My intent was to describe newsroom practices, not to express an opinion about the NYT's rewrites. It is commonplace for important stories to be extensively rewr

My intent was to describe newsroom practices, not to express an opinion about the NYT's rewrites. It is commonplace for important stories to be extensively rewritten and amended. I don't know enough about the Reddit saga to discuss it intelligently. I will stipulate that the NYT editorial board has lectured Silicon Valley on diversity, though it is not diverse itself, and its female executive editor made less than her male predecessor: http://www.aei.org/publication/silicon-valley-gets-stern-lecture-diversity-mostly-white-mostly-male-ny-times-editorial-board/ http://www.aei.org/publication/silicon-valley-gets-stern-lec... http://www.businessinsider.com/nyt-explains-female-editor-smaller-salary-than-male-2014-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/nyt-explains-female-editor-sm... As for the rewrites, changing the lede graf to "entrenched sexist culture of Silicon Valley" is significant. It replaces neutral reportage -- "a week of ceaseless criticism" -- with the newspaper asserting as fact that Silicon Valley represents a more "entrenched sexist culture" than, say, the NYT newsroom itself. It's intended to frame the story in a typical high-level next-day NYT fashion by injecting the author's, or editor's, perspective. It's excellent journalism when it's accurate, but creates the type of controversy you see here when it's not.