I consider myself to be only moderately politically-informed with regard to politics, but the fact that the Hillary Clinton email scandal remains even somewhat esoteric months after its release indicates that something was done wrong in its reporting, particularly the initial reporting of the story. When the New York Times first released the news, the scandal was made immediately popular by its subject’s presidential candidacy and status as the then-front runner of the Democratic Party. These facts awarded the story – which had still been in its early stages of development at the time – a measure of sensationalism, but it also made the story unusually heated and controversial. Members of the Republican Party seized the opportunity to exacerbate the issues that their archenemy was now facing, though the misfortunate (for Clinton, that is) timing of the story could not be blamed upon the reporters of the NYT. What could be blamed on the Times was their prioritizing with respect to the issue. In the case of the Clinton email scandal, journalists seemed to have forgotten that reporting and fiction writing are not synonymous, regardless of how much potential profit there is to be made. The Times’s desperation to publish the story/generate profit from its publication severely impaired the outlet’s typical dedication to accuracy, which subsequently led to a poorly-organized, incomprehensive article. Further, in yet another uncharacteristic move, the Times did not draw much attention to the edits made on the article until later. As a result, readers were left thinking that the original story remained true as they may have been unaware of the alterations made to the initial story.