Guest essay by Leo Goldstein
NY Times regularly revises its articles after publication. The revisions are substantial, undisclosed, and are nothing like real time updates in developing stories. These are regular articles that undergo dramatic changes that appear as if NY Times editors received a commissar’s call stressing the party line and demanding the article matches it exactly, with the NY Times editors dutifully obliging.
I recently stumbled on one of such revisions. Within hours, the description of Scott Pruitt, the newly appointed EPA head, in the NY Times article went from being an “ally of fossil fuel Industry,” to a “climate change dissenter,” to a “climate change denialist.” Later, I was pointed to a helpful website newsdiffs.org. Newsdiffs archives multiple versions of news articles and shows the differences between them. That article has been revised or rewritten at least six times after its original publication, all without any notice to the readers.
On the topic of climate debate, the most prominent rewrite seen is the replacement of the term “climate skeptic” with “climate denialist.” Also witnessed, is the attempt to do some damage control, like replacing “Obama’s new climate change regulations” that reporters probably heard firsthand from government officials, with “Obama’s new clean air regulations.”
Examples, limited to the climate debate
The following article was completely re-written from its original version on January 14-15. Then, on January 18, the sentence, “Obama’s new climate change regulations are driving electric utilities to shut down coal plants,” was rewritten by replacing the term “climate change” with “clean air,” thus becoming: “Obama’s new clean air regulations are driving electric utilities to shut down coal plants”:
http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/us/politics/in-climate-move-obama-to-halt-new-coal-mining-leases-on-public-lands.html (By CORAL DAVENPORT)
Multiple changes, including changing the word Skeptics to Denialists in the title:
http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1376719/1376823/https%3A/www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/climate/scott-pruitt-epa-endangerment-finding.html (By CORAL DAVENPORT)
The article was revised 14 times:
http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-visit.html
(By MICHAEL D. SHEAR, JULIE HIRSCHFELD, MAGGIE HABERMAN)
Multiple changes, including in the authorship:
http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-record.html (By JUSTIN GILLIS and JOHN SCHWARTZ)
For example, this link shows multiple changes to the body of the article:
The title was completely re-written:
Another title that was re-written:
http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1309853/1309964/www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/science/global-warming-daily-mail-breitbart.html (By HENRY FOUNTAIN)
Multiple substantial changes:
http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.nytimes.com/2016/10/15/world/africa/kigali-deal-hfc-air-conditioners.html (By CORAL DAVENPORT)
At the time of this writing, some of these articles are different from their last versions in newsdiffs, and at least one seems similar to the initial version in newsdiffs. Probably newsdiffs monitors the news articles only for short time. Also, NY Times’ website may send different versions of the same article to different readers.
Remember the BBC Scandal in 2008
This brings to mind the well-known BBC scandal, when the BBC changed a published weather-related article to be more climate alarmist after exchanging few emails with Jo Abbess, a climate activist who then gloated about it. (See also JM1 and JM2). One thing that escaped attention: Jo Abbess was active in the local Agenda 21 chapter (Poole Agenda 21) and was connected to other British alarmist organizations. The published email exchange between poor Roger Harrabin and Jo Abbess was just a small part of the pressure and brainwashing campaign that broke the BBC.
Footnotes
Curiously, newsdiffs.org was created with funding from the leftist Knight Foundation largely with the intent to discover content re-writing that’s in favor of conservatives. Newsdiffs.org was covered by the NY Times in 2012. Apparently, NY Times still had some integrity back then. The NY Times has been doing stealthy revising since at least 2015 and seems to increase their frequency and severity after the elections. I will be posting more examples of stealthy content revising and fake news on my site.
Newsdiffs.org monitors only five websites and one cannot easily search in it (I suggest using https://web-beta.archive.org/web/*/newsdiffs.org) but the software is open-sourced and available at https://github.com/ecprice/newsdiffs.
Thanks to H.J. for collaboration in the research and writing this article.
Footnote by Anthony Watts
WUWT occasionally has changes to articles from time to time, and we have a policy on it:
Stories that have been posted may get edited in the first hour after they first appear. Sometimes errors or mistakes (particularly in formatting) aren’t seen until the post is published. If something doesn’t look right and the post is brand-new, try refreshing in a few minutes. Of course, after an hour if something is still wrong, don’t hesitate to leave a comment to point it out.
The main reason for changing of articles at WUWT is spelling and formatting mistakes, and they usually occur within the first hour. Sometimes simple mistakes are made,in the body or in the title, and commenters catch them almost immediately. A good example is in the story New ‘Karl-buster’ paper confirms ‘the pause’, and climate models failure. The word “sleight” was misspelled as “slight”, and that was fixed right away and noted in the comments with thanks to the commenter who spotted it.
