That's her 'screw you' smile

It would appear that Madame Mrs. Secretary President-Elect (Almost) Hillz R. Clinton is a tad miffed that the New York Times published a completely not true in any way whatsoever story about her last week, gosh, can’t imagine why! First, the Times reported that the Department of Justice is maybe going to do a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton using her personal email to forward classified documents to her yoga instructor, or something like that. But then the Times very slowly, over several days, changed its story to say OK, there is no criminal referral, and OK, it’s not about Hillary Clinton doing a bad, and OK, those documents weren’t classified at the time, but how were we supposed to know that? What are we, journalists? We’ll try to journalism better next time, maybe, even though we have no idea how we FUBAR’d this story so bad, oh well, shrug, whatcha gonna do?

Turns out, the Hillary Clinton campaign has a suggestion: How about you do your frickin’ job like you are the New York Times, not Dead Breitbart’s Intertubes For Coke-Addled Sobbing Subliterate Keyboard Monkeys? Jennifer Palmieri, communications director for Hillary for America, typed up a little note to Dean Baquet, the wall-punching anger bear executive editor of the Times, and here are some parts we think will especially make you nod along and say, “Um, yeah!”

[W]e remain perplexed by the Times’ slowness to acknowledge its errors after the fact, and some of the shaky justifications that Times’ editors have made.

Us too, considering it took the Times several days to correct its story and post an accurate correction telling its readers how wrong, so wrong, the original story had been. That’s, like, a thousand years in internet time.

I feel obliged to put into context just how egregious an error this story was. The New York Times is arguably the most important news outlet in the world and it rushed to put an erroneous story on the front page charging that a major candidate for President of the United States was the target of a criminal referral to federal law enforcement.

Yeah, that is kind of a big deal, right? Like, WHOA IF TRUE, except that it wasn’t true.

To review the facts, as the Times itself has acknowledged through multiple corrections, the paper’s reporting was false in several key respects: first, contrary to what the Times stated, Mrs. Clinton is not the target of a criminal referral made by the State Department’s and Intelligence Community’s Inspectors General, and second, the referral in question was not of a criminal nature at all.

Shorter Clinton campaign: your entire story was wrong, you idiots!

In our conversations with the Times reporters, it was clear that they had not personally reviewed the IG’s referral that they falsely described as both criminal and focused on Hillary Clinton. Instead, they relied on unnamed sources that characterized the referral as such. However, it is not at all clear that those sources had directly seen the referral, either. This should have represented too many “degrees of separation” for any newspaper to consider it reliable sourcing, least of all The New York Times.

It’s a safe bet that the unnamed sources are probably House Republicans on the Benghazi Committee To Prove Hillary Benghazi Clinton Did Benghazi. Who have an agenda to make Clinton look real bad so she does not get to be president. Which is something perhaps the Times should consider when a House Republican says “I know a guy who knows a guy who said a thing.”

The speed with which the Times conceded that it could not defend its lead citing Mrs. Clinton as the referral’s target raises questions about what inspired its confidence in the first place to frame the story that way. More importantly, the Times’ change was not denoted in the form of a correction. Rather, it was performed quietly, overnight, without any accompanying note to readers. This was troubling in its lack of transparency and risks causing the Times to appear like it is trying to whitewash its misreporting. A correction should have been posted promptly that night.

Not to be rude, or anything, but you guys at the Times kinda knew your SHOCKING! accusation was bogus, which is why you secretly changed it without telling anyone, but that is bad journalism, and you should feel bad.

There’s a nice friendly “in closing” wish to “have a constructive relationship” with the newspaper that is seemingly obsessed with thinly sourced or straight-up WRONG stories about how Hillary Clinton did a bad. But (paraphrasing a little), you suck and your obvious bias sucks, and your crap reporting sucks, and we are going to keep pointing out how much you suck until you stop doing that.

XOXO, The Hillz campaign.

[Hillary Clinton]

Donate with CCDonate with CC
  • Nounverb911

    Is Rupert Murdoch still trying to buy the NY Times?

    • BigShinyNoseHair

      He doesn’t need to.

      • Antimassacree

        Sad, but true.

