Media Matters Founder David Brock called on The New York Times to issue a "prominent correction" to their story on Hillary Clinton's use of non-governmental email despite the carping from the crew on Morning Joe.
Media Matters Founder and Chairman of the Board David Brock called on The New York Times to issue a "prominent correction as soon as possible" after publishing what he called a "wholly inadequate" article about Hillary Clinton's use of a non-government email account during her tenure as secretary of state.
In a March 2 report, the Times insinuated that Clinton violated the law by using a non-government email address while serving as secretary of state. The Huffington Post published an excerpt of Brock's letter on Tuesday.
"Michael Schmidt's March 2 article alleging that Hillary Clinton may have been 'breaking rules' by using a personal, non-government email account while serving as secretary of state has unraveled under scrutiny, and I am writing to ask that the Times issue a prominent correction as soon as possible," Brock wrote. He concluded:
The Schmidt article failed to meet the highest journalistic standards that readers expect of The New York Times. Since it was published, the Times has been leaning on other reporters to vet the story after the fact. Our hope is that after reviewing the situation, the Times will do the right thing and correct this sloppy, innuendo-laden report in a prominent place.
Media Matters has the entire letter at the link above which lays out in detail the problems with the piece in The New York Times.
Brock's arguments didn't stop Scarborough and his enabler Brzezinski from hyperventilating over the story this Wednesday morning along with the aid of Villager Bob Woodward:
Media Matters Founder David Brock defends Hillary Clinton from a furious "Morning Joe" panel.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: MediaMatters founder and chairman of the board, David Brock, who is calling on the New York Times to issue a prominent correction to an article that looks into Hillary Clinton’s exclusive use of private e-mail during her time as Secretary of State. David accuses the story of being, quote, "sloppy and innuendo laden." Also at the table, MSNBC political correspondent Casey Hunt, and Bob Woodward and Michael Steele as well.↓ Story continues below ↓
JOE SCARBOROUGH: David, let's talk about what happened yesterday. New York Times article came out, and you demanded a retraction, tell us why.
DAVID BROCK: Yeah, because the piece didn't stand up to scrutiny after it was published. There's an allegation very prominent in the subhead of this article yesterday that Hillary Clinton may have broken federal law. The only named source they have to support this allegation, Jason Banks who was the highest ranking lawyer in the national archive, said after the piece was published that no law was broken. So the story is wrong. It's based on a false premise.
The reporter seems to be digging his heels in and now giving his opinion that Hillary Clinton broke the law, but they don't have any independent legal authority that we did see to make that case. I think the article was really sloppily done, it had innuendo in it that was false, we're saying New York Times, look at your journalism, and if you find problems, you know, let readers know and correct this as prominently as it was splashed on the paper yesterday.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Let me ask you about this, 2009 National Archives and record administration regulation. Said this in 2009, agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency, must ensure that federal records sent our received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system. Must ensure. Must ensure that those records sent or received on systems are preserved. Did Hillary Clinton do that?
DAVID BROCK: Yeah, well the State Department said yesterday that the e-mails were regularly preserved and appropriately preserved. And as you know
JOE SCARBOROUGH: They said, the State Department said Hillary Clinton’s e-mails were regularly preserved?
DAVID BROCK: That’s the State Department said yesterday that there was a process in which these e-mails were preserved. We know they were because as you know, last fall, after these regulations tightened up in 2013 and 2014, 55,000 pages of e-mails were turned over to the State Department –
JOE SCARBOROUGH: But David, this regulation as you know, it suggests that they have to be preserved inside the state department's system itself or inside the appropriate agency. That did not happen, did it?
DAVID BROCK: Is that your legal opinion?
JOE SCARBOROUGH: No.
DAVID BROCK: I don't see anything in the New York Times article –
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Full screen up. I'm reading a national archives administration regulation, and it says agencies that allow employees to send or receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: David, this is pretty clear
JOE SCARBOROUGH: That’s the regulation. It's clear; it's inside the State Department.
DAVID BROCK: It's not clear that didn't happen, Joe. The New York Times doesn't establish that at all. In fact, the 2009 law you're referring to isn't even cited in the New York Times. It's such sloppy journalism that you don't know what regulations the reporter's talking about. So why don't they be clear. Come back and explain what 2009 required, what actually happened, what the State Department says happened, and then, the fact that the law was changed in 2013, 2014, that was long after Hillary Clinton left office. There was no violation of law here, Joe, whatsoever, and nobody that I can see is saying that except the New York Times.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: I can't answer for the New York Times, this 2009 regulation is clear.