NYT Defensively Declares: No 'Conspiracy' to Endorse Hillary Clinton
On Monday, the editor of the New York Times Editorial page was compelled to write that the publication has not decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 yet.
His pronouncement came two days after the paper attempted to whitewash the Benghazi tragedy by printing a story that alleged that there was no al-Qaeda involvement in the attacks that killed four Americans (contradicting the paper's own reporting), murdered U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens had "little understanding" of the region, and that the terrorists were motivated by an anti-Muhammed YouTube video.
On a blog post on the paper's website, Andrew Rosenthal alleged that it is important to Republicans "that Al Qaeda orchestrated the attack" because they want to "tarnish Democratic candidates by making it seem as though" President Barack Obama "doesn’t take Al Qaeda seriously." They also want to "throw mud at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who they fear will run for president in 2016."
Rosenthal said it was "hilarious" that Republicans like Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) alleged the Times wanted to "clear the deck" for Clinton because Clinton was the paper's "candidate of choice."
"Since I will have more to say about which candidate we will endorse in 2016 than any other editor at the Times, let me be clear: We have not chosen Mrs. Clinton," Rosenthal defensively declared. "We have not chosen anyone. I can also state definitively that there was no editorial/newsroom conspiracy of any kind, because I knew nothing about the Benghazi article until I read it in the paper on Sunday."