New York Times Finally Retracts Clinton Story
New York Times Finally Retracts Clinton Story
The New York Times has finally retracted its flagrantly false story about Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY):
An article published on the Web site of The New York Times on Sunday reported on a speech by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Rogers, Ark. The headline and article said that Mrs. Clinton had criticized Democrats on Saturday for “wasting time†by dealing with issues that helped Republicans turn out voters rather than finding consensus on mainstream subjects. The opening sentence of the article and the headline were based on a misinterpretation of a passage in her speech in which she first referred to the Democrats’ agenda in the Senate and then went on to criticize the actions of the Republican majority in Congress.
She was referring to the Republican-led Congress — not Democrats…
This is a victory for the progressive blogosphere, particularly Atrios, who first discovered the error, and Media Matters, which kept the story going. Some questions to consider:
– Why did it take the New York Times more than 48 hours to correct the record?
– Will right-wing news sites that picked up the story, including Drudge Report and Newsmax, inform their readers?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
– Why did it take the New York Times more than 48 hours to correct the record?
duh…
– Will right-wing news sites that picked up the story like Drudge Report and Newsmax correct the record for their readers?
duh…
July 18th, 2006 at 7:12 pmBastards. They don’t have the intellectual honesty to give Kornblut’s name. You’d think the readers of a retraction of such a grossly misleading article would want ot know who wrote the damn thing.
July 18th, 2006 at 7:14 pmIt’s about time they retract some bs, but don’t hold your breath for Rush Limpdick, et. al to pass this along.
July 18th, 2006 at 7:17 pmMore than 48 hours: The NY Times HATES to admit error. Are you still waiting on a Whitewater retraction?
Will Drudge and the Right-Wing outlets correct the error? Ha. Not bloody likely, is it?
July 18th, 2006 at 7:22 pmOnce again, the story was published in the Sunday edition of the New York Times. Some people only get the Sunday edition and will never ever see the retraction. So, for the Sunday edition only readers, the story still stands as it was printed.
Atrios and Media Matters need to push for a Sunday retraction of a Sunday story.
July 18th, 2006 at 7:42 pmOh,I don’t know,Spudge,I only get the Sunday Times and I saw the correction.
July 18th, 2006 at 7:56 pmSend a news tip to Sludge - Let him know about the NY Times retraction. Ask him when will he retract the lie.
July 18th, 2006 at 8:01 pmTJM,
The fact that you are here at Think Progress puts you in the category of getting informed. The people I am talking about are folks that aren’t getting informed. There is a difference between those who seek information and those who just read what is printed. But you know that.
July 18th, 2006 at 8:05 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon
spudge you should read this –Bob Satan
July 18th, 2006 at 8:05 pmNot that i’m excusing the NYT, but I did want to point out that the article was only available as part of their online version. I do not think (i’m not 100% sure though) that the article was in print. so people who read the article, read it online and therefore (hopefully) will also read/notice the retraction. I know i saw it before i saw ThinkProgress post about it.
and though i definitely think the NYT is NOT as liberal as neocons would like to state, and that i definitely have issues with aspects of the times, I still find it a really decent read when it comes to mainstream news papers. I like a lot of the people working in their OP/ED dept (Krugman, Kristof, and even Dowd from time to time). I try to read a lot of different sources and i will probably never count the NYT out. I wrote and asked for a retraction and since they did post one, regardless of the 48 hours, it’s stll more than Fox news rarely posting retractions.
and as for the NYT hating to admit they’re wrong. honestly, i think MOST people and organizations hate to admit they’re wrong. that’s how the world ends up so polarized.
July 18th, 2006 at 8:05 pmSanta_Bob,
I am going off of what the Bible says, not Wikipedia. As Wikipedia points out:
Not that I am a religious type, I am just very familiar with the whole end times/rapture stuff. All of my dad’s side of the family are end timers. They love preaching about this stuff. Hell fire and brimstone, rapture, second coming, blah blah blah.