      • arundel

        The NYTimes just has this seething and unfathomable hatred for the Clintons. It’s really something. Hillary is already making them unhinged, and we have another year to go. Even the liberal NYTimes says..! I wish we could have the election like, next month, in September. I can’t believe we have another year of this election horse-race shit. Chuck Todd blathering with his face-hole about it. I wish we could get it over with already, and THEN the press can set about trying to destroy Hillary Clinton’s presidency with a hundred fake scandals. Which they will do, in any case.

    • spends2much

      Feels like he already did!

  • Lizzietish81

    I’d point out that many of the Republican candidates are under criminal investigations…but they’re not “major”

    • elviouslyqueer

      Oh, I’ll bet Trump! is tweeting you right now insisting that Donald Trump’s criminal investigations investigating Donald Trump are both major and YUUUUUUGE.

      • BigShinyNoseHair

        don’t forget, only the Donald has investigations that are really, really classy and maybe gilded with super swanky gold too.

        • david green

          And rubbed down with expensive, only the most expensive, caviar.

    • Ryan Denniston

      That’s why this story was written. So journalists can say both sides do it and feel that they aren’t partisan.

    • guppy06

      Hmmm… did Ollie North get demoted before discharge, perchance?

  • Nounverb911

    When did Judith Miller become Editor-In-Chief?

  • Callyson

    Remind me, Newsweek linky, just how bad was that article?

    The problem is, it is not as if the real purpose of this memo was hard to discern. Here is the subject heading: “Potential Issues Identified by the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Concerning the Department of State’s Process for the Review of Former Secretary Clinton’s Emails under the Freedom of Information Act (ESP-15-05).”

    Get it? This is about the process being used by FOIA officials in reviewing former Secretary Clinton. And former government officials have nothing to do with how FOIA officials deal with requests for documentation. To jump from this fact to a conclusion that, somehow, someone thinks there is a criminal case against Clinton (the original story) requires a level of recklessness that borders on, well, criminal behavior.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Criminal behavior? From Trey Gowdy? Unpossible!

  • AngryBlakGuy

    …tomorrow’s NY Times cover:

    • JustPixelz

      I thought Trump was older than Hillz.

      Correction: Hillary Adopts ILLEAGLE Alien ANCHOR Babby

      • Latverian Diplomat

        Wow, Somebody leaked the script to Independence Day 2

      • Amy!

        Obama doesn’t need his time machine any more, obviously. So he gave it to Hillz, about thirty years ago, judging by appearances.

  • Msgr_Moment

    Fucking liebural media. Just like Stalin.

  • FauxAntocles

    Where was Dickus Chenius during all this?

    • memzilla

      The Seventh Circle, were there any justice in this world.

  • memzilla

    So much for the Times’ exclusive scoop on releasing The Pantsuitagon Papers.

  • nmmagyar

    Once again, the need to be first skullfucks the need to be right.

  • beatbort

    Every time they use locutions like “a highly placed government official” or “someone close to the investigation said,” Rupert Murdoch gets an erection.

    • Antimassacree

      Fox News [sic] has shortened it to the nearly inaudible “Some say…” followed by whatever claptrap they want to foul the waters with.

    • Mehmeisterjr

      Every time they trail a gold-digging totty from Shandong province across his path, Rupert Murdoch gets an erection also, too.

  • Callyson

    Tell me, <a href =";?Salon linky, what do you think of this kerfuffle?

    Meanwhile, there’s deep irony in the fact that the Times routinely demands accountability, transparency and quick, thorough responses from public officials (including Hillary Clinton), yet the Times has largely discarded all three with regards to its botched email story.

    “I agree 100%!”–BbxpOSUQ–/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/18ci0oqmv8o6sgif.gif

  • Joshua Norton

    Apparently NYT reporters now get most of their scoops from wingnut Facebook posts, misspelled chain emails from their crazy relatives, and “The National Enquirer” headlines as they stand in the check-out line.

  • Ryan Denniston

    “Turns out, the Hillary Clinton campaign has a suggestion: How about you do your frickin’ job like you are the New York Times, not Dead Breitbart’s Intertubes For Coke-Addled Sobbing Subliterate Keyboard Monkeys?”

    At a minimum. The Times doesn’t even provide fun, photoshopped pictures to laugh at or anything! Every day, they take another step toward Politico.

