Posted on 07/27/2015 11:43:53 AM PDT by Brad from Tennessee
The story certainly seemed like a blockbuster: A criminal investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton by the Justice Department was being sought by two federal inspectors general over her email practices while secretary of state.
Its hard to imagine a much more significant political story at this moment, given that she is the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.
The story a Times exclusive appeared high on the home page and the mobile app late Thursday and on Friday and then was displayed with a three-column headline on the front page in Fridays paper. The online headline read Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clintons Use of Email, very similar to the one in print.
But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasnt really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.
Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a criminal inquiry, instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a security referral.
From Thursday night to Sunday morning when a final correction appeared in print the inaccuracies and changes in the story were handled as they came along, with little explanation to readers, other than routine corrections. The first change I mentioned above was written into the story for hours without a correction or any notice of the change, which was substantive. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Naked?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.