July 18th, 2006 at 8:17 pmFor some reason the Huffington Post is still silent on this topic. Their commentors totally trashed Hillary as if they believed everything Drudge ever said about it. But they think it proves they are really cool to hate Hillary so I dought you will see anything salutory there.
July 18th, 2006 at 8:25 pmDoes the phrase “when hell freezes over” come to mind?
July 18th, 2006 at 8:25 pmSpudgeboy is absolutely correct. Many, many people read papers only on the weekend and this will miss them entirely.
July 18th, 2006 at 8:30 pmSpeaking of retractions - just WHAT did Ann Coulter say about the cornstarch in an envelope? Did she say SHE sent the envelope to the NYT? Or did she say she was happy that her words inspired such action?
July 18th, 2006 at 8:47 pmIf she sent it, she is a terrorist.
If she inspired it, well, you know what Fearless Fozdick Bush said about encouraging terrorists.
– Will right-wing news sites that picked up the story, including Drudge Report and Newsmax, inform their readers?
Um, no. And if they did inform their readers, the readers would not believe it.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:32 pmInteresting….I seem to recall that in another thread Seixon tried to make some sort of case about the article not being misleading…
Now that he NYT has admitted its error and issued a retraction, will Seixon:
a) man up and admit he was in error as well,
- or -
b) accuse the NYT of possessing ‘liberal bias’ and label those involved ‘clintonistas’?
I know which option my money’s on…
July 18th, 2006 at 10:25 pmnone of the questions asked above ask the central question.
that central question is:
how could an experienced NY(twit)Times reporter makes such a mistake ?
and then
why were the reporter and her error not mentioned specifically?
and
what punishment will the reporter receive?
now moving on:
what did bill keller have to do with this?
and
is this a “robert woodward” move?
i.e. co-operate with us or be smeared.?
i suspect the latter.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:32 pmI’m glad to see the NYT do the right thing. I do hope that they make more of an effort to avoid such sloppy reporting in the future, but the retraction speaks well of them.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:57 pmWho cares about the New York Times having to retract a error report about Hillary Clinton! If they want revenge on her, they can report that she is backing Israel’s aggression on Israel, so shame on her for backing fascism!
July 18th, 2006 at 11:55 pmCorrection post 21 > Israel’s aggression on Lebanon!
July 18th, 2006 at 11:58 pmHilary is as bad as Bush
She made a false analogy
Comparing the Israeli bombing attack on Lebanon with a supposed attack by Mexico on the US
Saying - what if Mexico bombed the US
But the analogy would be - what if the US bombed Mexico - as in - what if Mexican military (comparable to Hezbollah) captured US soldiers - and in retaliation the US bombed Mexico City) - that would be the comparison
But she muddied the waters by ignoring the fact that Israel bombed first.
She carefully composed her analogy to ensure a continued flow of Israeli dollars into her presidential coffers.
She’s like Lyndon Johnson
July 19th, 2006 at 12:27 amA War Monger
Hillary,Lieberman,and AIPAC MUST GO!!!
July 19th, 2006 at 1:29 amPost 23 cmw > yep Hillary muddied the water to justify her undying support for Israel! The sad thing is that her husband Bill claimed he was impartial in trying to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, but it ends up he was just helping Israel only! The Clintons have revealed that they are shills for Israel and NO different from Lieberman in supporting any wars!
Let’s say a Mexican drug lord kidnapped a couple of our National Guard troops on the border, so would it be justified to bomb the entire Mexican citizenry to punish the drug lord? NO that action would be as unjustified as Israel is doing to the Lebanese! Our government would have a right to pursue the drug lord and to attack his operations, but not to bomb Mexico City!
July 19th, 2006 at 1:46 amCMW - are you serious? How could you compare Hilary Clinton to a war monger?
Let’s focus on the fact that this story is about how the NYT misrepresented a speech and then took 2 days to correct itself.
Stop blaming the party that isn’t even in control and take some responsibility for this do nothing congress and lying war profitering president. It disgusts me that you could be so ignorant.
