Readers Note: If you're not familiar with my post, "Did the NY Times scam for Edwards and some Dems?", I encourage you to read it before reading the one below which is an email I’ve sent NYT public editor Clark Hoyt based on the content and links you’ll find in "Did the NY Times scam for Edwards and some Dems?"
John
_________________________________________________
To: Clark Hoyt
Public Editor
New York Times
Re: Reporter Katharine Q. Seelye’s story, “Edwards Admits to Affair in 2006,” as now posted online (Aug. 11, @ 7:30 PM ET) has been airbrushed since it first appeared online Aug. 8 and on pg. 1A of the NYT’s Aug. 9 print edition.
As first published, Seelye’s story included the following three paragraphs:
When The Enquirer first reported the affair, a group of Edwards associates, including from past campaigns, assembled at his headquarters to try to stop the story from moving from the tabloid into major newspapers. They declined to respond to questions or issue any statements that might produce news reports, according to those involved in the effort. It was led by Jennifer Palmieri, a longtime associate of both Mr. and Mrs. Edwards. At the time, two of Mr. Edwards’s associates said, some of his aides did not believe the reports, but others were suspicious.When you go now to Seelye's story on the Net, the three paragraphs have been reduced to just two, with part of the first and all of the second one gone.
But by this summer, the team had shrunk. Ms. Palmieri managed the crisis again, working mainly with Mrs. Edwards and Harrison Hickman, Mr. Edwards’s longtime pollster. Initially Mr. Edwards argued that he could ride out the latest report, but several associates said that if the reports were not true, he should denounce them.
Mr. Edwards said in his statement Friday that he had denounced the tabloid reports earlier because most of the details were not true. “But,” he added, “being 99 percent honest is no longer enough.”
As altered, Seelye's story now reads:
When The Enquirer first reported the affair, a group of Edwards associates, including from past campaigns, assembled at his headquarters to try to stop the story from moving from the tabloid into major newspapers. They declined to respond to questions or issue statements that might produce news reports, according to those involved in the effort.I'm sure we agree news stories are quite rightly updated as new facts emerge but airbrushing is another matter.
Mr. Edwards said in his statement Friday that he had denounced the tabloid reports earlier because most of the details were not true. “But,” he added, “being 99 percent honest is no longer enough.”
With that in mind, please reread the three paragraphs of Seelye's story as first posted on the net and published in the print edition with the parts of her story airbrushed set here in bold:
When The Enquirer first reported the affair, a group of Edwards associates, including from past campaigns, assembled at his headquarters to try to stop the story from moving from the tabloid into major newspapers. They declined to respond to questions or issue any statements that might produce news reports, according to those involved in the effort. It was led by Jennifer Palmieri, a longtime associate of both Mr. and Mrs. Edwards. At the time, two of Mr. Edwards’s associates said, some of his aides did not believe the reports, but others were suspicious.What happened, editor Hoyt? Why were such significant changes made in Seelye's story?
But by this summer, the team had shrunk. Ms. Palmieri managed the crisis again, working mainly with Mrs. Edwards and Harrison Hickman, Mr. Edwards’s longtime pollster. Initially Mr. Edwards argued that he could ride out the latest report, but several associates said that if the reports were not true, he should denounce them.
Mr. Edwards said in his statement Friday that he had denounced the tabloid reports earlier because most of the details were not true. “But,” he added, “being 99 percent honest is no longer enough.”
As originally Net posted and print published Seelye and the NYT told us Edwards himself was active in trying to suppress disclosure of his affair by MSM news organizations. As she put it: "Initially Mr. Edwards argued that he could ride out the latest [tabloid] report."
Airbrushing that information doesn't advance the story. It significantly distorts what Seelye first wrote and the Times published. If Seelye was wrong, then a correction is called for; not airbrushing.
Removing from Seelye's original report any mention of Ms. Edwards' role working with top Edwards aides to suppress disclosure of her husband's affair once again significantly distorts the story as originally reported by Katharine Q. Seelye.
There's more I could note, but I'm sure you can see it all yourself.
I hope you go to the bottom of the Times' page hosting the latest version of Seelye’s story where there’s this notice in light gray, extremely small font:
A version of this article appeared in print on August 9, 2008, on page A1 of the New York edition.I understand updating a story but airbrushing it is something very different.
I look forward to your response which I'll publish in full at my blog.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
John in Carolina
Hat tip: AMac
1 comments:
The ghosts of Pravda and Izvestia now populate the offices of The NYT and most other MSM. As political situations changed, the folks in the Soviet Union's Ministry of Information would regularly airbrush out the latest enemies of the state, or rewrite text to conform with new policies from the Comintern. Everyone knew what was happening, but no one ever mentioned it publicly. We see this being done every day in our own country by dedicated leftists and socialists who now control the MSM. Is it any wonder they are rapidly losing readers/audience? Even when they are confronted by facts, as JiC frequently does, the editors and publishers simply ignore it as a bear ignores the bee protecting its hive. This situation is not about to change because you simply can't argue with a man who buys his ink by the barrel.
Tarheel Hawkeye
Post a Comment