A number of media reporters have now followed up with reports about the Times switcheroo. And the answer from the Times is that it was part of the normal editing process and the preference for on-the-record quotes over blind quotes. The specific response we got from Eileen Murphy, spokesperson for the Times, reads as follows …
As reporting went on during the day yesterday, we were able to flesh out the story, add more context and get more sources on the record, which is obviously what we prefer. Having said that, we stand by the reporting in all versions of the story.
Peter Baker, who replaced David Sanger as the lead byline, told Buzzfeed, “It’s just normal journalism — as more reporting comes in, you improve the story. On the record Republican criticism beats anonymous Republican criticism.”
But this is a weak answer which at least dodges what I see as the key question about the piece. Read More
Josh already noted the strange case of this substantially rewritten New York Times story, which seems to have dropped some of the writers’ key reporting.
That’s a very odd story of its own. But it (both the original version and the updated one) also has a thematic quality that badly obscures what Romney was up to on Tuesday night.
Here’s how the original version of the story reported Romney’s statement: Read More
Hillary Clinton: “To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible,”
McClatchy interviewed the emergency room doctor in Benghazi who tried unsuccessfully to resuscitate Chris Stevens.
Since we’re still discussing the Times switcheroo of the piece about Mitt Romney last night. I’m going to reprint the original here in full. Needless to say, we would never do this under ordinary circumstances. But in this case, the origins and editing of the story have itself become a subject of the news.
Full piece after the jump … Read More
Rob Portman went on CBS this morning to defend Mitt Romney’s self-made mess of the Libya incident. It was a doozy of an interview.
We’ve got proof right here that the hip, sleek, edgy Apple product you adore will one day be laughably clunky and obsolete.
In looking through the photos of the seven U.S. ambassadors killed in the line of duty, you’ll notice that the 1970s were a perilous time for U.S. diplomats.
I’m not sure what’s up with this. But earlier this evening the Times ran a story entitled “Behind Romney’s Decision to Attack Obama on Libya.” The byline was David Sanger and Ashley Parker. The big news out of the story was that Romney himself had been the driver of last night’s decision making. That and a lot of other color and interesting news. As I write, it’s still that piece and lede that’s on the front page. But now it’s been replaced (same url) by an almost unrecognizable piece entitled “A Challenger’s Criticism Is Furiously Returned“, bylined by Peter Baker and Ashley Parker. Read More