After Forming Clinton Cash "Exclusives," NY Times, Washington Post Fail To Report On Book's Errors

[Bill USA]

After Forming Clinton Cash "Exclusives," NY Times, Washington Post Fail To Report On Book's Errors

Ever since Peter Schweizer's new attack book Clinton Cash was touted as the must-read tome of the campaign season, a growing number of media organizations, including Politico, BuzzFeed, ABC News, FactCheck.org, and Time, have detailed factual shortcomings in the book. (Media Matters has, too.) Noticeably absent from that fact-checking procession has been The New York Times and the Washington Post, the two newspapers that entered into exclusive editorial agreements with Clinton Cash's publisher.

The Times' and Post's seeming lack of interest in detailing the book's long list of misstatements certainly raises questions about whether the papers' exclusive pacts made the dailies reluctant to highlight Clinton Cash's obvious shortcomings.

After all, if those other media organizations can find the Clinton Cash errors, why can't the Times and the Post? And even if Times and Post reporters can't spot the misinformation, why aren't they at least writing about the key revelations that others are uncovering? Recall that it was the Times that trumpeted Clinton Cash as the "the most anticipated and feared book" of the campaign season. If it's so important, why isn't the Times documenting the crucial errors found between the Clinton Cash covers?

By entering into exclusive agreements, both the Times and the Post used Clinton Cash as the basis for larger investigative articles that raised questions about the Clintons' finances.
(more)

[left-of-center2012]

1. Says it all

"Hyped by its publisher -- the Rupert Murdoch-owned HarperCollins -- as being "meticulously researched and scrupulously sourced," Clinton Cash has instead turned out to be a mishmash of allegations glued together by innuendo and falsehoods."

[hrmjustin]

2. kicking.

[Beacool]

3. Knowing the source, why did the NYT and Post enter into this agreement?

Are they so desperate for readers that they wouldn't question the accuracy of the information in a book written by a RW operative? After all, Harper Collins is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Whatever happened to the objectivity of respected news outlets?

[DallasNE]

4. The Washington Post Has Been Republican

For several years now and who can forget the NY Times' Judith Miller's coverage of events leading up to the invasion of Iraq. It came as so surprise to me that these two publications jumped in bed with Rupert Murdoch for an orgy.

[charlyvi]

6. Back in the day the NYT was extremely anti Clinton

It ran with anything to make them look bad.......Whitewater, Rose Law Firm, Travelgate, Vince Foster. Anything at all., any leak from Ken Starr's witch hunt was given the gravitas of a front page story at the Times. All of which, except the Lewinsky scandal, proved to be bullshit. They started it again, but I think they received enough blowback this time to mute the hatred somewhat. We'll see.

[Beacool]

7. I guess I've forgotten what they wrote in the 90s.

[Hekate]

5. What I find disheartening is the number of DU activists who continue to use this book as a source...

...for bashing a fellow Democrat, namely Hillary. No matter how many times they are informed that their "information" has been debunked, they keep popping up to repeat it.

I notice the MSM, television branch, is very smirky about Hillary -- particularly when using the phrase "continuing controversy about the Clinton Foundation's donations." The book was reviewed in the NY Times and WaPo, and continues to be referenced by them; it makes it so very easy for the talking heads to then reference it themselves.

How remarkably easy it is to slander a public figure these days.