Clinton
critique by Lukas Hagley 083016
The New York Times has consistently been revered as one of the
most polished and important national publications, hiring only the world’s greatest writing
and editing talents. Something in those gigantic Manhattan
headquarters went uncharacteristically wrong July 23, 2015 with the
publication of Michael S. Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo’s article, “Inquiry Sought
in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email.” One of the few political pieces slammed
almost unanimously amongst readers, the article contained too much general
information and not enough self-awareness.
One of the major misdirections within the
article, which confirms a request for a federal investigation into
Hillary Clinton’s personal email account, is the scattered use of anonymous sources. As the
article euphemized, the “unnamed sources” were the
foundation for everything the reader will digest. As I asked myself while reading the article, how am I to
trust the authors and their reporting when the credibility of their sources is
hidden?
Schmidt and Apuzzo’s report initially fell
victim to the great race between print and online journalism. In hindsight, the haste
with which the article was published is understandable (though still unadvisable). Journalists
from one of the world’s most famous publications had seemingly unprecedented
news on one of the nation’s most prolific current leaders. It only makes
sense that the New York Times rushed to print the article. However, the final
result did not benefit from its speedy publication process. Rather, the authors
and editors alike should have taken the time to confirm all of the article’s
claims and solidify the credibility of their sources before sending it to
newsstands.
The half-true, questionable tone of the
article was noticeable among many New York Times readers, with one
commenter demanding his money back. Others insisted for Schmidt and Apuzzo to
publish a written explanation for their missteps. The sensitive political climate in America
requires truth now more than ever, especially in the case of presidential
nominees. Baffled by how one of the world’s top publications could let
this huge a mistake slip through its fingers, the public outright questioned the ethics
of the authors, as well as their unnamed cohorts.
