The Clinton rules are at the heart of the New York Times's botched Hillary story

[Commentary] The Hillary Clinton-New York Times episode regarding an inaccurate NYT scoop that two US inspectors general had asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Clinton mishandled sensitive or classified information in using a personal account to e-mail with State Department officials and friends is a particularly illustrative example of how an unspoken set of "Clinton rules" govern the media's treatment of Clinton and how that ends up distorting the public view of her. The fallout has followed a familiar pattern: Republicans seize on an inaccurate report -- often one they pushed into the media in the first place -- and Democrats point to what's wrong in the story to undermine what's right with it. Pretty soon, the narrative emanates out from the original source of the reporting to conservative and liberal television pundits and radio talk-show hosts, ensuring that the details, and the truth, will be casualties of the never-ending political war over Clinton. That is, at some point it no longer matters whether she did anything wrong or whether there's any malice or misjudgment behind her actions. Indeed, the cloud around many big Clinton stories is so thick and toxic that it's hard to get to the bottom of whether she's the perpetrator or victim of bad deeds. No matter Clinton's level of culpability for any given sin -- real or imagined -- the Clinton rules are a drag on her political fortunes.

The Times's failure on this story is a triple whammy for Clinton: There's the hit of the original report itself, the echo effect of other reporters reinforcing the storyline by writing their own versions, and the reminder for fatigued voters that a Clinton presidency would be characterized by endless investigation and hypercharged political debate. Ultimately, the Times treated her unfairly. That happens. Journalists aren't perfect, and sometimes they get the story wrong. But the incentives to destroy Clinton are so strong that it happens to her a lot. The public suffers not just for that but for the liberty it grants Clinton and her allies to conflate erroneous reports with solid stories and argue that it's all bogus.