That's stunning. I'd read the Times piece already, but the transcript makes it clear they spun her words around to give them the exact opposite meaning of their clear intent.

Stupid liberal media.

Yes, the "liberal media" strikes again.

That's really, really bad.

Is this article due to deliberate mendacity or just sloppy negligence. It sounds like a report of Clintons speech as written by the RNC or the likes of NewsMax.

It doesnt make sense on its face, since the GOP is the one controlling the legislative agenda and the one brining up these divisive issues and avoiding the builiding of consensus, by uzing control of rules and its majority of the majority attitude.

Does anyone have the email of the Ombudsman for the NYT handy to requrest a retraction?

dishonest or stupid. could go either way.

Yes, just think what they'd be like if they weren't so liberal, treasonous, and just generally sushi-eating. Gosh, they'll do anything to bring down Bush!

This indeed is terrible journalism...and that comment comes from someone who's left of center, and despises Hillary Clinton.

But Kevin, little Annie Kornblut has summer parties to attend. When the GOP sends you a pre-written story, why bother with working?

Who is Anne Kornblut? How is she tied in with the Republicans? Is she receiving money from Fox News? What about the RNC? Finally, do they have editors and fact checkers at the New York Times? First Jason Blair, then Judy Miller and now this? Does the news department have any integrety at all?

Funny, I remember watching the Larry King show and I remember the original statement. What was said on that show sounded like what the transcript indicates she told the Democratic women. A lot like the transcript. There was simply no way to get Kornblut's story out of either the original comments or the transcript.

This was not a mistake. This was deliberate. Kornblut should be sent to a paper in North Dakota to write advertizing copy. I take that back. The good people of North Dakota deserve better. We all do.

Public Editor: public@nytimes.com

Kevin: where did the full transcript come from? Is it an unassailable source? Many thanks.

Ombudsman: public@nytimes.com Lots of luck. This particular ombudsman functions more as a representative of NY Times management to the readers, than as a representative of the readers to the management.

That said, I did indeed write a letter of complaint, because the quotations from Sen. Clinton were so carefully excised from the context in order to turn the meaning around that it seems deliberate---an active and intentional deception.

I kept my calm, gave the ombudsman the context, and asked only that the reporter be fired for deliberate deception. (Worse than Jayson Blair, IMO.)

Daily Kos has a lot more on Kornblut. This may be her worst act of distortion, but it's certainly not her first.

This particular ombudsman functions more as a representative of NY Times management to the readers, than as a representative of the readers to the management.

Do we know of any on the major dailies who don't?

Quite, quite, quite disgusting.

Not to put any kind of halt to the piling one, but Anne is the last person to see the copy -- not the first, It could have been sliced and diced by any number of copy-editors, both at the online desk and the paper's desk. It will be interesting to see how quickly a correction's issued, especially is HRC's people make a stink.

I doubt that's the case, UCF. The entire article is predicated on the premise that Clinton was criticizing Democrats, a conceit that rests on the mangling of her address. If her editors were responsible for that kind of drastic revision, they would've pulled her byline or at least given a co-credit.

And, again, she has a long history of this kind of sloppiness and/or tendentiousness. I think we can be fairly sure the fault lies with her.

Alexander Wolfe >"That's really, really bad."

Well, duh !

Expect lots more of this in the near term future (election season ya know...)

"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know." - M. King Hubbert

Otto,

That's not the way the copy-editing process works. Editors won't touch the lede, anything else is fair game, they can change whatever they like and shape the piece in any way as long as the changes are warranted and it's consistent with the lede. I'm not saying they did that, I'm not saying Kornblutt is immune from criticism, but I'm just saying the problem is larger than her.

If the piece reflects the one she submitted to the desk, than the problem is systemic, from the assignment editor to the copy-editor not catching it, the slot [head copy-editor] not catching it, to the desk editor, to the national editor, etc. Publishing a piece is a multi-stepped process, which is why just criticizing writers is a bit narrow minded. Similarly, criticizing writers for misleading headlines is also ridiculous, they never write them and have no control over them.

It seems that Hillary is at least partly to blame for the way her words were interpreted. She said:

"But with the Republican majority, that's not THEIR priority. So WE do other things, we do things that are controversial, WE do things that try to inflame THEIR base so that they can turn people out and vote for THIER candidates. I think WE are wasting time...."

Before this snippet, the last "we" she referred to was the nine female democratic senators. "So we (female democratic senators) pulled our best idea together." Then she says that those ideas are not the Republican majority's ("they") priority, and then starts speaking in the first person plural again, without defining what we was refering to. If she meant Congress, she should have said "So Congress does other things, we do things...."

The Time's story seems to be a reasonable interpretation of the language she used, if not her intent.

