revised clinton critique

            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 organization to release the story. Two serious facts had to be corrected after publication. These corrected facts were key to the story, one false fact about an investigation into Clinton and the other about a “criminal referral”. These were particularly important facts to have gotten wrong. It’s even more surprising and shameful because the story was published by one of the most reputable newspapers in America.

            The headline, therefore, was incorrect also. The investigation addressed the possible security breach with Clinton’s email address, according to the correction. The lead paragraph used a very newsy approach, setting the tone for the article as serious. Aside from the wrong information, the article used correct grammar, punctuation and spelling. It correctly followed Associated Press style. The article was very informative, but there was no room for imagery.

            The picture used with the article helped set the tone. The colors were rich and dark, Clinton appears to be refuting an allegation. Her body language looks as if she’s trying to calm down somebody, or all of America. The dark colors add a sinister air to the article and give Clinton a certain darkness. Perhaps, this is NYT’s way of adding an edge to the story without obvious bias.  

            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 attribute. 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.