3 ms·

For 3. the louder correction came after they were called out for earlier silent edits: https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memory-hole/ htt

For 3. the louder correction came after they were called out for earlier silent edits: https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memory-hole/ https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memo... (Side note I don’t really trust Quillette either but I do believe this sequence of events is what unfolded)

gamblor956 6y ago
The NYT article linked to is from March, and predates your link by 6 months. All of the changes in the Quillette article were similarly announced by the NYT at the time they were made, though as smaller changes didn't get their own frontpage articles. As the 1619 project was itself described as an "ongoing" project it's bizarre and unusual for people to complain about it being corrected. That's the writing process: draft, and re-draft as necessary based on feedback re grammar, language, factual errors, etc. In fact your complaint seems to be that the NYT corrects its articles on its website, which is a good thing. If you want archival copies of the incorrect versions, you can access those through other means, such as through databases like Lexis Nexis or through hard copies of the paper.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  > All of the changes in the Quillette article were similarly announced by the NYT at the time they were made The changes to the framing of the project were not announced. The only way that anyone noticed them is that the lead author, Nikole Hannah-Jones (NHJ), started claiming that conservatives were misrepresenting the project. She specifically said that the project did not claim 1619 as America's true founding date. People then went back and found all of NHJ's tweets explicitly stating that this was the purpose of the project (NHJ deleted her entire Twitter history shortly thereafter). When people went to look at the 1619 Project website, however, they noticed that the intro paragraphs that explicitly stated that 1619 is America's true founding had been edited to no longer state that. > In fact your complaint seems to be that the NYT corrects its articles on its website, which is a good thing. The claim about 1619 being America's true founding was the central claim of the project, the thing that it had heavily publicized and used to gain attention. The NY Times spent months defending the project and attacking critics, only to edit out the central claim of the project without so much as a notice. The lead author then started going around denying that the project had ever made the claim, and calling the whole idea a conservative conspiracy theory. Whatever problems the NY Times has had, this is not how people expect the newspaper of record to behave. If this were The Daily Beast, then it wouldn't be that surprising, but its the NY Times, the Gray Lady

gamblor956 6y ago

The NYT article linked to is from March, and predates your link by 6 months. All of the changes in the Quillette article were similarly announced by the NYT at the time they were made, though as smaller changes didn't get their own frontpage articles. As the 1619 project was itself described as an "ongoing" project it's bizarre and unusual for people to complain about it being corrected. That's the writing process: draft, and re-draft as necessary based on feedback re grammar, language, factual errors, etc. In fact your complaint seems to be that the NYT corrects its articles on its website, which is a good thing. If you want archival copies of the incorrect versions, you can access those through other means, such as through databases like Lexis Nexis or through hard copies of the paper.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
> All of the changes in the Quillette article were similarly announced by the NYT at the time they were made The changes to the framing of the project were not announced. The only way that anyone noticed them is that the lead author, Nikole Hannah-Jones (NHJ), started claiming that conservatives were misrepresenting the project. She specifically said that the project did not claim 1619 as America's true founding date. People then went back and found all of NHJ's tweets explicitly stating that this was the purpose of the project (NHJ deleted her entire Twitter history shortly thereafter). When people went to look at the 1619 Project website, however, they noticed that the intro paragraphs that explicitly stated that 1619 is America's true founding had been edited to no longer state that. > In fact your complaint seems to be that the NYT corrects its articles on its website, which is a good thing. The claim about 1619 being America's true founding was the central claim of the project, the thing that it had heavily publicized and used to gain attention. The NY Times spent months defending the project and attacking critics, only to edit out the central claim of the project without so much as a notice. The lead author then started going around denying that the project had ever made the claim, and calling the whole idea a conservative conspiracy theory. Whatever problems the NY Times has had, this is not how people expect the newspaper of record to behave. If this were The Daily Beast, then it wouldn't be that surprising, but its the NY Times, the Gray Lady