MJK is correct up to a point - get sloppy about your pronouns and antecendents, and you run a clear risk of being misunderstood. However, the lede sentence of the articles sounded so strange that it should have rung a bell to a any copy editor who is clued in at all to the current political discourse.

In fact, her speech seems ambiguous enough that it could be that the times reported her statements as she meant them. Has anyone in HRC's camp said otherwise?

Sorry mjk. I agree that here statement is not as clearly worded as it could be but there is no way that the meaning is as ambiguous as you seem to think. It simply wouldn't make sense for the "we" that is inflaming the Republican base in the last part of the statement which begins "So we do other things" to be the same as the "we" in the first part of the statement. Not when she just got through talking about the sort of legislation she and other Democrats have proposed which do precisely the opposite. Clearly she is not arguing that it is Democratic Senators that are bringing controversial bills to the floor to inflame the Republican base. That would be nonsensical, untrue and directly contradictory to what she had just finished saying. No reasonable person could read it that way unless they were wilfully misinterpreting the context of her remarks. Yes, the use of pronouns is sloppy enough to allow for that misinterpretation but it is still a willful misinterpretation.

allastair -- I'll agree with you that your interpretation of HRC's comments is most likely the way she meant them. But my main point is that HRC should know better than put herself in this sort os situation. I'd like to see the whole speech...atrios doesn't provide any sort of link, or even say where he got the trascript.

Was this a planned speech, or just off-the-cuff remarks? If it was a planned speech whoever wrote it should be shot.

allastair -- I'll agree with you that your interpretation of HRC's comments is most likely the way she meant them. But my main point is that HRC should know better than put herself in this sort os situation.
Posted by: mjk

doesn't that seem like a somewhat ... ridiculous ... onus for anyone to have to bear in order not to be misinterpreted by the fucking flagship newspaper of this country?

I have to agree with Nads. Part of being a reporter is asking follow up questions to confirm the speaker's intention if there is any ambiguity. In this case Kornbelt should have asked HRC, or one of her handlers, what she meant.

Little Anne is a reporter, not a columnist. At least in the old days reporters were held to a pretty high standard. They were expected to report the facts. Today, not so much. In those days they were expected to follow up. Today, again, apparently not so much.

FWIW, according to Kos, "every other reporter covering this event got it right" (he doesn't link to any examples, though).

He and Atrios both said they received the transcript via email, which leads me to think it was sent out to a mailing list of Democrats--or maybe lefty bloggers--by Clinton's people.

"doesn't that seem like a somewhat ... ridiculous ... onus for anyone to have to bear in order not to be misinterpreted by the fucking flagship newspaper of this country?"

Just because someone writes for the times doesn't mean they're not an idiot.

mjk - the only way your reading could work is if HRC was saying that "we" (the Democrats) do things that try to inflame "their" (the Republicans') base so that "they" (the Republicans) can turn people out and vote for "their" (the Republicans') candidates. Do you really find that to be a plausible reading? I find it to be absurd on its face, and that's ignoring her previous remarks about how the Democrats can't get votes on their proposals because the Republican leadership wants to vote on other things. Sorry, but there's really no ambiguity in HRC's statments, and there's also no defending this article.

matthew -- No, I don't really find that reading plausible. But it also seems very strange for Hillary to include herself in the second person plural with the Republican congress, especially since she's being critical of them.

Also, if you change one word in the transcript, her comments make perfect sense...in the way that the NY Times reported them. Change "so that they can turn people out and vote" to "so then they can turn people out and vote." This transcript, not provided by the times, was emailed to atrios by some random Democratic operative. Perhaps he decided it would be best to revise HRC's comments after the fact?

mjk

What you forget is that the Congress isn't the Republican Congress, it is the Congress. Only Republicans think of it as being their personal property. Her use of the term we to refer to the Congress in general and the Senate in particular, of which she is a member, is perfectly logical to everyone except those twisted Republicans who put party ahead of America.

Ron -- It would be perfectly logical if she was in the habit of using antecedents to her pronouns. One shouldn't have to infer what a pronoun refers to.

Anyone have the email addys for Keller and the other top editors at the Times? This deserves more than a complaint to the ombudsman. ~

"Grrrr. Kornblut makes it even worse by implying that Democrats are the ones bringing up gay marriage, when it's the goddamn Republicans who are doing so."

When did the Republicans ever bring up gay "marriage"

I was minding my own buisness, perfectly content with marriage as its always been...... and one day BAM....its all over the T.V. in liberal Massachusets, they got court cases going everywere.

Hell...Im still waiting for it to blow over....get back to worrying about plain old marriage. (like thats in good shape)

"One shouldn't have to infer what a pronoun refers to."

mjk

Once more. After this you are on your own. Little orphan Anne is a professional reporter. Got that. She is not some blogger, or even someone who works for the RNC. She is a professional reporter. She gets paid big bucks. She gets paid big bucks to get the story right. She didn't fact check. She screwed the pooch. Her big mistake was in not realizing that she would be called out for her false story.

