New York Times Reports On Clinton Foundation's “Pathbreaking Work” In Rwanda

NYT: Clinton Foundation Has Done “Vital, Often Pathbreaking Work” In Rwanda. The online version of the Times article was published October 18 with the headline, “For Clinton Foundation, Big Gains in Rwanda, Despite Pitfalls.” The article highlighted the foundation's efforts in Rwanda and noted that the foundation “has done vital, often pathbreaking work, particularly in health and rural development”: 

Clearly, the Clinton Foundation functions both to do good deeds and to enhance the Clinton brand, never more so than while Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for president. But from the start, her campaign has been nagged by concerns about how the foundation raises its money. Far less attention has been paid to how that money is spent.

In Rwanda, a review of the foundation's history shows that it has done vital, often pathbreaking work, particularly in health and rural development. But with Mrs. Clinton campaigning as Mr. Kagame faces sharpening criticism about human rights, it also highlights the potential for conflict of interest, the outsize access to power and the delicate global politics that inevitably arise when such work is conducted by a former president whose wife is a former United States senator and secretary of state and a two-time contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. [The New York Times, 10/18/15]

Times Rewrote Headline Twice To Downplay “Big Gains” And Emphasize Supposed “Conflicts Of Interest”

Second Headline Emphasized “Reach And Limits” Of Clinton Fund. At some point during the evening of October 18, the Times rewrote the online article's headline to read less positively: “Rwanda Aid Shows Reach and Limits of Clinton Fund.” [Newsdiffs.org, accessed 10/19/15]

Front Page Print Edition Adds Sub-Headline Emphasizing “Concerns On Conflicts Of Interest.” The headline on the October 19 print version of the same article continued its negative evolution, downplaying the newspaper's initial praise for the foundation by using the rewritten online headline, and adding a sub-headline about “concerns on conflicts of interest.” [The New York Times, 10/19/15] 

Times' Article Acknowledges That Clinton Recused Herself From “Direct Decision Making” In Single Case Of Supposed Conflict Of Interest 

Article Makes Clear That Clinton “Steered Clear Of Direct Decision Making” In Potential Conflict Of Interest. Despite adding a sub-headline that played up the “concerns on conflicts of interest,” the article made clear that Clinton had “pledged to recuse herself” in situations where the Clinton Foundation had business before the State Department, and had “steered clear of direct decision making”:

Mrs. Clinton had pledged to recuse herself if the Clinton Foundation ever had business before her department, and she steered clear of direct decision making. But mediating the dispute was her chief of staff, Cheryl D. Mills, a longtime counselor to both Clintons who had served for five years on the Clinton Foundation board before going to the State Department. Furthermore, the department's top AIDS official said he had kept Mrs. Clinton apprised of the proposal and sought and received her backing before approving his portion of the deal. She then signed the overall budget that shifted the money. [The New York Times, 10/18/15]