critue on NYT article "Inquiry Sought in Hilary Clinton's Use of Email"

By Caitlin Fowlkes

The article, “Inquiry Sought in Hilary Clinton’s Use of Email” in the New York Times by Michael S. Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo was well written. The most obvious problem about the article was the fact that the reporters relied on unreliable sources in order to be the first news provider to release the story. Two serious corrections about facts in the story had to be made. These corrected facts were key to the story, one false fact about an investigation into Clinton and the other about a “criminal referral”. These are extremely important facts to have gotten wrong, not a misspelling of a name, but two untrue accusations. It’s even more surprising and shameful because the story was published by one of the most reputable newspapers in America.

            Aside from the wrong information, the article used correct grammar, punctuation and punctuation. It correctly followed Associated Press style. The headline, therefore, was incorrect also. The investigation “addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that email account”, according to the correction. The lead paragraph used a very newsy approach, setting the tone for the article as serious. The article was very informative, but there was no room for imagery. The story was about a possible serious breach of security and NYT wanted to inform America as soon as possible.

           

            The language used was informative, not vivid, leaving no room for fluff. The picture used with the article helped set the tone. The colors were rich and dark, Clinton looks as if she’s refuting an allegation. Her body language looks as if she’s trying to calm down somebody, or all of America, since the general consensus is that Clinton can’t be trusted, licks the shoes of anyone connected with Wall Street and will tell the public whatever needs to be said in order for her to win America over.

            Plenty of personal details regarding the scandal, possible investigation and trials involved with the findings are given. Although, the article can’t be considered fair or ethical because the reporters put their news coverage first before the truthfulness of the story. They published false information about a presidential candidate knowing that the information may not have been entirely true. They also caused much embarrassment to their news organization. If the article had been fact checked correctly during its first run, it would have been ethical. There is no bias in the article, only news. It would be fair to Clinton because it mentions that the emails were only considered classified information after they were reviewed once it became public that Clinton was using a private email for work. The article doesn’t make Clinton out to be a bad person, just slightly technology incompetent.

            All of the sources are correctly attributed and there is nothing in the article that needs to be attributed that isn’t. Although, the article was completely fair and objective in the sense that the information isn’t misleading after the corrections; it is important that the reporters included the part about the speculation of the State Department delaying the hearing on the document handling issue in order to protect Clinton. This is a key component to the story because of all the speculation of government agencies trying to protect Clinton on a number of issues. Without pointing fingers, the reporters covered all sides of the story well. Unfortunately it is a shame to the paper and the reporters’ reputations that the story was published with such important facts incorrect.