Subject: Re: my letter to Dean Baquet
From: Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>
To: Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>
Cc: Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Robby Mook <[email-masked]>, Christina Reynolds <[email-masked]>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>, Varun Anand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:16:09 -0400

My only concern is stating the article inflicted damage on our campaign.
Certainly true but I worry that if we leak the letter, it could be
misinterpreted as us admitting the email controversy in general is hurting
us. Maybe we could soften it a bit by saying "...creating a firestorm that
had a deep impact and cannot be unwound."

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jennifer Palmieri <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Brian largely penned this very thorough letter to go back to Dean to
> officially register our concerns and raise concerns they have not
> addressed.  I made some edits (Brian will be disappointed that I toned it
> down a wee bit).  Appreciate it if this group would take a look before we
> send.  Also like views on what people think about making this public.  I
> think we should.
>
>
>
> Varun – would you proofread, too?
>
>
>
> Thanks – JP
>
>
>
> Dear Mr. Baquet:
>
>
>
> I am writing to officially register our campaign’s grave concern with the
> Times’ publication of an inaccurate report related to Hillary Clinton and
> her email use.
>
>
>
> I appreciate the fact that both you and the Public Editor have sought to
> publicly explain how this error could have been made.  But we remain
> perplexed by the Times’ slowness to acknowledge its errors after the fact,
> and some of the shaky justifications that Times’ editors. We feel it
> important to outline these concerns with you directly so that they may be
> properly addressed and so our campaign can continue to have a productive,
> working relationship with the Times.
>
>
>
> I feel obliged to put into context just how egregious an error this story
> was.  The New York Times is arguably the most important news outlet in the
> world and it rushed to put an erroneous story on the front page charging
> that a major candidate for President of the United States was the target of
> a criminal referral to federal law enforcement.  Literally hundreds of
> outlets followed your story creating a firestorm that instilled real damage
> on our campaign that can never be undone.  This problem was compounded by
> the fact that the Times took an inexplicable, let alone indefensible, delay
> in correcting the story and removing “criminal” from the headline and text
> of the story.
>
>
>
> To review the facts, as the Times itself has acknowledged through multiple
> corrections, the paper’s reporting was false in several key respects:
> first, contrary to what the Times stated, Mrs. Clinton is not the target of
> a criminal referral made by the State Department’s and Intelligence
> Community’s Inspector Generals, and second, the referral in question was
> not of a criminal nature at all.
>
>
>
> Just as disturbing as the errors themselves is the Times’ apparent
> abandonment of standard journalistic practices in the course of its
> reporting on this story.
>
>
>
> *First, the seriousness of the allegations that the Times rushed to report
> last Thursday evening demanded far more care and due diligence than the
> Times exhibited prior to this article’s publication. *
>
>
>
> The Times’ readers rightfully expect the paper to adhere to the most
> rigorous journalistic standards. To state the obvious, it is hard to
> imagine a situation more fitting for those standards to be applied than
> when a newspaper is preparing to allege that a major party candidate for
> President of the United States is the target of a criminal referral
> received by federal law enforcement.
>
>
>
> This allegation, however, was reported hastily and without affording the
> campaign adequate opportunity to respond. It was not even mentioned by your
> reporter when our campaign was first contacted late Thursday afternoon.
> Initially, it was stated as reporting only on a memo – provided to Congress
> by the Inspectors General from the State Department and Intelligence
> Community – that raised the possibility of classified material traversing
> Secretary Clinton’s email system. This memo –which was subsequently
> released publicly -- did not reference a criminal referral at all. It was
> not until late Thursday night – at 8:36 pm – that your paper hurriedly
> followed up with our staff to explain that it had received a separate tip
> that the inspectors general had additionally made a criminal referral to
> the Justice Department concerning Clinton’s email use. Our staff indicated
> that we had no knowledge of any such referral – understandably, of course,
> since none actually existed – and further indicated that, for a variety of
> reasons, the reporter’s allegation seemed implausible. Our campaign
> declined any immediate comment, but asked for additional time to attempt to
> investigate the allegation raised. In response, it was indicated that the
> campaign “had time,” suggesting the publication of the report was not
> imminent.
>
>
>
> Despite the late hour, our campaign quickly conferred and confirmed that
> we had no knowledge whatsoever of any criminal referral involving the
> Secretary. At 10:36 pm, our staff attempted to reach your reporters on the
> phone to reiterate this fact and ensure the paper would not be going
> forward with any such report.  There was no answer. At 10:54 pm, our staff
> again attempted calling. Again, no answer. Minutes later, we received a
> call back.  We sought to confirm that no story was imminent and were
> shocked at the reply: the story had just published on the Times’ website.
>
>
>
> This was, to put it mildly, an egregious breach of the process that should
> occur when a major newspaper like the Times is pursuing a story of this
> magnitude. Not only did the Times fail to engage in a proper discussion
> with the campaign ahead of publication; given the exceedingly short window
> of time between when the Times received the tip and rushed to publish, it
> hardly seems possible that the Times conducted sufficient deliberations
> within its own ranks before going ahead with the story.
>
>
>
> *Second, in its rush to publish what it clearly viewed as a major scoop,
> the Times relied on questionable sourcing and went ahead without bothering
> to seek corroborating evidence that could have supported its allegation.*
>
>
>
> In our conversations with the Times reporters, it was clear that they had
> not personally reviewed the IG’s referral that they falsely described as
> both criminal and focused Hillary Clinton. Instead, they relied on unnamed
> sources that characterized the referral as such. However, it is not at all
> clear that those sources had directly seen the referral, either. This
> should have represented too many “degrees of separation” for any newspaper
> to consider it reliable sourcing, least of all the New York Times.