    • Antimassacree


    • Villago Delenda Est

      AKA (h/t Charles Pierce) Tiger Beat on the Potomac.

  • Spotts1701

    Do you mean it’s time to put The Grey Lady in a home?

    • Villago Delenda Est

      The glue factory. That way we get some value out of her.

    • guppy06

      To the same vet they sent Boxer to.

  • Brother Yam

    “Vast Right-wing conspiracy,” my ass. Nobody’s out to get Hilz, they corrected the story…

    • Marc

      People can try to deny it but the conspiracy is in fact real.

      Ted Cruz was all over it the day the bogus story in question broke with the comment something like “when ever we hear about the Clintons it is associated with wrong doing. We don’t need that in a politics.”

      The constant polls by the so called “liberal media” showing people don’t think she is honest.

      Well, she is no more dishonest than the next politician, and is a far better choice for President than the rest of the candidates.

      This ‘un-trustworthy’ crap is all a sham by the right. Spread and defended by morans.

    • Latverian Diplomat

      Yeah, they headlined the bullshit story and buried the correction. That seems fair.

  • elviouslyqueer

    Shorter Jennifer Palmieri: “Nice newspaper you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it.”

    • Ryan Denniston

      She’s gonna Foster the Times?

      • Villago Delenda Est

        The scissoring is going to be epic!

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Hey, Punch…what’s this severed horse’s head doing in your bed?

  • Ryan Denniston

    Wat!?! Not at the same paper that employs Bobo and Tom “find me a taxi driver!” Friedman.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Not to mention Ross “Chunky Bobo” Douchehat.

    • Latverian Diplomat

      Now, now, NYT’s conservative columnists are far too fresh and insightful to be bothered with “fact checking” or “honesty” or “integrity”. This principle is known as “The Safire Doctrine”.

  • tegrat

    Gosh now I’m kinda missing Judy Miller’s byline. She and Cheney made a great team!

  • Fitzgerald Chesterfield

    Dean Baquet: What a bunch of pushy bitches . . .

  • Spurning Beer

    But their Sunday crossword puzzles are pretty good….

  • JustPixelz

    The Times (and other news outlets) should publish the names of anonymous sources who give them false information. It would encourage accuracy, assuming that’s everyone’s goal.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      YOOOGE assumption. We’re talking The Donald YOOOGE.

    • deanbooth

      But this would prevent people from giving them false information! The Times would become the pamphlet of record.

  • Villago Delenda Est

    Dead Breitbart’s Intertubes For Coke-Addled Sobbing Subliterate Keyboard Monkeys

    Just had to see that again. Kaili, you rock like Hurricane Katrina (and the Waves!)

  • Callyson

    Hey everyone, we might have a new deleted commenter below! (“They corrected the story” so everything is just fine? Yeah…no.)

    • JustPixelz

      “Brother Yam”? Check his other comments. He’s being sardonic. Or sarcastic. Or facetious. (Damn. I can never tell those apart.)

      • Callyson

        I tried to check his other comments and got an error message. (Which just might be a sign, come to think of it…)

      • Villago Delenda Est

        Poe’s Law. It’s a helluva drug.

    • guppy06

      I always flip things over to “oldest first,” because it’s what I’m used to, so… Above Libel!

  • proudgrampa

    Shorter NY Times: “All of the stuff we can make up, we print.”

  • Villago Delenda Est

    Reminds me of the recent “Hillary is isolating herself from the special snowflakes of the media!” meme where they rope off the Villagers so that actual everyday Americans have a chance to see her and interact with her.

    This is one of the reasons they so hate Obama…Obama tells them to fuck off and goes on the web to talk to “non-traditional” media types who ask actual questions of substance, as opposed to the pathetic “gotcha” stuff of asstards like Jake Tapper.

    • Reddishrabbit

      let’s talk about Travelgate, hot topic for them I’m sure.

      • Villago Delenda Est

        Don’t fuck with their perks. They are special snowflakes, you know.

  • goonemeritus

    As part of The New York Times corrective action they will
    stop using Alex Jones as an unnamed source.

