What Hillary Clinton’s letter to the New York Times tells us about politics and media

[Commentary] On July 30, the Hillary Clinton campaign posted on its website a 1,906-word letter to the New York Times. The letter is a response to an article that originally alleged a criminal investigation into the candidate's e-mail use as secretary of state. After publication, the story was corrected multiple times to remove references to criminality, once the government officials who had supposedly requested the investigation publicly denied doing so. The Times' public editor criticized the paper's handling of the incident. The campaign said that it decided to publish the letter publicly after the Times declined to run it earlier. It hardly bears mentioning that the issue is heavily interwoven with politics. The situation prompted us to have a conversation about the interplay of politics and the media in this constantly evolving moment.

Philip: The rise of social media platforms, especially Facebook, means that the value of an outlet like the Times -- or the Washington Post -- is diminished in ways that that we still haven't processed.

Chris: The ability of politicians and their campaigns to end-run the media is at an all-time high thanks to not only Facebook but also Flickr, Tumblr, Twitter and the million other social and sharing sites that I don't even know about yet. A politician's ability to cut out the middle man (or woman) has never been higher. Why risk sitting down for an interview with the Post when you could just tape Obama talking to someone who works in the White House and post it on the White House You Tube channel? Or, even more problematic for us "traditional" reporters, why risk an interview with the Post when you could self-select a friendlier (more Democratic-leaning) outlet?