>
>
>
> Times’ editors have attempted to explain these errors by claiming the
> fault for the misreporting resided with a Justice Department official whom
> other news outlets cited as confirming the Times’ report after the fact.
> This suggestion does not add up. It is our understanding that this Justice
> Department official was not the original source of the Times’ tip.
> Moreover, notwithstanding the official’s inaccurate characterization of the
> referral as criminal in nature, this official does not appear to have told
> the Times that Mrs. Clinton was the target of that referral, as the paper
> falsely reported in its original story.
>
>
>
> This raises the question of what other sources the Times may have relied
> on in for its initial report. It clearly was not either of the referring
> officials – that is, the inspectors general of either the State Department
> or intelligence agencies – since the Times’ sources apparently lacked
> firsthand knowledge of the referral documents. It also seems unlikely the
> source could have been anyone affiliated with those offices, as it defies
> logic that anyone so closely involved could have so severely garbled the
> description of the referral.
>
>
>
> Of course, the identity of the Times’ sources would be deserving of far
> less scrutiny if the underlying information had been confirmed as true.
> However, the Times appears to have performed little, if any, work to
> corroborate the accuracy of its sources’ characterizations of the IG’s
> referral. Key details went uninvestigated in the Times’ race to publish
> these erroneous allegations against Mrs. Clinton. For instance, high in the
> Times’ initial story, the reporters acknowledged they had no knowledge of
> whether the documents that the Times claimed were mishandled by Mrs.
> Clinton contained any classified markings.  In Mrs. Clinton’s case, none of
> the emails at issue were marked. This fact was quickly acknowledged by the
> IC inspector general’s office within hours of the Times’ report, but it was
> somehow left unaddressed in the initial story.
>
>
>
> *Even after the Times’ reporting was revealed to be false, the Times
> incomprehensibly delayed the issuance of a full and true correction.*
>
>
>
> Our campaign first sought changes from the Times as soon as the initial
> story was published. Recognizing the implausibility that Clinton herself
> could be the subject of any criminal probe, we immediately challenged the
> story’s opening line, which said the referral sought an investigation into
> Mrs. Clinton specifically for the mishandling of classified materials. In
> response, the Times’ reporters admitted that they themselves had never seen
> the IG’s referral, and so acknowledged the possibility that it was
> overstating what it directly knew when it portrayed the potential
> investigation as centering on Mrs. Clinton. It corrected the lead sentence
> accordingly.
>
>
>
> The speed with which the Times conceded that it could not defend its lead
> citing Mrs. Clinton as the referral’s target raises questions about what
> inspired its confidence in the first place to frame the story that way.
> More importantly, the Times’ change was not denoted in the form of a
> correction. Rather, it was performed quietly, overnight, without any
> accompanying note to readers. This was troubling in its lack of
> transparency and risks causing the Times to appear like it is trying to
> whitewash its misreporting. A correction should have been posted promptly
> that night.
>
>
>
> Regardless, even after this change, a second error remained in the story:
> the characterization of the referral as criminal at all. By Friday morning,
> multiple members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
> (who had been briefed by the inspectors general) challenged this
> portrayal—and ultimately, so did the Department of Justice itself. Only
> then did the Times finally print a correction acknowledging its
> misstatement of the nature of the referral to the Justice Department.
>
>
>
> Of course, the correction, coming as it did on a Friday afternoon, was
> destined to reach a fraction of those who read the Times’ original,
> erroneous report. As the Huffington Post observed:
>
>
>
> “…it's unlikely that the same audience will see the updated version unless
> the paper were to send out a second breaking news email with its latest
> revisions. The Clinton story also appeared the front page of Friday's print
> edition.”
>
>
>
> Most maddening of all, even after the correction fixed the description of
> the referral within the story, a headline remained on the front page of the
> Times’ website that read “Criminal Inquiry is Sought in Clinton Email
> Account.”  It was not until even later in the evening that the word
> “criminal” was finally dropped from the headline and an updated correction
> was issued to the story. The lateness of this second correction, however,
> prevented it from appearing in the paper this morning.  We simply do not
> understand how that was allowed to occur.
>
>
>
> *Lastly, the Times’ official explanations for the misreporting is
> profoundly unsettling.*
>
>
>
> In a statement to the Times’ public editor, you said that the errors in
> the Times’ story Thursday night were “unavoidable.” This is hard to accept.
> As noted above, the Justice Department official that incorrectly confirmed
> the Times’ initial reports for other outlets does not appear to have been
> the initial source for the Times. Moreover, it is precisely because some
> individuals may provide erroneous information that it is important for the
> Times to sift the good information from the bad, and where there is doubt,
> insist on additional evidence. The Times was under no obligation to go
> forward on a story containing such explosive allegations coming only from
> sources who refused to be named. If nothing else, the Times could have
> allowed the campaign more time to understand the allegation being engaged.
> Unfortunately, the Times chose to take none of these steps.
>
>
>
> In closing, I wish to emphasize our genuine wish to have a constructive
> relationship with The New York Times.  But we also are extremely troubled
> by the events that went into this erroneous report, and will be looking
> forward to discussing our concerns related to this incident so we can have
> confidence that it is not repeated in the future.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jennifer Palmieri
>
> Communications Director
>
> Hillary for America
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cc:       Margaret Sullivan,
>
>             Public Editor
>
> New York Times
>
>
>