Sometimes, there’s errors related [to] title spelling, such as the article: AL.com thinks ‘global warming’ is increasing ticks in Alabama, except it’s cooled over the last century there
I boobed, and typed AI instead of AL originally so I had to fix that. I left a note at the bottom of the article:
Note: about 5 mins after publication, the title was changed to correct a misspelling.
And on occasion, we have a factual error in the article. These are handled via either strikeouts (if the error is multiple words) or as a word or two in [brackets] if it is a simple fix.
We aren’t perfect here at WUWT, nobody who publishes online is, but I try to make sure that fixes are known to the readers.
1984!
Yes. The Ministry of Truth in action.
The only problem is that the internet never forgets. Good work Anthony.
Sounds more like weather forecast techniques to me. 🙂
Cheers
Roger
Every time I encounter stuff like this, I am made aware of the prescience of George Orwell’s 1984, but I never expected it to occur in the U.S. … now I do.
2017!
Or 2010-2016 in some cases. A while back, Anthony allowed me to have a guest post here subtitled “The Need to Screencapture Global Warming Promoters’ Words (because what’s seen on the internet cannot be unseen)” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/05/ross-gelbspans-disappearing-act-of-inconvenient-climate-dialog/ , about a prominent ‘crooked skeptics’ accuser who attempted to pass off a 2010 article of his at his web site as something he’d more recently written, which to this day still occupies a spot not far from the top in his conveyor belt of blog postings.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
So it is more like New York from Time to Time !
g
Noting minor changes shortly after release is fine but stealth changes for political and activist agenda is not. Don’t subscribe or advertise in the NYT or LAT. You get what you pay for so go get a WSJ subscription to support the last sane island in the water world of bias and crass.
I got one of my masters’ degrees from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism in NYC, considered Numero Uno in the world. At that time, the corporate accountants hadn’t yet swallowed the media world. We were told that the best writers worked for the WSJ. (Murdoch bought the joint circa 2007, so, whatever.)
I am EXTREMELY heartened by newsdiffs.org. Hallelujah. Wonderful people in my view. Exemplary. And I applaud Anthony Watt’s effort to keep people apprised of this issue.
Institutional decay is an information problem for the rest of us to catch up to……
recent Opinion letter:
Brown University in Providence, R.I. houses one of the country’s most selective undergraduate colleges. The Brown Daily Herald, a student-run newspaper, cites Dean of Admission Logan Powell in reporting that the school received a record-high 32,724 applications this year, and admitted just 8.3% of applicants.
Among those lucky few is the daughter of a Journal reader who is still trying to make sense of a letter the family received this week from Mr. Powell. Our reader’s bright daughter had already received news of her acceptance when a letter arrived that was addressed to her “Parent/Guardian.”
Oddly, the note referred to the accepted student not as “she” but as “they.” Dean Powell’s letter also stated that our reader’s daughter had no doubt worked hard and made positive contributions to “their” school and community. Our reader reports that his perplexed family initially thought that Brown had made a word-processing error. That was before they listened to a voice mail message from the school congratulating his daughter and referring to her as “them.”
We’ve read about the literacy crisis in the U.S. but would not have guessed that the problem extends to Ivy League administrators. An item on Brown’s website announcing Mr. Powell’s 2016 hiring reported that he had previously served at Bowdoin, Harvard and Princeton—and also noted that he would be overseeing a staff of 38 people at Brown. One would think that at least some of them are familiar with pronouns.
It turns out that the errors were intentional. Brown spokesman Brian Clark writes in an email that “our admission office typically refers to applicants either by first name or by using ‘they/their’ pronouns. While the grammatical construction may read as unfamiliar to some, it has been adopted by many newsrooms and other organizations as a gender-inclusive option.” Our reader figured as much. “Mind you, our daughter has always been clear what her biological gender and identity is — she’s a woman,” he reports. He believes the school “wants to make it clear that only left wing extremists are welcome at Brown. Fine with us — good riddance.”
The letter from Dean Powell included a total of four short paragraphs, including this one: “And now, as we invite you to join the Brown family, we encourage you to allow [daughter’s name] to chart their own course. Just as you have always been there, now we will provide support, challenge and opportunities for growth.”
Nearly a complete stranger, Mr. Powell is writing a short, error-filled letter to parents claiming that his organization is fit to replace them. No doubt the “Brown family” with all its “thems” and “theys” can offer a wealth of valuable educational opportunities. But anyone who buys the line that competent parenting is part of the package has probably never set foot on campus.
Well Resource guy why don’t we just use “it” as a general pronoun that fits all 57 known genders.
But “it” still isn’t truly satisfactory, because ” it ” still excludes hermaphrodites, and I’m not happy about that.
Not that I know too many of those binarids; but there are times when you just want to tell somebody: ” Why don’t you just go and **** yourself !! ”
g
george e. smith : “Freak” works for me.