July 19th, 2006 at 1:56 am#26: CMW’s post is incoherent.
But Hillary Clinton’s position on Iraq is troubling. It appears to be similar to Joe Lieberman’s, minus the smirking demagoguery.
July 19th, 2006 at 2:07 am[…] New York Times Finally Retracts Clinton StoryThink Progress, DC - 6 hours ago… Will right-wing news sites that picked up the story like Drudge Report and Newsmax correct the record for their readers? Formatting … […]
July 19th, 2006 at 2:13 amkaty said it best. Damn!
July 19th, 2006 at 7:39 amWhy did it take the New York Times more than 48 hours to correct the record?
They were trying to figure out if their reporter could have been that damned stupid.
Adam Nagourney told them “No”.
July 19th, 2006 at 7:40 amwould it be justified to bomb the entire Mexican citizenry to punish the drug lord?
July 19th, 2006 at 9:34 am#22
Correction post 22 > Israel’s aggression on Hezbollah
July 19th, 2006 at 9:37 amWhy should liberals give a shit about Hillary Clinton? Yes, make sure the media is doing their job. But, please, realize that Hillary is not the answer. Her comments in support of Israel’s campaigns in Lebanon and Gaza are absolutely atrocious and unforgivable. I would not give her a vote in a million years. She is another corrupt, rich politician.
July 19th, 2006 at 10:17 amLast night I could not find the correction online. I only knew about it because of a reply I received from having written Calame.
July 19th, 2006 at 10:40 am#32 Come on! Look at the death tolls. How many of the dead Lebanese are with Hezbollah?
And, if you want to get right down to it, compare the numbers between Lebanese dead and Israeli dead. It seems that a great percentage of the Israeli dead are actually military while the same is not true for the Lebanese dead.
And, if Israel is attacking Hezbollah, why did they attack a Lebanese army base?
Lebanon is showing great restraint in not responding to the illegal invasion and bombing of their country.
July 19th, 2006 at 10:58 amWHO CARES!!!! Hillary should not be our candidate in 2008 and not worthy of all of this attention anyway. She will raise as much money for the GOP as the Dems and has absolutely no chance of winning a general election. She inspires as much hate as W. Moreover she is nowhere near as qualified or worthy as Gore, Warner or several others. Wake up people!
July 19th, 2006 at 11:13 amThis is the second one. A couple of weeks ago they let some wingnut claim that protesters at veterans’ funerals were liberal democrats, even though they were actually just more wingnut evangelical fundamentalists.
It took the Times about a week to retract that one, too.
July 19th, 2006 at 3:04 pm#35
“How many of the dead Lebanese are with Hezbollah?”
Hezbollah is entrenched among the Lebanese population unfortunately. As far as the Israelis are concerned the Lebanese government is complicit with Hezbollah considering they have done absolutely nothing to disarm or diaban them in the six years since Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000.
“Lebanon is showing great restraint in not responding to the illegal invasion and bombing of their country.”
Great restraint? They can’t even control these armed militants inside their own borders. They should start showing no restraint against Hezbollah and aid the Israelis in getting rid of this ILLEGAL milita.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:00 pmBlogs Keep Jounalists Vulnerable…
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This quote is famous for describing the seemingly natural tendency for leaders to abuse their power once they have it. This is why democracy has embraced the challenge of periodic elections and the checks and balance…
July 23rd, 2006 at 7:55 amWSJ: Scholar Warns Iran’s Ahmadinejad May Have ‘Cataclysmic Events’ In Mind For August 22
Tue Aug 08 2006 10:22:35 ET
In a WALL STREET JOURNAL op-ed Tuesday, Princeton’s Bernard Lewis writes: “There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran’s present rulers.”
“In Islam as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time — Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined.”
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the US about nuclear development by Aug. 22,” which this year corresponds “to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to ‘the farthest mosque,’ usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1).
“This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.”
Developing…
Rest of Story
August 9th, 2006 at 10:12 pmObsession http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/