4 ms·

They just added "on this issue" to it. Doesn't seem to be a big deal - they are just making bit more explicit what was already implied. It would be different if

They just added "on this issue" to it. Doesn't seem to be a big deal - they are just making bit more explicit what was already implied. It would be different if they had removed the line completely or changed their stance 180 degree.

pvnick 13y ago
I agree. I'm usually the first to spot a conspiracy, but this looks like an innocent clarification to improve the quality of the piece. It was shocking enough to see how adamantly the entire editorial board of the New York Times distanced themselves from the administration on this.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
Yes. Looking over the changes, I honestly only see attempts at making it more explicit. Which in itself could mean they were initially eager to release it (instead of letting it rot on a shelf or something), and/or that it was written with a hot pen, if you know what I mean. "Lost all credibility" [on everything ever] is something I might say, but it's not something I would expect to read in a decent newspaper. Someone got a bit emotional over this and I salute them for that; that they later decided to be a bit more smart and effective about it doesn't take anything away, it just adds to it. edit/addendum: Just consider what it would literally mean, he lost crediblity on everything; a feast for any and all republicans, for starters. I mean, does this mean gay marriage was a mistake, too? Some would happily use this as water on their mills with unrelated issues.
- randallsquared 13y ago
  I think it's really weird to say that someone has lost all credibility on this issue. I mean, credibility is something that applies to people and entities, not to issues.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    I know that even people who lie a LOT (compulsory style) can sometimes be trusted to give truthful answers on things they feel confident (if not proud) about and are knowledgeable in and have a healthy attidude towards. I don't trust Obama on things like police states or killing people with robots, but I have zero idea what he knows about gardening. I personally know nothing, and if he gave me advice on it I would initially trust him. If this is a stupid thought process I apologize, I am slightly sleep deprived.
  - shardling 13y ago
    Read more carefully -- they're talking about the administration, not the person. There's no reason that this diminishes their credibility on, say, health care reform. It's a totally different set of people, and a fundamentally different agenda.
jamesbritt 13y ago
[T]hey are just making bit more explicit what was already implied. Interesting view. I didn't get that implication at all. When I read it I was quite amazed, and impressed, that the Times had flat out said that. Damn straight, I thought.
jluxenberg 13y ago
Typically any edit to a published piece, no matter how small, will have some kind of annotation indicating it was edited.
- johnny99 13y ago
  Not true for newspapers and never has been. Even in the days when print was predominant stories would get edited between printings as new material came to light. As earlier commenters have noted the original story was pushed out quickly, and later refined. This is totally normal in all newsrooms, and if you diff boring, non-controversial stories, you'll see the same thing--though perhaps to a lesser degree due to the fact that there's less of a rush to get out, say, a travel piece, compared to one with national import. Full disclosure: I worked at the NYTimes for two years as a developer in the newsroom. NYT editors and reporters are, almost universally, smart, careful, well-intentioned people.
retrogradeorbit 13y ago
Reading suggestion: "Flat Earth News" by Nick Davies. Essential to understand how the modern news room really works.

pvnick 13y ago

I agree. I'm usually the first to spot a conspiracy, but this looks like an innocent clarification to improve the quality of the piece. It was shocking enough to see how adamantly the entire editorial board of the New York Times distanced themselves from the administration on this.

PavlovsCat 13y ago

Yes. Looking over the changes, I honestly only see attempts at making it more explicit. Which in itself could mean they were initially eager to release it (instead of letting it rot on a shelf or something), and/or that it was written with a hot pen, if you know what I mean. "Lost all credibility" [on everything ever] is something I might say, but it's not something I would expect to read in a decent newspaper. Someone got a bit emotional over this and I salute them for that; that they later decided to be a bit more smart and effective about it doesn't take anything away, it just adds to it. edit/addendum: Just consider what it would literally mean, he lost crediblity on everything; a feast for any and all republicans, for starters. I mean, does this mean gay marriage was a mistake, too? Some would happily use this as water on their mills with unrelated issues.

randallsquared 13y ago
I think it's really weird to say that someone has lost all credibility on this issue. I mean, credibility is something that applies to people and entities, not to issues.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  I know that even people who lie a LOT (compulsory style) can sometimes be trusted to give truthful answers on things they feel confident (if not proud) about and are knowledgeable in and have a healthy attidude towards. I don't trust Obama on things like police states or killing people with robots, but I have zero idea what he knows about gardening. I personally know nothing, and if he gave me advice on it I would initially trust him. If this is a stupid thought process I apologize, I am slightly sleep deprived.
- shardling 13y ago
  Read more carefully -- they're talking about the administration, not the person. There's no reason that this diminishes their credibility on, say, health care reform. It's a totally different set of people, and a fundamentally different agenda.

jamesbritt 13y ago

[T]hey are just making bit more explicit what was already implied. Interesting view. I didn't get that implication at all. When I read it I was quite amazed, and impressed, that the Times had flat out said that. Damn straight, I thought.

jluxenberg 13y ago

Typically any edit to a published piece, no matter how small, will have some kind of annotation indicating it was edited.

johnny99 13y ago
Not true for newspapers and never has been. Even in the days when print was predominant stories would get edited between printings as new material came to light. As earlier commenters have noted the original story was pushed out quickly, and later refined. This is totally normal in all newsrooms, and if you diff boring, non-controversial stories, you'll see the same thing--though perhaps to a lesser degree due to the fact that there's less of a rush to get out, say, a travel piece, compared to one with national import. Full disclosure: I worked at the NYTimes for two years as a developer in the newsroom. NYT editors and reporters are, almost universally, smart, careful, well-intentioned people.

retrogradeorbit 13y ago

Reading suggestion: "Flat Earth News" by Nick Davies. Essential to understand how the modern news room really works.