL) or other personal email accounts is not authorized over DHS furnished equipment or network connections." Johnson and the 28 other senior officials sought and received informal waivers at different times over the past year, the official said. Catron said exceptions were decided on a case-by-case basis by the chief information officer, Luke McCormack. DHS employees are permitted to use their government e-mail accounts for limited personal use.
Erica Paulson, a spokeswoman for the DHS Office of the Inspector General, said that the office does not confirm or deny the existence of any open investigations.
It remains unclear whether Johnson and the other officials conducted DHS business on their private webmail accounts. (The DHS spokeswoman said "the use of personal e-mail for official purposes is strictly prohibited.") If even one work-related e-mail was sent or received, they could be in violation of regulations and laws governing the preservation of federal records, said Jason R. Baron, a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.
"I suppose it is remotely conceivable that in seeking a waiver, 20 or more government officials could all be wishing to talk to each other through a Web-based e-mail service about such matters as baseball games or retirement luncheons they might be attending," he said. "But it is simply not reasonable to assume that in seeking a waiver that the officials involved were only contemplating using a commercial network for personal (that is, non-official) communications."
In March, the New York Times reported that as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton had used a private e-mail server exclusively to conduct her State Department business. Clinton said she had not violated any transparency laws because the Federal Records Act states that officials are permitted to use private e-mail, so long as they forward on any government-related communications to their government accounts so they can be archived and used to respond to requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
In November 2014, the Federal Records Act was amended to impose a 20-day limit on the time an official has to transfer records from private e-mail to government systems. Clinton transferred over 30,000 e-mails from her private server to the State Department in early 2015. She deleted another 30,000 e-mails on her private server, claiming they were all strictly personal.
It is unclear how Johnson and the other officials used their webmail accounts, and whether they forwarded any messages about government business to their official accounts.
Johnson has used his personal Gmail for government business at least once, before he was head of DHS; that was disclosed during the scandal that led to David Petraeus's resignation as CIA director. The Justice Department is fighting to keep Johnson from having to give a video deposition in that case.

Friday, July 3, 2015

America redefining its identity for the 21st century

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Ending Tax Exemptions Means Ending Churches

Mark Oppenheimer of The New York Times is now calling for the government to remove tax-exempt status from churches. After I posted a link to his article on Facebook, a pastor friend commented: “I’m not sure our small church could survive.” That, my friends, is the point. And Oppenheimer knows it.
Legal gay marriage is not the endgame for the gay-rights movement. It never was. Moral approval is the endgame. The agenda is not tolerance for different beliefs and lifestyles. The agenda is a demand that everyone get on board with the moral revolution or be punished. That means if you or your church won’t get with the program, then the revolutionaries will endeavor to close you down.
But they aren’t going to say,”We’ll close you down,” in so many words. They will cover it in propaganda that conceals their real aim. They’ll say, as Oppenheimer does, that taxpayers are “subsidizing” churches, that ministers make fat-cat six-figure salaries, and that government should get those rich priests and preachers off the government dole.
Never mind that the average base salary of a full-time senior pastor ranges from $33,000 to $70,000 (source). Never mind that ministers do pay income taxes. Never mind that it is absurd to suggest not paying taxes is a subsidy. Never mind that exemptions do function to keep church and state out of one another’s business. That doesn’t fit the fictional narrative activists wish to advance—that these churches don’t deserve to have their “subsidy” continued in light of their intolerable views on sexuality.
The real intent of removing tax-exempt status is to cripple the institutions that continue their dissent from the sexual revolution.
No, the real intent of removing tax-exempt status is to cripple the institutions that continue their dissent from the sexual revolution. When tax exemptions are removed, donors will give far less than they are giving now. Churches will become liable to property taxes. That means that many churches will have to forfeit their property to the government because they won’t be able to afford the taxes they have to pay on it. Many of them wouldn’t be able to pay them now. If donations went down, they would be that much further from being able to pay them. As a result, churches that reside on valuable properties in urban locations would be immediately vulnerable. Eventually, so would everyone else.

Popular Posts