Please verify

Watch LIVE

The 'Small But Significant' Way the NY Times Changed Its Hillary Clinton Story at the Request of Her Campaign


"A response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp..."

Image source: Alex Wong/Getty Images

UPDATE: The New York Times has made yet another change to its article about a potential criminal investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of her private email account, writing:

An earlier version of this article and an earlier headline, using information from senior government officials, misstated the nature of the referral to the Justice Department regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state. The referral addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that personal email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton.

Politico's Dylan Byers writes that the Justice Department may have misrepresented the nature of the investigation into Clinton when speaking with the New York Times. Though multiple sources say the DOJ referred to the investigation as "criminal," the DOJ later said in a statement: "The Department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a criminal referral."

Politico also writes also writes that the State Inspector General "did not ask for any kind of investigation, criminal or otherwise," according to Jennifer Werner, a Democratic spokesperson for the Select Committee on Benghazi.


The New York Times modified its article about a potential criminal investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of her private email account in a "small but significant" way at the request of Clinton's presidential campaign, according to Politico's Dylan Byers.

TheBlaze previously noted that the New York Times inexplicably changed the lede of its story shortly after publication, and New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt said early Friday: “It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them.”

You can see how the lede was changed, below:

The New York Times changed its lede without explanation on July 24th. (Image via screen shots)

The change is small, but it removes the direct focus from Clinton by shifting the sentence into the passive tense.

In the original lede, it discusses a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information."

In the revised version, it discusses a criminal investigation"into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection" with Clinton's email account.

Politico notes that the headline received a similar change, going from "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email" to "Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account."

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, maintains that Clinton always "followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials."

Read the entire story at Politico.

Most recent
All Articles