4 ms·

While NYT themselves just shadow-edited the article about HRC calling Tulsi a Russian asset to a Republican asset. Video from Tim Pool about it: https://youtu.

While NYT themselves just shadow-edited the article about HRC calling Tulsi a Russian asset to a Republican asset. Video from Tim Pool about it: https://youtu.be/tzTod38VS8c https://youtu.be/tzTod38VS8c

jakeogh 7y ago
https://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg https://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg
- mandukya 7y ago
  Straight out of 1984.
- jedmeyers 7y ago
  “Paper of making up the record”, as they say.
nl 7y ago
For those who don't want to sit though 16 minutes of ranting.. At [1] the quote is: Hillary Clinton waded into the Democratic primary on Friday by suggesting that Russia was “grooming” Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii as a third-party candidate for president. By the next day at [2] it had changed to: Hillary Clinton waded into the Democratic primary on Friday by suggesting that Russia was backing Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii for president and that Republicans were “grooming” her as a third-party candidate. The NY Times published a correction: Correction: Oct. 23, 2019 An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an element of Hillary Clinton's recent comments about Representative Tulsi Gabbard. While Mrs. Clinton said that a Democratic presidential candidate was "the favorite of the Russians," and an aide later confirmed the reference was to Ms. Gabbard, Mrs. Clinton's remark about the “grooming” of a third-party candidate in the 2020 race was in response to a question about the Republicans’ strategy, not about Russian intervention. This matches other reporting of the same interview. Politco reported it like this[3]: Clinton, the 2016 Democratic nominee, made the comments on the podcast hosted by David Plouffe, who managed former President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign. Clinton also said that Republicans could boost Gabbard to become a third-party “spoiler” Conclusion: The NY Times did the correct thing in updating their reporting, and in publishing the correction. The reporting is now more accurate that it was initially. [1] https://archive.is/0G9uI https://archive.is/0G9uI [2] https://archive.is/ZPZCU https://archive.is/ZPZCU [3] https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/18/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard-russias-050991 https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/18/hillary-clinton-tul...
- ravenstine 7y ago
  > Conclusion: The NY Times did the correct thing in updating their reporting, and in publishing the correction. No, the correct thing would have been to not publish fake news in the first place. Oh, but they said whoops, so I guess all's well that ends well?
  - nl 7y ago
    Given that the OP is arguing that the original version was correct (!!), because they didn't see the distinction either I'm unsure that saying it is "fake news" is useful. But yeah, people do like easy answers rather than digging into complexity.

jakeogh 7y ago

https://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg https://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg

mandukya 7y ago
Straight out of 1984.
jedmeyers 7y ago
“Paper of making up the record”, as they say.

nl 7y ago

For those who don't want to sit though 16 minutes of ranting.. At [1] the quote is: Hillary Clinton waded into the Democratic primary on Friday by suggesting that Russia was “grooming” Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii as a third-party candidate for president. By the next day at [2] it had changed to: Hillary Clinton waded into the Democratic primary on Friday by suggesting that Russia was backing Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii for president and that Republicans were “grooming” her as a third-party candidate. The NY Times published a correction: Correction: Oct. 23, 2019 An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an element of Hillary Clinton's recent comments about Representative Tulsi Gabbard. While Mrs. Clinton said that a Democratic presidential candidate was "the favorite of the Russians," and an aide later confirmed the reference was to Ms. Gabbard, Mrs. Clinton's remark about the “grooming” of a third-party candidate in the 2020 race was in response to a question about the Republicans’ strategy, not about Russian intervention. This matches other reporting of the same interview. Politco reported it like this[3]: Clinton, the 2016 Democratic nominee, made the comments on the podcast hosted by David Plouffe, who managed former President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign. Clinton also said that Republicans could boost Gabbard to become a third-party “spoiler” Conclusion: The NY Times did the correct thing in updating their reporting, and in publishing the correction. The reporting is now more accurate that it was initially. [1] https://archive.is/0G9uI https://archive.is/0G9uI [2] https://archive.is/ZPZCU https://archive.is/ZPZCU [3] https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/18/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard-russias-050991 https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/18/hillary-clinton-tul...

ravenstine 7y ago
> Conclusion: The NY Times did the correct thing in updating their reporting, and in publishing the correction. No, the correct thing would have been to not publish fake news in the first place. Oh, but they said whoops, so I guess all's well that ends well?
- nl 7y ago
  Given that the OP is arguing that the original version was correct (!!), because they didn't see the distinction either I'm unsure that saying it is "fake news" is useful. But yeah, people do like easy answers rather than digging into complexity.