2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: NY Times Attends Clinton House Party in Iowa, Finds Instead MORE SANDERS SUPPORT In Evidence. [View all]pnwmom
(109,049 posts)Hillary's emails were probably safer on the home servers that had originally been set up for Bill's use.
Here's a link to the Newsweek story:
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246
The real issue is how classified information is being handled NOW in response to Freedom of Information Requests -- not how Hillary Clinton handled it when she was in office.
Yes, there is memo after memo after memo, which the Times gloats were given to it by a senior government official. . . . And all of them are about the exact same thing: the process being used by current FOIA officials reviewing the emails of a former official is messed up. Thats like criticizing the former owner of a car for the work conducted by the new owners mechanic.
So what was the point of the memo written by Linick and McCullough? The memo itself is very clear: The Department should ensure that no classified documents are publically released.
In terms of journalism, this is terrible. That the Times article never discloses this is about an after-the-fact review of Clintons emails conducted long after she left the State Department is simply inexcusable. That this all comes from a concern about the accidental release of classified informationa fact that goes unmentionedis even worse. In other words, the Times has twisted and turned in a way that makes this story seem like something it most decidedly is not. This is no Clinton scandal. It is no scandal at all. It is about current bureaucratic processes, probably the biggest snooze-fest in all of journalism.
SNIP
In our hyper-partisan world, many people will not care about the truth here. That the Times story is false in almost every particulardown to the level of who wrote what memowill only lead to accusations that people trying to set the record straight are pro-Hillary. I am not pro-Hillary. I am, however, pro-journalism. And this display of incompetence or malice cannot stand without correction.
And to other reporters: Democracy is not a game. It is not a means of getting our names on the front page or setting the world abuzz about our latest scoop. It is about providing information so that an electorate can make decisions based on reality. It is about being fair and being accurate. This despicable Times story was neither.