Those who read the New York Times's coverage of the unsuccessful results of Barack and Michelle Obama's attempt to seal the 2016 Summer Olympics bid for Chicago on Friday afternoon ('For Obama, an Unsuccessful Campaign") might want to read it again.
If it doesn't seem the same, it's because it isn't.
Blogger Weasel Zippers (HT Hot Air Headlines via Instapundit) caught the Times committing a major scrub of the story. But it's really worse than that.
An excerpt of the item's first five paragraphs posted at FreeRepublic at 4:44 Eastern Time on October 2 shows that the article was apparently originally published under the same title with Peter Baker's byline sometime Friday afternoon.
There are even more substantive differences noticed by Weasel Zippers I will get to shortly, but the first five paragraphs alone were obviously worked over, while Jeff Zeleny's name was added to the byline.
After the jump, on the left you will see the original as excerpted at FreeRepublic; on the right are the first five paragraphs currently at the Times web site (saved here at my host for future reference; click here or on the graphic to view a larger side-by-side version in a separate window):
It's not too difficult to determine that the revised coverage waters down Baker's original on-the-scene observations.
Here are other items Weasel Zippers noted:
- The reference to other politicians on the journey in the original ("On Air Force One with him Friday, Mr. Obama brought a couple cabinet officers from Illinois, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, as well as Senator Dick Durban") went away.
- An entire paragraph that referred to an Olympic allusion in an Obama campaign speech last year ("And the prospect of winning was too irresistible. After all, Mr. Obama has already envisioned the day when he could welcome the world to his hometown, never mind that small matter of reelection. 'In 2016, I’ll be wrapping up my second term as president, he told a rally in Chicago in June 2008. 'So I can’t think of a better way than to be marching into Washington Park ... as president of the United States and announcing to the world: Let the Games begin!'") was flushed.
- An arrogant, victory-lap jab at critics from Rahm Emanuel (“'They shouldn’t try to make politics of this,' Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff and a Chicagoan himself, told ABC News. 'I think they should take some pride in the U.S.’s win, and you know, we’ll make sure they get some good seats once Chicago does host the games.'") was deep-sixed.
- But the Times did find room to note the existence of the president deigning to do his real job for a bit by meeting with the general in charge in Afghanistan ("Mr. Obama also used the opportunity to meet for 25 minutes with his Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who flew to Copenhagen from London, where he was on business. 'The biggest loss of anything on this trip was sleep,' Mr. Gibbs said.")
I should also note that a supposedly heroic Michelle Obama quote in the original ("'Take no prisoners,' she vowed") also got the memory-hole treatment.
The change in the dateline location is important to the point of this post. The Washington story is not an hours-later update of an older story; the location change means that it is a new story. Yet it carries the same URL as the older one out of Copenhagen (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/sports/03obama.html). There is no journalistically defensible reason for deleting the Copenhagen-based story. Yet it has indeed disappeared. Times searches on word strings deleted from the older item come up empty.
As if the Times needed any more blows to its allegedly still-existing journalistic integrity, this one can't help but beg the question of who at the White House put pressure on the Times to do what it did. Why would any journalist put themselves in the position of making people wonder if they bow to the wishes of the politically powerful? The answer may be that journalism, once thought to be at least lurking occasionally in its Manhattan hallways, is officially dead at the New York Times.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Betcha Pinchy Sulzberger
October 4, 2009 - 09:32 ET by BDBetcha Pinchy Sulzberger read the original and FREAKED! Truth about the stinging rebuke on the international stage to "THe One" cannot be seen on the NYT. After all, if it is not in the times, did it really happen?
Thus the hastily employed re-write.
Nowhere to hide ... Oba-Mao
October 4, 2009 - 09:35 ET by 10ksnookerNowhere to hide ... Oba-Mao did a king sized bellyflop and the whole world was watching.
Oba-Mao did a king sized
October 4, 2009 - 09:49 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsOba-Mao did a king sized bellyflop. . . .
You get the coveted "Metaphor of the Week" award for that one.
D
Write your Congress and Senate and tell them what YOU think!
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
This is clearly a training
October 4, 2009 - 09:43 ET by ThisnThatThis is clearly a training issue. The NYT is obviously not training/brainwashing its reporters properly. Some of them still have actual news reporter instincts that show thru at the most embarrassing moments, like on Friday when the original story was published.
Come on, NYT. Get your act together. No more free will.
The hunt is now on for all those that read the original article. Re-education camps are being prepared. If you fess up now, your detention might be made a little more comfortable than if we have to knock at your door.....
