This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/public-editor/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-marriage.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
A Look at Clinton’s Marriage Woes Raises a Question: Really? A Look at Clinton’s Marriage Woes Raises a Question: Really?
(35 minutes later)
Late last Saturday evening, The New York Times delivered an eye-popping scoop to its readers — tax documents of Donald Trump’s that showed he may not have paid taxes for 18 years thanks to a nearly $1 billion loss suffered by his business.Late last Saturday evening, The New York Times delivered an eye-popping scoop to its readers — tax documents of Donald Trump’s that showed he may not have paid taxes for 18 years thanks to a nearly $1 billion loss suffered by his business.
That was a winning story for The Times. It took aim at an issue that has dogged Trump for months and it gave the public insight into Trump the businessman, his main pitch for the presidency.That was a winning story for The Times. It took aim at an issue that has dogged Trump for months and it gave the public insight into Trump the businessman, his main pitch for the presidency.
Then, one day later, came an investigative look into Hillary Clinton that surfaced revelatory material on: her questionable behavior as the wife of a philandering husband. Not as the secretary or state, or the junior senator from New York, or even the first lady behind a calamitous health care initiative. Instead, it probed an issue whose relevance to the election and certainly to her potential presidency seems hard to make. Even the boundless Trump has shown partial restraint around the issue. He feigns that he is only considering bringing it up in the future (despite a few jabs), but mostly he leaves the frontal attacks to surrogates like Rudy Giuliani.Then, one day later, came an investigative look into Hillary Clinton that surfaced revelatory material on: her questionable behavior as the wife of a philandering husband. Not as the secretary or state, or the junior senator from New York, or even the first lady behind a calamitous health care initiative. Instead, it probed an issue whose relevance to the election and certainly to her potential presidency seems hard to make. Even the boundless Trump has shown partial restraint around the issue. He feigns that he is only considering bringing it up in the future (despite a few jabs), but mostly he leaves the frontal attacks to surrogates like Rudy Giuliani.
The Times piece ran nearly 3,000 words and was played prominently on the front of the home page and on A1 of Monday’s print edition. It focused on whether Clinton played a key role in efforts to discredit and undermine various women who came forward claiming to have had sexual relations with Bill Clinton, who was running for president.The Times piece ran nearly 3,000 words and was played prominently on the front of the home page and on A1 of Monday’s print edition. It focused on whether Clinton played a key role in efforts to discredit and undermine various women who came forward claiming to have had sexual relations with Bill Clinton, who was running for president.
The reporting was exhaustive and balanced, and the tone measured. It’s conclusion, from numerous interviews and from resurfacing previously disclosed material, didn’t feel like a big reveal but it was a fair interpretation of the material: “Mrs. Clinton’s level of involvement in that effort, as described in interviews, internal campaign records and archives, is still the subject of debate. By some accounts, she gave the green light and was a motivating force; by others, her support was no more than tacit assent.” The reporting was exhaustive and balanced, and the tone measured. Its conclusion, from numerous interviews and from resurfacing previously disclosed material, didn’t feel like a big reveal but it was a fair interpretation of the material: “Mrs. Clinton’s level of involvement in that effort, as described in interviews, internal campaign records and archives, is still the subject of debate. By some accounts, she gave the green light and was a motivating force; by others, her support was no more than tacit assent.”
But the response from readers writing into the public editor was heavily tilted against the piece, especially but not exclusively the response from women. This email from Suzanne Burke of Savannah, Ga. was typical:But the response from readers writing into the public editor was heavily tilted against the piece, especially but not exclusively the response from women. This email from Suzanne Burke of Savannah, Ga. was typical:
I asked the Times’s political editor, Carolyn Ryan, if she would lay out the justification for the piece. Here’s her response in an email:I asked the Times’s political editor, Carolyn Ryan, if she would lay out the justification for the piece. Here’s her response in an email:
I don’t think this one is an easy call. There is a defensible case to be made that this subject is moving closer to the daily beat of the campaign. And The Times isn’t the only publication that has circled this topic.I don’t think this one is an easy call. There is a defensible case to be made that this subject is moving closer to the daily beat of the campaign. And The Times isn’t the only publication that has circled this topic.
But a few things bother me about the story. One is the conceit of this piece. It seemed more intent on scoping out possibly unethical behavior by a woman whose husband had cheated than on exploring the full dimensions of an undoubtedly brutal period in her life.But a few things bother me about the story. One is the conceit of this piece. It seemed more intent on scoping out possibly unethical behavior by a woman whose husband had cheated than on exploring the full dimensions of an undoubtedly brutal period in her life.
I also felt shortchanged on the question of whether Hillary Clinton indeed knew whether the women alleging to have had sexual relationships with her husband were telling the truth. If Clinton didn’t believe them – or was determined to believe her husband – then it’s more understandable that she would strike out against women that to her were menacing liars. On the other hand, if she was trying to smear women she knew were telling the truth, well, that’s a different story. But I left the Times article uncertain which it was.I also felt shortchanged on the question of whether Hillary Clinton indeed knew whether the women alleging to have had sexual relationships with her husband were telling the truth. If Clinton didn’t believe them – or was determined to believe her husband – then it’s more understandable that she would strike out against women that to her were menacing liars. On the other hand, if she was trying to smear women she knew were telling the truth, well, that’s a different story. But I left the Times article uncertain which it was.
Could some type of biographical piece be done on this period of Clinton’s life? Perhaps. It would be hard to look the other way if Trump engages a full-on, detailed assault on her behavior. But by launching a pre-emptive probe like this one, The Times feels more brazen than the Republican challenger himself.Could some type of biographical piece be done on this period of Clinton’s life? Perhaps. It would be hard to look the other way if Trump engages a full-on, detailed assault on her behavior. But by launching a pre-emptive probe like this one, The Times feels more brazen than the Republican challenger himself.