Why you feel compelled to twist and turn in her defense is totally beyond me and everybody else who has been posting.

Your real name wouldn't be Anne Kornblut would it?

When did the Republicans ever bring up gay "marriage"

1996 with the "Defense of Marriage Act," which started this whole national discussion.

You remember DOMA, right? The act put forth by Bob Barr (married, divorced, married, divorced, married again), supported by Newt Gingrich (married, affair, divorced, married, affair, divorced), and then signed by Bill Clinton ('nuff said).

Marc

Didn’t something happen in Hawaii that (once before) got the entire nation registering its will.

Republicans have been using equal protection under the law for gay couples as a pinata for the past few election cycles. The notion of equality infuriates their base of authoritarian religious zealots and low brow bigots.

Unfortunately for the GOP's demagogues, times are changing. More and more Americans understand the issue is about equal protection under the law. Self-serving Democrats like the Clintons, who have refused to stand up to defend gay Americans from the GOP's demagoguery, must change now or risk being consigned to the same status as the gay bashers in the GOP whom they have enabled.

我向大家推荐:CS视频 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的CS视频,丰富CS视频行业资讯助您成交。中国 标签打印机 网，打造标签打印机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球标签打印机品牌公司及产品展示。北京 扫描枪 厂向广大客户提供扫描枪产品及扫描枪服务。上海 条形码打印机 公司专业生产条形码打印机产品，欢迎选择条形码打印机。监控 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的监控,丰富监控行业资讯助您成交。您想要了解 门禁 吗？请到中国门禁网来寻找门禁。北京 卫星电视 厂向广大客户提供卫星电视产品及卫星电视服务。上海 超声波清洗机 公司专业生产超声波清洗机产品，欢迎选择超声波清洗机。您想要了解 数据采集器 吗？请到中国数据采集器网来寻找数据采集器。中国 条码机 网，打造条码机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球条码机品牌公司及产品展示。环保加盟 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的环保加盟,丰富环保加盟行业资讯助您成交。要想寻找指纹考勤机信息请访问 指纹考勤机 网，各种指纹考勤机应有尽有。中国 镇流器 网，打造镇流器领域专业搜索平台，提供全球镇流器品牌公司及产品展示。中国 指纹考勤机 网，打造指纹考勤机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球指纹考勤机品牌公司及产品展示。您想要了解 安装卫星电视 吗？请到中国安装卫星电视网来寻找安装卫星电视。中国 指纹考勤机 网，打造指纹考勤机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球指纹考勤机品牌公司及产品展示。中国 考勤机 网，打造考勤机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球考勤机品牌公司及产品展示。北京 . 厂向广大客户提供.产品及.服务。您想要了解 三维扫描/逆向工程 吗？请到中国三维扫描/逆向工程网来寻找三维扫描/逆向工程。地埋灯/投光灯 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的地埋灯/投光灯,丰富地埋灯/投光灯行业资讯助您成交。中国 航空障碍灯 网，打造航空障碍灯领域专业搜索平台，提供全球航空障碍灯品牌公司及产品展示。要想寻找薄膜开关信息请访问 薄膜开关 网，各种薄膜开关应有尽有。中国 巡检 网，打造巡检领域专业搜索平台，提供全球巡检品牌公司及产品展示。北京 开关电器 厂向广大客户提供开关电器产品及开关电器服务。北京 考勤机 厂向广大客户提供考勤机产品及考勤机服务。

mjk, Kornblut's job isn't to transmit ambiguous speech from Hillary Clinton. If that were the case, the Times could just runt the transcript. Her job is to tell the Times readers as truthful an account as she can. I think what Hillary was trying to say was obvious. The occam's razor intperpretation is that Hillary was referring to the GOP. Yes, her speech left some wriggle room, but Kornblut's interpretation is the harder one to make. Plus, I'm assuming she has a phone, but is apparently too lazy to use it. Then, too, there's the context. Given that this is about the 10th time Kornblut has done this, why is she being kept on at the Times. What kind of currency is she putting forth to pay for the shit that is her reporting? There are plenty of talented reporters out there in the country. One of them should have Kornblut's job.

I found the meaning of the original speech to be unambiguous. The article equally so, and completely incommensurate with the speech.

I don't claim to know how newspapers work, but the article was a Big Lie and my first reflex is that the reporter fucked up and should be fired.

By the way, I have been completely disillusioned by Hillary Clinton. But she was speaking truth this time.