___________________________________
"mmm, mmm, mm. Barrack-Hussain-Obama." - The liberals cool-aid drinking song
The Grey Lady's got the swine flu
October 4, 2009 - 09:43 ET by BKeyserMaybe Jeff -Some Enchanted Evening- Zeleny couldn't bare to see his beloved Barry take such a (for the NYT) beating and scrubbed it himself?
Or, maybe all those missing quotes were in fact, made up in order to embellish the win- had it actually turned out that way?
Nah.
The Times is dead.
The story was clearly sanitized.
October 4, 2009 - 10:04 ET by superconHell....the NYT's can even stop themselves from printing classified secrets but somehow a bad story on Obama had to be cleaned up. It sort of makes you wonder who was pulling the strings.
" if Republicans are able to stop Barack Obama on health care, 'it will be his Waterloo, it will break him...." -Sen. Jim DeMint
NYT's rewriting History, one byline at a time
October 4, 2009 - 10:27 ET by CobraManIt seems that the Grey Lady is getting a bit senile these day.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Arrogant? Who Knew?
October 4, 2009 - 10:46 ET by slickwillie2001The backstory emerging:
Danish News: Obama's Arrogance Turned Off IOC: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com
Someone finds him arrogant?
The IOC didn't simply hand him a loss, they kicked the Bamster in the teeth. They knew what his presence meant, they knew he was 'all-in'. They could have let him down a little easier by leaving Chicago in for the last round, instead they unceremoniously dumped Chicago. There's a message there.
Obama No Longer in Control of The Narrative
October 4, 2009 - 11:18 ET by G. MayThe McChrystal angle to this story is an indication that Obama has lost control of The Narrative™. Not only is his awareness of criticism increasing, but his ability to simply ignore it is decreasing. While the meeting with McChrystal was clearly only a token meeting, it shows that Obama is now reacting.
I take this as a positive sign that no matter how slight the probability, Obama might now begin to take into account all of the American people.
His political capital is spent. He and Bush share that trait - willingness to spend political capital. The key difference is that, for better or worse, Bush was able to get something done. And Bush was supposedly the idiot.
Obama Change?
October 4, 2009 - 11:43 ET by slickwillie2001Not a chance. He's been like this all his life, he knows no other opinion or political philosophy. It's the narcissism, it's his one talent –speech reading ("Harry, I have a gift...") and it's the programming by all the Marxists in his life. He can't change. He's no Bill Clinton in that regard.
Well let's hope he doesn't
October 5, 2009 - 09:25 ET by G. MayWell let's hope he doesn't change then. That will equate to political suicide. He's enough of a sockpuppet though that onceRahm, David and Valerie see that they can no longer keep steering him in this direction that they will have to change him.
Obama and the General
October 4, 2009 - 16:34 ET by ROSSMANI don't believe their meeting was anything but th Pres taking the General to the woodshed. He can't tolerate being questioned or upstaged!!
Hmm...Gates has publicly
October 4, 2009 - 16:38 ET by JerHmm...Gates has publicly disagreed with him. Sotomayor has publicly disagreed with him. Last time I looked, they still have their jobs.
Jer
He could fire
October 4, 2009 - 16:49 ET by general companySotmayor if he wanted to, BTW what did they disagree about?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
general company..
October 4, 2009 - 16:53 ET by JerHe could have withdrawn her nomination.
She disagreed with his statement about "empathy" in deciding cases.
Jer
Wow,
October 4, 2009 - 17:27 ET by general companyThat some disagreement, he out lefted her? Probably just for cover, simply another case of Obama using his "star" power to protect an obvious loon. Or did you realy beleive her?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Actually, in terms of
October 4, 2009 - 19:31 ET by JerActually, in terms of adjudicating constitutional issues, it is a critical difference.
Obama had made the statement even before Sotomayor's nomination--and well prior to her confirmation hearing wherein she expressed her disagreement.
Her view is the correct one. Certainly I believe her.
Jer
so
October 4, 2009 - 19:39 ET by GeronLSoSo is what I call her
Great
October 4, 2009 - 20:40 ET by general companyCertainly I believe her.
That and a nice pillow, maybe I will be able to sleep tonight. She was certainly not showing any empathy for those FF, was she?
This is a minor discrepancy at best, but political expediency more then likely. I have listen to this woman personaly, and hearing what her peers have said about her, she isnt very impressive. She needed all the cover she could get.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Oh and,
October 4, 2009 - 20:49 ET by general companyHe could have withdrawn her nomination.
And suggest he made a mistake, yea,,,, fat chance he ever starts coming to his senses? If he does, he will have to fire just about every appointment he has made.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Well g c... It was a huge
October 4, 2009 - 22:06 ET by JerWell g c...
