NY TIMES CHANGES IT'S POSITION ON HILLARY'S EMAILS
I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton. Recently, I questioned her use of a private email server and her only handing over the emails she wanted to. However, now the source accusing her of improprieties is walking back their initial claims that Hillary may have broken regulations. Or even reversing it's course. Since the NY Times were the original source of the allegations of Hillary's wrongdoing, much of the commentary stemmed from their coverage of Emailgate. So if I was wrong in my speculations based ion faulty info, I was wrong and am happy to admit it. I have many other reasons besides her emails to dislike her--like many her policies. But I'm not going to fault her for something she may not have been guilty of. This article gives side by side comparisons of what the Times originally said and their current, very different position on this. The Times is considered the gold standard of journalism in the US, but they've admitted a mistake. Their mistake caused every news channel to rave over this for a week. If they were raving over erroneous reporting, it's important to spread this retraction widely as well. Would they have valued a sensational scoop over accuracy? I don't think that says much about their paper.