Washington Post Corrects Faulty Report That Nearly 150 FBI Agents Are Investigating Clinton

[sufrommich]

The Washington Post has retracted its anonymously sourced claim that 147 FBI agents are detailed to the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, and is now reporting that the real number is fewer than 50. Media outlets trumpeted the Post's report of the supposedly "staggering" number of FBI agents working the investigation as bad news for Clinton.

On March 27, the Post published a 5,000-word article detailing the FBI's investigation into Clinton's use of a private email and personal Blackberry device during her time as secretary of state. The original story reported: "One hundred forty-seven FBI agents have been deployed to run down leads, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey."

The Post's claim spread throughout the media, with outlets frequently highlighting the 147 figure in their headlines and some using the report to attack Clinton. National Review termed the figure "a staggering deployment of manpower," while Breitbart News celebrated the "FBI recently kick[ing] its investigation into high gear." The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza highlighted the "eye-popping" 147 figure by commenting, "W-H-A-T?", adding that the reported number of agents seemed "like a ton for a story that Clinton has always insisted was really, at heart, a right-wing Republican creation," while MSNBC's Joe Scarborough called the number the "worst kept secret in DC for months." The story was also highlighted in several segments on Fox News.

But the next day, Politico reported that the Post's story might be inaccurate. According to Politico, an official close to the investigation refuted the Post's report, saying that "The FBI does not have close to 150 agents working the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email server" and that the Post's "number is greatly exaggerated."


http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/29/washington-post-corrects-faulty-report-that-nea/209615

[randome]

1. It's not like there isn't enough hyperbole connected to this in the first place.

Let's see what other exaggerations we can get away with!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[hrmjustin]

2. But the Hillary haters here and in the media bought into this.

Their hatred blinds them so much that they don't stop and ask questions.

[Armstead]

4. The WaPo USED TO BE a credible journalistic source before it became Amazon.com Journalism

There's still the holdover notion that they are an actual journalistic institution.

[NWCorona]

5. I actually can ask questions and except the answers

[2pooped2pop]

6. 50 is still quite a lot.

Enough to go "day-um" and be concerned about how it would effect the general election.

[LiberalFighter]

8. Not a lot when you consider that FBI agents are not really that smart.

So they need more of them to increase their IQ.

[2pooped2pop]

11. lol. yeah, I don't think that's it.

[NWCorona]

3. I seen that as well and it the gawker story is better

[cherokeeprogressive]

7. That's great news! Only 50 agents?

[kennetha]

12. it didn't say 50 agents were involved.

If you ask me if I have a 150 dollars. And I say no. Then you ask me to tell me how much I have and I say no. And then you ask me "Will you at least tell me whether you have more or fewer than, say, 50 dollars." And I respond, "fewer than 50." you can't infer from that that I have 50 dollars.

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. Are ANY agents involved in an investigation into possible wrongdoing of any kind by Hillary Clinton?

Yes? Bad.

No? Good.

See how that works?

[kennetha]

14. that's just spin.

nobody ever said that Hillary Clinton was the target of investigation involving possible "wrong doing" by Hillary Clinton except Repugnants and journalist who act as stenographers for republican leaks and now desperate Sanders supporters.

this all just nonsense.

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. That's definitely what I'd say too.

Good to know no one is investigating her. That's gotta be reassuring. Happy to know the FBI is in the business of investigating right-doing these days.

[pinebox]

9. It doesn't change the fact that Hillary is under TWO investigations

[Jarqui]

10. Another bulletin from a David Brock site .. nt

[MineralMan]

16. All stories that quote unnamed sources should be

looked at very skeptically. Those unnamed sources could be anyone, or even nobody at all. That's especially true when the article is an editorial, rather than a straight news story. Editorial writers often use such "unnamed sources close to...." even when no such source actually exists, except in the mind of the editorial writer.

It is a mistake to post editorial articles as though they are news. They are not. They are opinion pieces.

It's also a mistake to use misleading headlines such as "NYT Says..." when the article in question is an editorial opinion.

And yet, such postings happen all the time on DU and elsewhere. It's up to each of us to read the story and see whether it is just the writer's opinion and whether the sources used are real people, rather than anonymous sources that cannot be asked about the article.

Critical thinking. That's what's needed.

[zappaman]

17. Kick!

Not that many here will ever acknowledge the mistake.