Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald pens a withering deconstruction of the NY Times' latest scandalous Clinton story that isn't. What the story is at root is "probably the biggest snooze-fest in all of journalism": "current bureaucratic processes" about the classification of official material. The essence of Eichenwald's extended assessment is jarring:
Here are the words that were left out: Freedom of Information Act. At no point in the story does the Times mention what this memo—and the other it cited—was really all about: that the officials at the Freedom of Information office in the State Department and intelligence agencies, which were reviewing emails for release, had discovered emails that may not have been designated with the correct classification…. [F]ormer government officials [i.e., Clinton] have nothing to do with how FOIA officials deal with requests for documentation. To jump from this fact to a conclusion that, somehow, someone thinks there is a criminal case against Clinton (the original story) requires a level of recklessness that borders on, well, criminal behavior.
If you're a regular reader of this site, you know I don't much relish the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. But I disdain journalistic unfairness — "reckless" unfairness posing as straight journalism from historically reputable organs — even more. Some never did make the hyphenated cut. Fox News has never honored its secondary appellation, so to some degree, its unfairness can be forgiven. MSNBC, reportedly, is now striving to remake itself as an actual news organization rather than a ballyhoo arm of the Democratic Party. Whether it's succeeding or not I can't say, since it lost me almost entirely long ago. In print, our major national organs are the NY Times and the Washington Post. The latter at least restricts its dreadful neoconservatism to the editorial page, and fills much of its straight reporting with banalities of the already known. Perhaps therein lies the crux of straight reporting. As for straight investigative reporting, the "liberal" Times, when it comes to the Clintons, has been a curious mix of recklessness, unfairness via implication, and disheveled writing. As Eichenwald notes in so many words, it's not so much the dots the paper connects as the dots it omits.
Observes Eichenwald: "The [inspectors general] memo itself is very clear: 'The Department should ensure that no classified documents are publically [sic] released.'" That passage would make any genuine investigative reporter yawn and move on. Scoop Schmidt? He detonated; and, since quoting the passage would only extinguish his flames of fury, he merely discarded it.
Hence we're led to ask: Is Schmidt's a simple case of unfairness, of recklessness, of journalistic incompetence? While his story was all these, the answer is more complicated. For underlying the Schmidt story is Schmidt himself. Again, Eichenwald:
That the Times story is false in almost every particular … will only lead to accusations that people trying to set the record straight are pro-Hillary. I am not pro-Hillary. I am, however, pro-journalism. And this display of incompetence or malice cannot stand without correction….
Democracy is not a game. It is not a means of getting our names on the front page or setting the world abuzz about our latest scoop. It is about providing information so that an electorate can make decisions based on reality. It is about being fair and being accurate. This despicable Times story was neither.
I'm unable to testify to Schmidt's "malice," as Eichenwald is, yet circumstantial evidence points unmistakably to a striving for fame and an unbridled ego — which Schmidt's editor should have reined in, since the ego failed to grab onto substance. I have no problem with massive journalistic egos; they must, however, responsibly live up to their reputation.
Schmidt has achieved his goal of getting his name on the front page and setting the world abuzz. Accordingly, he appeared by phone on "Hardball" last night to make the mysteriously clarifying observation that Hillary Clinton is being investigated for receiving classified emails on a personal account (emails which may have been misclassified at the point of origination). Chris Matthews was as befuddled as I was. Although he finally gave up in logical frustration sooner than I would have, I sympathized with his plight. What Schmidt was huckstering made no sense.
There's no question that Schmidt has every right to huckster it — but not in the name of the New York Times, "the paper of record."