Clinton story Crit
By Christian Hisman
The Clinton story written by
Schmidt and Apuzzo was a story that seemed like it was rushed together and was
not checked properly for correct facts. In the article it talks about the
investigation that was requested on Clinton’s private email account. When in
fact the request was not for specifically Clinton’s account but for any
compromised information with connection to Clinton’s account. Having to see
corrections at the bottom of the page made the entire article less trustworthy.
They needed to take their time in getting the story out correctly rather than
try to get it out as fast as possible. The article was up for anybody to read
for two days with no corrections and could have lead people to not fully
understand the story.
The tone of the story was good for what the
article was supposed to be. I feel the article just tried to state the facts
and not turn blame toward Clinton too much. The lead paragraph, other than
having incorrect facts, did a good job in starting the article with the right
tone and setting up the rest of the article. I think the article was good to
keep out any graphics or photos that would have not fit within the article. I
do not think the article needed any photos because of the nature of the story.
The
attributions in the article matched well with what quotes were used. All quotes
and other parts to the story that needed attribution got it. They did a good
job on letting readers know where or who the statements came from. The personal
information in this story was mostly about the emails that were sent and under
question. Most of the emails reported in the article were about the Benghazi
attacks in 2012. The articles were all seen as non-classified information at
the time Clinton dealt with them. It seemed there was a lot of information in
the article trying to clear her name when it came to those emails.
The
article was written well as far as grammar and spelling goes. I did not see any
mistakes in spelling or a misuse of grammar elements but that should be
expected in an article from the New York Times. There were some AP style
discrepancies because the Times does not use the same type to style that we are
used to because of their audience. There was abundance of Mrs. And Mr. in this
article which would not be used in AP after the first mention of their name.
When it
comes to the article being fair or not I think it was fair on both sides of the
story. It gave the facts and let the information tell the story. I think
without the errors that were listed at the bottom of the article it was a good
story. The only real problem with ethics of the story was the fact that they
tried to push the story out to quickly which led to inaccuracies with certain
facts. Ethically they should have known that the article needed more time to be
correctly reported.