3 ms·
That is maybe true for a small percentage of stories. You are also reducing this argument to the most construed straw man instead of engaging with the idea in e
by ysleepy 3y ago
That is maybe true for a small percentage of stories.
You are also reducing this argument to the most construed straw man instead of engaging with the idea in earnest.
If you can't alter world news headlines, you can still alter the tone of the article.
If you can't alter front page news, you still can alter the remaining 95% of news.
Influencing public opinion is more subtle than the one important headline per day.
You are also ignoring the fact that news sites regularly edit published articles already, from fixed typos to corrections to large re-editings.
- crazygringo 3y agoYou seem to be misunderstanding. This isn't about a small percentage of stories, it's not about tone, it's the fact that if the NYT ever did this even once with the intention to truly "alter the past" it would be a major scandal. And obviously things like corrections or taking down libelous content aren't included. So no, I'm not constructing any kind of straw man here. I'm saying that the threat of subtly nefariously "altering the past" isn't realistic because it would be caught and exposed and there's no financial motivation to do it in the first place.
- ysleepy 3y agoYou are misunderstanding. Altering the tone, comments, bias etc. is altering the past, this is what I meant originally. You came up with the straw man of the new york times. Sure, some high visibility publications are less able to be altered, but that doesn't mean none can in no way.