  • I_Buttle

    Since this site is, mostly, a humorous, satirical site I’ve got a Joke for ya, to wit:”The New York Times Is, arguably, the most important news outlet in the world”. Bwahahaha (fuck you, Judith Miller)!

    • Latverian Diplomat

      One can see that less as praise for the NYT, and more as a reflection of the sad state of journalism in general.

      • eggsacklywright

        At least now they can refer to the NYT as the former paper of record.

  • OneYieldRegular

    You think that’s tough talk, you should see the letter Hillz is gonna write to WND.

  • Joshua Norton

    Ironically, the first ever NYT headline about Trump in 1973 – “Major Landlord Accused of Antiblack Bias” – was the start of his rise in the GOP.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      That’s right in the wheelhouse of the teabaggers. Sweet spot, indeed.

  • JD Mulvey

    Phenomenal letter. Hillary Clinton will make a great President.

  • Capt.Jim

    Maybe as a little pay back when Hillz is president she just cuts the times out of their WH correspondent seat

    • JD Mulvey

      Make them sit next to the whirring AC unit, furthest away from the free shrimp buffet, and behind the dude from Maxim.

      • Villago Delenda Est

        Behind the dude from Maxim is pretty harsh, but furthest away from the free shrimp buffet is like being crammed into the ovens at Auschwitz.

        • Reddishrabbit

          That’s not even close. Now, having only two drink tickers per a member, that is being crammed into the ovens at Auschwitz.

  • RoyalUglyDude

    That’s some weak click bait, NYT. Try, “One weird trick to boost testosterone and web hits” or “horny Secretaries of State in your area.”

  • Bitter Scribe

    Try to understand where the NYT and the rest of the MSM is coming from. If they straight-up report every stupid thing Republicans say and do, without a break, they’ll look biased (especially when the Republicans scream about it). So they have to make shit up about Hillary for the sake of balance. It’s all about fairness in the big picture.

    • TheBidenator

      According to our deleted commenters Republicans aren’t just angry white guys who lack an inner monologue and are so ideologically bound everything must be conservatively correct or it is THE.WORST.THING.EVARRRR!!!!!!!! :pant, pant: AHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! :passes out:

      Ahem, we’re all emotional fems who can’t understand their logic. Therefore, they never say anything wrong or stupid or completely emotional and definitely batshit so any reporting otherwise is indicative of an intrinsic bias….
      Or as they put it, “yew just hate us ‘cuz weez white fellers and proud o’ it you bunch of gayrod slut pill usin’ libtards can’t understand well taught out lodg-ic” :spit:

  • trueblue

    I agree with Eric Bohlert of Media Matters: there’s been a Clinton witch hunt by the Times since the 90s.

  • Ergoetal

    You’re mad because they Judy-Millered you? Wait ’til you see what they do to Bernie once he gets the nomination.

    • Rex Thorne

      Woah, what universe are you posting from? I might like it there.

  • Beowoof14

    I thought they had rehired Jayson Blair.

  • AnOuthouse

    Brand Paul swills brosé from aborted fetus skulls according to a criminal referral submitted by the center for medical progress and the internet in general.

    • JD Mulvey

      We need to get this to print, stat!! Front page, 20-pt type!

      (retraction, days later… 4-pt type, page 37B.)

    • Frank von Winkhorst

      I recall posting a little “update” to the Randi Rhodes forum about VP Cheney purchasing property in Paraguay in case he had to escape a war crimes prosecution in the U.S. Within 15 minutes, Randi was trumpeting it to the world, and within half an hour it had made Radio Havana, at which point it was picked up by major news sources around the world. The news business has turned into a rumor mill, and the “newspaper of record” has fallen into the same pattern. It’s all very sad, really.

  • BMW

    Don’t fuck with Tracy Flick.

  • Whale Chowder

    [W]e remain perplexed by the Times’ slowness to acknowledge its errors after the fact, and some of the shaky justifications that Times’ editors have made.

    a-HAHAHAHAHA…editors! Snort, editors. Like the Times still has those.

    Seriously, you’d think the “liberal” NYT would be all over themselves polishing Hillary’s lady-penis, not this dumb shit.