Is this the result of bias or idiocy?

davidk -- From the atrios-provided transcript, yes, it seems that HRC's intent is most likely misrepresented by the times piece. But perhaps Anne, watching the speech in person, did not detect any ambiguity at all. She thought she heard what she wrote about. All you have to do is to make HRC's remarks completly consistent with the Times account is change one "that" to "then". Reading a transcript is completly different from listening to a speech in person. To assume any malice or incompetence from the Times' reporter is simply jumping to conclusions.

mjk,

You haven't convinced anyone of anything other than the fact that you are ridiculous.

This is unacceptable reporting. It is indefensible. Enough already.

If dems leave gays, women and minorities behind, like many seem to want, they can kiss power good-bye. They will never win an election again.

If you don't support equal protection under the law, you don't support American values and I don't care what political party you belong to.

when referring to the Republican majority, why not just say "they"? it differentiates b/t Dems and Reps and makes it harder to spin. it's very bad writing/speaking on her part (or her speechwriter's part, depending on how extemporaneous it was)

The reporter should be fired.

NY Times link please?

linky

and what mjk is arguing is the stupidity defense, a possibility.

Excerpt from the Benton County Daily Record story by Tracy M. Neal, posted July 16 (www.nwanews.com/bcdr):

— U. S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N. Y., was warmly greeted Saturday by hundreds of Democrats waving signs with “ Madam President Jan. 20, 2009. ”

The former first lady of the United States did not mention her own possible run for the White House during her keynote address at the 2006 state convention of the Arkansas Federation of Democratic Women held at the John Q. Hammons Convention Center. Clinton did emphasize why she believes its important for the Democratic Party to regain control of Congress in the upcoming election. She also urged the audience to get behind the Democratic candidates seeking state-wide offices in the upcoming elections.

Clinton, who represents the state of New York, is seeking re-election of her seat and she believes fair-minded people are ready for a change. She believes the need for a change is fueled from energy prices, the deficit, the War in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina.

She described the war as being “ horribly mismanaged” but said Katrina was emblematic of what is wrong in Washington, D. C. “ It spoke volumes about their values, ” Clinton said.

She also criticized Congressional Republicans for spending time on issues to inflame “ their base” instead of important issues facing the country.

“ We need people coming together seeking common ground and find solutions to the problems we face, ” Clinton said. “ We face great challenges and we are not making right decisions for the future of our country. ”
....

Am wondering more and more about the NYTimes story; why not mention how aghast the audience might have been at being labeled as most of the problem? Was there a stir as they realized the import of Mrs. Clinton's words? Did the reporter talk with any attendees following speech to gauge their reactions? Did she in fact even attend the speech?

Ms. Kornblut's story makes me wonder a bit if it's a new occurence of "dateline abuse." How did she get this one so apparently wrong? I'm a big fan of the NYTimes, and of journalists in general, but this is just plain disturbing.

Kevin: really like your site and enjoy reading comments of others, even Al and American Hawk (for comic relief).

Could mjk, whose email is mjk@mjk.mjk be a relative of Anne E. Korblut? You know like Mary Jane Kornblut? Or Michael J. Kornblut? Because mjk's defense of Kornblut's blunder is a stretch.

The question remains: Who is Anne E. Kornblut? Where did she go to college? Where did she grow up? Does she socialize with Republicans as Ted Koppel and Gwen Ifill do?

Got her!

<a>california mortgage rate refinance</a>
<a>wedding jewelry</a>
<a>depression medication</a>
<a>bad credit lender</a>
<a>glucose monitor</a>
<a>shopping cart hosting</a>
<a>buy sports ticket</a>
<a>river belle online casino</a>
<a>online nursing degree</a>
<a>internet marketing business</a>

<a>printer ink</a>
<a>domain web hosting</a>
<a>printer toner</a>
<a>nicorette</a>
<a>book publisher</a>
<a>motorcycle dealer las vegas</a>
<a>office furniture las vegas</a>
<a>las vegas air ticket</a>
<a>las vegas free travel</a>
<a>las vegas car finance</a>

New York Times Finally Retracts Clinton Story
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/18/clinton-retraction/

<a>golf equipment las vegas</a>
<a>espn horse racing</a>
<a>preakness horse racing</a>
<a>triple crown horse racing</a>
<a>game game horse racing sports video</a>
<a>quarter horse racing</a>
<a>horse racing photo</a>
<a>horse racing result uk</a>
<a>tvg horse racing</a>
<a>kentucky horse racing</a>

<a>horse racing live odds</a>
<a>australia horse racing</a>
<a>lone star park horse racing</a>
<a>harness horse racing</a>
<a>yasmin 21</a>
<a>20 by comment name online poker powered spam wordpress</a>
<a>by comment name online poker powered spam wordpress</a>
<a>21 by comment name online poker powered spam wordpress</a>
<a>22 by comment name online poker powered spam wordpress</a>
<a>robot download casino online black jack</a>