NY Times spins story of Hillary emails into puff piece--her NPR listening habits, etc
First Batch of Hillary Clinton Emails Captures Concerns Over Libya"Claimed the lives of..." is SO much less distressing than "...in which attackers killed..." Also note the careful phrasing of "concerns expressed among Mrs. Clinton..." A far more normal wording would be "concerns by Mrs. Clinton..." Unless of course she wasn't the one who expressed any concerns. But to the casual reader the phrasing implies that she's the one with the concerns (other than deflecting any blame from herself, of course).
By Michael S. Schmidt, NYTimes May 21, 2015
The State Department is expected to release the first batch of emails from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email address in the coming days.
The emails..., drawn from some 55,000 pages ...capture the correspondence and concerns expressed among Mrs. Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, and her advisers following the attacks, which *claimed the lives of* the American ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans.
The emails also offer occasional glimpses into the private side of Mrs. Clinton’s life, such as her public-radio listening habits and the fact that she was complimented for how she looked in a photo that appeared on the front page of The New York Times.Yes, surely that's the important part of the information here. Honestly, fellow peasants, if one were to write this as dialog in a screenplay, it'd be ridiculed as too unbelievable! Yet here we are living it.
The Times obtained about a third of the 850 pages of emails. They appear to back up Mrs. Clinton’s previous assertions that she did not receive classified information at her private email address.Wait, how does finding no evidence of classified information in just one-third of the emails "back up" the assertion that she didn't get classified info via her private email server? That's as dumb as claiming that if you didn't find an elephant in your yard this morning, they don't exist.
The emails show that even those at the highest levels of government engage in occasional flattering of those above them. In March 2011, Mrs. Clinton received an email from Ann-Marie Slaughter, the director of policy planning for the State Department, who was leaving her position.Message to correct-thinking readers: Hillary did nothing wrong at all. Nothing. As we at the Times and NPR and NBC and ABC and CBS and MSNBC have repeatedly implied, there wasn't anything in her emails except things like the above exchange. See? Only personal stuff! So you need not be concerned about...anything her political enemies are saying.
“Gorgeous pic on the front page of the NYT!” Ms. Slaughter said, referring to a photo of Mrs. Clinton. “One for the wall...”
See, it's really about the "Republican War on Women!"
The only official State Department, government business she did via email was to email things like "You're doing a great job!" to her assistants and employees at State. Or "Isn't it sad that congress keeps obstructing programs that would ensure equality of opportunity and pay for all hard-working Americans in the middle class?" That sort of thing. But nothing else. Really. We've checked an entire third and there is nothing of interest in any of it. Really.[Finally: Most people with at least a highschool education have heard that newspapers are supposed to convey "news" by telling the reader "who, what, where, why and when" as early in the story as possible. And it's possible that a few Americans still may not have grasped what the flap about Hilly's emails is actually about. So here's the crucial "context" 'graf in the Times piece:]
The intense interest in the emails stems in part from the revelation this year that Mrs. Clinton exclusively used a private email address to conduct her government work as secretary of state.And where does the times put this key context? Why, at the very bottom of the story--it's literally the last 'graf.
And note that this alleged 'context-providing' summary fails to mention a) all government agencies are required by law to preserve emails of their employees; b) that Clinton had no official government email account; c) that she defied a request by congress to turn over those emails; and d) that rather than turn them over to congress, she picked out the ones she chose to turn over to congress and erased the rest!
Yeah, context, baby.
In fact nowhere in the entire article does the Times bother to mention that Clinton erased a reported 55,000 emails after a congressional committee ordered her to turn them over. nor that the private account was the *only* email account Clinton used when she was SecState. Obviously without those emails there is no record of how Clinton conducted business on behalf of the government during that time.
And yet Democrats are absolutely thrilled with the prospect of her being president.