  • Ducksworthy

    Yet more fuel for the Benghazi! hearings. False? So what. It’s all false. Who still thinks facts will have any influence on the GOP House? (hold up your hand and/or please post your bank account routing number)

  • ImpureScience

    They’re still at it…I remember the treatment they gave Al Gore in the 2000 election – tried so hard to look nonpartisan that they him an atomic wedgie at every opportunity. For a good paper they really can suck now and then.

    • Pierre_de_Fermat

      But … but … W was the guy you wanted to have a beer with. Selecting the next President is a lot like getting together for happy hour on Friday isn’t it? But they didn’t descent to Lady Noonington’s missive about W and the volunteer fire department and “where’s Sally?” … And it’s unfair to blame them for W and for going into an illegal / immoral war just because they backed both in their own stupid way.

  • SullivanSt

    I had it in the back of my mind for the last week to try to work out whether Baquet was Jill Abramson’s successor, but was stymied by laziness plus blanking on her name.

    She never shat the bed like this.

  • TheBidenator

    Well with the hardon the times has for Hillary Clinton you’d think that the Clintons would have given them blue balls rage sometime during the 90’s.
    In fact they have a new slogan:
    Clinton Blue Balls, They’re Not Just For Modo Anymore!

    • Jen_Baker_VA

      There’s a cure for that. It involves cigars and 104million dollar investigations that mention a single bj

    • guppy06

      I have it on good authority that Blue Ovaries are A Thing.

  • Pierre_de_Fermat

    The New York Times is arguably the most important news outlet in the world …
    I’m pretty sure the NYT is working to correct that even as I type this.

  • azeyote

    it’s just like on Fox – you sensationalize a lie, walk it back – get defensive about it, keep it on the down low – but the lie is what sticks – that’s what advertising a brand is all about – NLP shit – yo

    • Jen_Baker_VA

      Did Murdoch buy the Times like it bought the WSJ?

  • Paperless Tiger

    New York Troll, how the mighty have fallen.

  • MikeyArmstrong

    All they did was play with Tea Baggers’ emotions. Meanies.

  • Obot 50549535

    Yup, that’s the Federal Records Act. One paragraph. They just don’t make laws like that anymore.

  • JD Mulvey

    Bye Patrick! Been lovely.

    • Marc

      It was fun messing with him for a while but then I got a sad.

      It makes me sad that some of our fellow country men/women are so thoroughly whacked — and they vote republican. I don’t think reason will ever reach them.

  • Pugsandcoffee

    I hate showing up late to the sorry and all the whackjob’s comments have been deleted. :-(
    Was it something like, “benghaaarrraaaaalfjcndjricngaziTRUMP?”

  • Smibo

    WHOA!? The liberal media is actually publishing semi-journalisticky stories that run counter to the “Clinton/Soros plan for total world socialist takeover” meme? What is this topsy-turvy world coming to?

    I just don’t know who to trust to do my thinking for me anymore.


    Average Fox News viewer

    • Paperless Tiger

      Well, there’s a member of the Bush family running for President, so the media won’t be liberal for a while, except maybe when they get caught red-handed lying like this. Gulf War III is gonna be the charm for Wall Street, they just know it.

  • guppy06
  • Sterculius

    I wonder how many times a Fox news anchor can bark “Benghazi!” before it is diagnosed with Tourettes?

  • Pierre_de_Fermat

    Wow. Quite the troll attack. I thought the RWNJs could not get any worse than they were with Bamz. But suspect Hilz will make that look like perfect decorum.

  • ginos_way

    NYT. Employs Brooks, Douthat, Dowd, Friedman. Whole place is a bag of syphilitic dicks. Gotta wonder why Krugman doesn’t go berserk with a staple gun. Or at least urinate in the water cooler.

    • Pugsandcoffee

      How do you know he hasn’t done the latter?

      • Jeffery Campbell

        Or the former….

  • Pugsandcoffee

    Considering the Times’ long history of going after Democrats, how does it manage to hold on to such an image of being so liberal? It is decidedly not. Is it because they occasionally post things about science, and also Paul Krugman? Because that isn’t enough.

Previous articleWingnuts Win! AP History Exam Will Only Pass Patriot Kids Who Know America Is Perfect
Next articleGay-Hating Oregon Bakers Real Tired Of Getting Concentration Camped By Hitler