That seems to describe an NYT journalist emailing members of the Hillary team and talking about their candidate in positive terms.

Maybe I don't expect enough of journalists, but I'm not really seeing the scandal there. Buttering up a source by talking positively about their candidate seems... sensible?

Fair enough. If this is limited to that kind of flattery (and I haven't read enough to verify either way) then we can write that off as good ol-fashioned "working a source" and not particularly worrisome.

(I can't reply to untog since it is too deep in the thread but this in reply to their comment)

When you are professedly a journalist, you are to report the facts unbiased, not get friendly and in bed with campaign insiders, running your pieces by them to get their opinion. There are many more heinous emails than the ones linked by parent, specifically some that are exchanges making sure the narrative that was going to be published "sounded good" to the Hillary camp.

That's not journalism. It's propaganda.

My own observation: the fact that we have to get apologetic about this behavior further proves the point.

Just click on the post you want to reply to's time next time...