It was a huge issue with the Republican members of the Judiciary committee, but perhaps they--as you apparently believe--were making a mountain out of a molehill.
Jer
Ok, let me see if I have this straight
October 5, 2009 - 09:29 ET by general companyShe suggest to the Judiciary that empathy should NOT influence her decisions, do I have this correct?
Then how do we explain this , or this. How about those Firefighters, that wasnt empathy? How about her poor record when her cases went before the SC, was there no empathy there either? She was obviouly not being truthful. Obama took up the cause, to give her cover. Simple as that. She is an activist judge, most of her peers could not understand her ruling either.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
g c... All I can tell you
October 5, 2009 - 20:40 ET by Jerg c...
All I can tell you is that I was watching the confirmation hearings when she was asked about Obama's "empathy" rationale and whether she agreed with the President's stated view [which the questioner quoted] on the subject. She answered that she did not agree.
Jer
Do you still believe her?
October 5, 2009 - 20:53 ET by general companyBecause I dont. Words have little meaning when preceded by contradictory actions
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
g c...
October 5, 2009 - 21:59 ET by JerYou no doubt are somewhat cynical about liberals, just as I am about conservatives. There have been surprising ideological shifts by Supreme Court justices over the years.
We'll just have to wait and see how Sotomayor's judicial philosophy manifests itself via her opinions over the course of time.
Jer
Why?
October 5, 2009 - 22:51 ET by general companyHas very little to do with being cynical. I have her past to judge her by, just as others have mine and yours.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Because you're exhibiting
October 5, 2009 - 23:08 ET by JerBecause you're exhibiting cynicism with respect to her testimony under oath before the judiciary committee. Maybe your cynicism is justified. But remember, the original issue was about expressing disagreement with Obama and the consequences of same.
Jer
Apples to oranges, Jer.
October 4, 2009 - 23:14 ET by CobraMan"Actually, in terms of adjudicating constitutional issues, it is a critical difference. "
Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your viewpoint, the President doesn't adjudicate anything so any disagreement he may have with her is merely a matter of philosophy as he has no REAL control over her and any decisions she may or may not make.
On the other hand, every active duty general under his command must follow his commands and a difference of opinion can, and has, cause sever problems in carrying out a President commands, thus reducing a President's ability to be an effective Commander in Chief.
Remember what happen to Macarthur? That's right, he got fired! Now, tell me, when was the last time a President fired a Judge?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Cobraman...
October 4, 2009 - 23:28 ET by JerI've already conceded one issue to you tonight. You're pressing your luck.
Jer
Dang those quotas!
October 4, 2009 - 23:31 ET by CobraManAm I beating me head against a quota? Man, I hate quotas! ;)
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
CobraMan...
October 5, 2009 - 22:03 ET by JerLOL...One concession per night, and that's all--(even if you're right).
Jer
General (re:wow)
October 5, 2009 - 05:39 ET by DoktorFrankenI believe that the original disagreement was about the exact shade of Muslim Blue Hussein's ties should be.
Or it may have been the one where they fought about how horrible America is - ''just terrible'' or ''God-Awful''.
Then again, I think I remember them bantering about the level of ''positivity'' the U.S. Constitution should have.
But it's early and I could be wrong - or hallucinating from stale bread.
Jer
October 4, 2009 - 22:55 ET by MrShy"He could have withdrawn her nomination... She disagreed with his statement about "empathy" in deciding cases."
That is so wafer thin, I can't even taste the wafer.
Oh yeah, Shy...
October 4, 2009 - 22:59 ET by JerI'm surprised you can taste anything after all that crow I've forced you to eat.
[Rim shot]
Jer
I agree with Jer on this.
October 4, 2009 - 22:51 ET by CobraMan"He can't tolerate being questioned or upstaged!!"
That's just what people were saying about Bush. I didn't believe that about Bush, and I don't believe that about Obama.
What I do believe is that Bush and Obama would arrive at different conclusions as to a proper course of action after hearing any disagreements by those who are tasked at performing those actions. I also believe this is normal and ever President does this, as well as every other human being on the planet.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Oops...
October 4, 2009 - 23:27 ET by JerReplied to wrong post.
You know what?
October 4, 2009 - 19:38 ET by GeronLTheir articles are carried by a hundred or more newspapers and they did not want this going out.
Tom, this is one of the best
October 4, 2009 - 20:23 ET by celatorTom, this is one of the best examples of media distortion, bias and politicized reporting I've read. Good sources, well thought out. The jury declares the NYT guilty as charged!
