NY Times Clinton Debacle

This post is almost an addendum to my July 25, 2015 post entitled “Right Wing Dirty Tricks.” In that post I quoted from Dylan Byer's July 24, 2015 Politico article about the NY Times changing a story in which it had reported that two inspectors general 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.'” This New York Times story obviously put Hillary Clinton in a bad light, and it was inaccurate. The facts that have now come to light and the outcry over the inaccuracy of a story that could influence a Presidential election has now forced the NY Times to back even farther away from its original story. The Times had to admit that Hillary was not the subject of a criminal investigation, and they even had to say there was a “security referral” rather than a criminal investigation of anyone. Furthermore the Times had to admit that in regard to the classified information found in Hillary's E-mail account “it’s doubtful whether the information was marked as classified when she sent or received those emails.”

In The New York Times, July 28, 2015 “Public Editors Journal Page” there is an article entitled “A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What Next?” By Margaret Sullivan.

Ms. Sullivan acknowledges the errors in the original story, adding that “[e]ventually, a number of corrections were appended to the online story, before appearing in print in the usual way – in small notices on Page A2.”  In saying this she all but explicitly admits that the handling of the corrections was inadequate given the magnitude of the errors and the potential consequences.

Ms. Sullivan blames the inaccuracies on the incorrect (read unreliable) statements anonymous sources made to Times reporters, Matt Apuzo and Michael Schmidt. She quotes editor Matt Purdy as saying: “The reporters and editors were not able to see the referral itself .. and that’s the norm in such cases; anything else would be highly unusual, he said. So they were relying on their sources’ interpretation of it.”

And why would the reporters and their editors do this highly unusual thing? Ms Sullivan says it was because the reporters were in too much of a rush to get the story in print and scoop the competition. I find that troubling. What I find even more troubling is the self serving statement that follows:

“None of this should be used to deny the importance of The Times’s reporting on the subject of Mrs. Clinton’s email practices at the State Department, a story Mr. Schmidt broke in March. Although her partisans want the focus shifted to these errors, the fact remains that her secret email system hamstrung possible inquiries into her conduct while secretary of state both by the news media and the public under the Freedom of Information Act and by Congress. And her awarding to herself the first cull of those emails will make suspicion about what they contained a permanent part of the current campaign.”

Let me remind Ms. Sullivan that The Freedom of Information Act would not make available to her or the New York Times any classified documents or E-mails containing classified documents. Furthermore, Hillary's predecessors used their private E-mail accounts in much the same manner, and no one questioned them about culling those accounts. So why has this become such a big thing? Is it because of other phony issues such as Benghazi?

It is this sort of crap that made me look up Eric Boehlert's article “Can The New York Times Salvage Its Clinton Coverage?" on Media Matters. More specifically it was that article's sub-title: “Email Blunder Fits Disturbing Pattern Of Misinformation” that drew my attention.

Until now I did not think misinformation regarding Hillary Clinton was specifically a New York Times problem. What I mean by that is that the right wing has an absolute hatred of Hillary Clinton, and most news outlets have been quoting outlandish accusations about her without making any attempt to verify or debunk the claims made. What the times has done in this instance, however, goes way beyond hiding behind a quote or lazy reporting, and this is not the first time the Times reporting has been questionable in regard to the Clintons!
 
As Mr. Boehlert wrote: “If you were surprised by the Times' face-plant, then you haven't been paying attention. Media Matters has been chronicling the Times' problematic Clinton coverage in recent months. (And for years.) Yet it wasn't until the email fiasco that the paper's ongoing Clinton troubles exploded into full view, prompting condemnations as journalists and commentators not only questioned the Times' competence, but also its fairness.”

Robert Borosage Nails It

For decades now I have been saying that the ratio between short term and long term investors is way out of balance. Long term investors have traditionally looked at the stability of a company, its book value, and its potential. The research and development that allowed companies to get ahead of the competition or at least keep pace with the competition was considered essential by long term investors who wanted steady growth and a steady appreciation of the value of the stocks they purchased. Short term investors, on the other hand, have always been risk takers who are looking for quick rewards. They do not think much about long term growth. If the system is not rigged “betting the spread” is a more a accurate description than "playing the spread" because short term investors are gambling.

In short, it was my opinion that the number of short term investors and their economic power exposed the long term investors to much more risk than was desirable. I must admit that my view was the view of an informed layman. As such it was simplistic. What is actually happening is far more complex and far worse than I realized!

Check out Rober Borosage's July 17, 2015 article, “Hillary on Quarterly Capitalism: Big Challenge, Timid Reform,” on Campaign for America's Future. In this article, Mr. Borosage uses Hillary Clinton's comments to show us how bad it really is. He begins his article by saying:

“Last week, Hillary Clinton opened an important 'conversation' about what she calls 'quarterly capitalism' or excessive 'short-termism.' She noted how the rules have been rigged to pressure executives to focus on the next quarter’s stock return rather than the long-term health of the company. The result, reaching new extremes in recent years, is that large public corporations are using 'eight or nine of every 10 dollars they earn' to pay out dividends or purchase stock buybacks. CEOs suggest that they would hold off making significant long-term investments if that meant missing the next quarter’s targeted return.

This 'culture of short-term speculation' is 'out of balance,' and fixing it, Clinton argues, is vital to 'save capitalism for the 21st century.'

In stark contrast with Republicans presidential candidates who want to cut or eliminate capital gains taxes, Clinton calls for reforms that will reward longer-term horizons. She suggests she wants to revive what used to be called stakeholder capitalism, with corporations focused not simply on shareholder return but on insuring that workers, consumers, communities, the country and the globe share in the rewards of long-term growth.

But in what is becoming a signature of the Clinton campaign, the fundamental problem is addressed with underwhelming reforms. To abandon the culture of short-term speculation, Clinton does not call for a financial speculation tax that might slow computer-driven, nanosecond trading programs. She does not endorse taxing the income of investors at the same rate as the salaries of workers. She doesn’t mention breaking up too-big-to-fail financial institutions or reducing the bloated size of our financial community that helps drive risky financial transactions. She doesn’t penalize companies for excessive CEO compensation packages.

Instead, she offers five areas for reform – four essentially exhortations and one of substance. This gives her scope for rhetoric that echoes Sen. Elizabeth Warren while offering policies that won’t offend Silicon Valley or Wall Street donors.”

Mr. Borosage goes on from there to accurately describe in detail the problems Hillary identifies and the timid reforms she advocates. Believe me his discussion is well worth the effort to read it!

I want to add here that Hillary's rhetoric goes beyond trying to appease the left. It is not just a sop to the much vaunted Elizabeth Warren wing of the party or to the people supporting Bernie Sanders. It is rather a recognition that the party of Roosevelt has awakened and is now demanding that we do something about the threat posed by the unbridled greed of the plutocrats. Hillary's inability to propose effective reforms to meet this crises is also indicative of the problem posed by the influence of money on our political system. Sadly, I have to say that even her anemic response to the problems caused by such a rigged system is more desirable than the Republican Party's Hooveresque denial that there is a problem or, in the alternative, their denial that the problem is caused by a lack of regulations and a rigged system that enriches the rich at the expense of everyone else. Those GOP morons actually want to double down on their failed trickle down policies!

Bless Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. They have changed the rhetoric, and that is a first step. Unfortunately it will take someone who is not beholding to Silicon Valley and/or Wall Street to do what we so desperately need done.  Could Bernie be the answer?