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
Thanks, though I'm nowhere near the first one who caught it
October 4, 2009 - 22:07 ET by Tom BlumerI'm just glad that a FReeper excerpted the opening paragraphs of the original so that the side-by-side could be laid out.
Mr. Blumer...
October 4, 2009 - 20:41 ET by JerThe opening sentence of your final paragraph presumes White House pressure was applied to the Times editors. On what evidence do you base that conclusion? Or does the succeeding sentence mean it's just idle speculation?
Jer
Beg the question....
October 4, 2009 - 20:56 ET by CobraManThat wasn't a conclusion, that was a query. You see, "beg the question" is an idiom for "to cause a particular question to be asked."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Your post, CobraMan, begs
October 4, 2009 - 22:22 ET by JerYour post, CobraMan, begs the question: Did you carefully read the sentence I referenced? ;-)
Maybe this will help. Here's an analogous sentence structure:
"It begs the question, who in CobraMan's family robbed the convenience store?" It doesn't leave the question open as to whether or not someone in your family was the robber. The question presumes it. Mr. Blumer likewise presumed there was pressure from the White House. But there is no direct evidence to support the claim.
Jer
I read it, Jer.
October 4, 2009 - 22:43 ET by CobraManI read it, Jer, just as you did. Did you answer it? Suppose the answer was "no one," as is possible? How does that fit into your " presumption" theory?
Let me help you out. Here's an analogous sentence structure:
It begs the question why Jer automatically assumes that people are inherently incapable of reading a sentence and arriving at their own interpretations of its meaning without Jer's assistance as to the correct interpretation.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Touche`, CobraMan... I'll
October 4, 2009 - 22:46 ET by JerTouche`, CobraMan...
I'll take Tom's advice and "get a grip".
Jer
CobraMan - 1 Jer - 0
October 4, 2009 - 22:49 ET by MrShyCobraMan - 1
Jer - 0
(This message brought to you by Mr. Shy, filling in for Free Stinker.)
Shy...
October 4, 2009 - 22:54 ET by JerI think after I have already graciously conceded the point, it's bad form to rub it in with a ripoff of Free's scoreboard.
Jer
Jer
October 4, 2009 - 22:57 ET by MrShyI know, but I'm taking a break from my video, and nothing like a Jer needling for relaxation.
So Shy....
October 4, 2009 - 23:31 ET by JerJust checked the calendar. It's Fall already. When are you gonna deliver the goods?
Jer
Jer
October 5, 2009 - 21:06 ET by MrShyIn due time. Many actors involved, shoots, post production. It's insane, but it's almost 2/3rds done.
Was hoping by my birthday (Oct. 16th) but that's not looking so great. End of October or November. See? Meeting my self-imposed deadline. I have, technically, until December 19th. :)
Shy, is that you?
October 4, 2009 - 23:34 ET by CobraManShy, is that you in the video? You look very familiar, as does the lady. But I just can't place you.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Nice video, BTW
October 4, 2009 - 23:44 ET by CobraManNice Video, Shy. Tell me, have I seen you and/or Mrs. Supercool in a movie or a TV show? I swear that I have! It can't be MTV, I haven't watched that in 15 years.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Cobra
October 5, 2009 - 21:12 ET by MrShyHmmm... Well, maybe you've seen this video somewhere, it's not impossible, but nothing really came of it.
My biggest success (if you want to call it that :p) is Mr. Shy... Oh, and my previous band has/had an underground Northern Soul hit in the UK.
The woman in the video is an ex-girlfriend, btw (realized that just now) and yes, that's me, circa 1991, about.
Thanks, CM, and ....
October 4, 2009 - 22:05 ET by Tom Blumer.... Jer, get a grip.
But, Tom, the reputation of
October 4, 2009 - 22:24 ET by JerBut, Tom, the reputation of the New York Times, the "newspaper of record", is at stake here. :-)
Jer
ChickaBOOMer: Weasel Words
October 4, 2009 - 20:44 ET by StewartIIIWeasel Words http://chickaboomer....
You do the math. Obama has
October 5, 2009 - 11:29 ET by TenebrousYou do the math. Obama has said he will be scouring social media sites for opposition. I think it's reasonable to conclude that he's also scouring blogs and other news sources as well. Did he or his minions put the kabosh on this? They're certainly not above it, as we've seen from the Humana incident. There's no hard proof, but he's got the opportunity, the history, and the motive. Funny how the NYT proclaims its high standards all day long and then turns out this; funnier still that the only people who notice that the pieces don't fit aren't the paper's audience.
-----
Random-jumbled-thoughts.blogspot.com