Best to verify anything that appears in the MSM. Look for original source information.
Got that right. And not only look for the source but if the topic is important to you, read the “source.” Cant tell you the number of times I’ve checked the source, which was thrown in as a palliative because it looked good, only to discover the source said the opposite of what the reporter claimed. (Many rabidly pro-Israel historical Wikipedia entries rise to that level of subterfuge; the Israeli Ministry of Information under Naftali Bennett openly admitted to doing it, btw, and paid a workforce to accomplish it.)
I’ve never seen a “rabidly pro-Israeli Wikipedia entry”. Of course some people are so anti-Israeli that the truth seems to be rabidly pro-Israeli.
A “newspaper of record” should document all changes from the first published version, even minor ones, in my opinion. Just a little sentence at the bottom, like: “Updated at …: grammar corrected.”
Yup. The New York Times does it for misspelling names. But wholesale altering of content???
It’s actually a “newspaper of stuck-record” – Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad ……
Anyone who pays attention understands the perspectives and tactics of The Revolutionary New York Times. Trust only the things that can be independently confirmed. And even then, be careful of subliminal nuances.
As long as one does not try confirming them from the Guardian, the BBC or Ha’aretz (English edition).
Obviously most of these changes are not corrections, but rather revisions of meaning. What is not obvious and should have readers concerned, is from where the impetus comes to make these changes. If the original text is not what the authors intended and they need to keep changing it, then their skills as journalists are suspect. If they are making changes due to pressure from others then those others are having a perverse and potentially inappropriate influence on what the public read in the published articles.
All the changes they make seem to reflect negatively on skeptics.
IE, to better match the current party line.
…And how desperate the party has gotten, lately.
No, no, no…
We’re looking at this all wrong.
These aren’t stealthy revisions, they’re data adjustments.
Thanks to to the author for a great & revealing article and for the newsdiffs.org link.
A clear example of activist pressure driving revisions is here:
http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/https%3A/www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/nyregion/de-blasio-smoking-new-york-city-tobacco.html
The (Big Pharma funded) anti-tobacco scam and resultant cult and ‘public health’ research (‘evidenced based’ policy, like a ‘fruit-based’ drink, is really only supported by agenda driven cherry picked selective ‘evidence’) gravy train, is even older and just as riven by bad ‘science’ and demonisation of dissenters as the CAGW scam.
I could go on… tobacco has many benefits, and its asserted and propagandised ‘harms’ wildly exaggerated, just like CO2, but in this case, instead of blaming industry, it’s been to deflect blame from industry, on to ‘individual choice’, away from diesel, coal tar, radioactive fallout from all the above-ground tests, &etc.
OK, I’ve stuck my neck out, head above the parapet. :=})
RdM: smoking is not one of our greatest health problems?
Have you worked or volunteered in a hospital lately?
You stuck your neck out, and allowed your brain to fall out while at it.
These cases clearly show outside pressure.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Leo. Bravo!
Wonderful, succinct post…Thanks!
There was a good example of this in the Guardian last week. They had a headline
“No, the Great Barrier Reef is not dead in the water. Not yet”, see this tweet.
But then they stealthily changed it to “We must act immediately to save the Great Barrier Reef”, as you can see by clicking on the tweet.
Presumably the headline writer was worried that that the original headline might give support to ‘climate deniers’.
Yes, the climate alarmists are quite good at deception.
Yes, the climate cultists are great at lying about climate.
Yes, the climate Stalinists promote propaganda.
Their livelihood depends on it. It is the oldest profession.
http://greyfalcon.us/pictures/stoppresses.gif
Tesla, perhaps?….. Google (think Ivanpah), perhaps?……. “Energy storage tech” industry …. or well…. ANY “Sustainability”/Human CO2-s c a m m e r, perhaps?
Follow –> the –> money.
*********************************
Fine exposé, Mr. Goldstein! Thank you for, once again, sharing your great effort to promote science truth, and, thus, freedom!
Janice, at the BBC at least, Tesla largely gets its advertising for free. Apparently.
I’m making the working assumption that the usual BBC suspects aren’t actually taking backhanders under the table, and that they really just believe their own green propaganda on behalf of some specific corporations. Companies other than Tesla make electric vehicles, but the BBC seems very shy about reporting it though they have frequent uncritical updates for Tesla and their products.
(The BBC treatment of Twitter has been very similar over the years. If you look carefullly at their early reporting you will probably find less than two stories which ever sounded a negative note. That would allow the BBC to claim they are not always just cutting and pasting from corporate press releases. Competing companies don’t get a look in.)
Thank you, Mr. Hart, for taking the time to make me more informed. Interesting situation in the UK with the BBC. It was kind of you to take the time.
Re: U.S. advertising revenue
I can almost guarantee that Tesla would pay BIG BUCKS for its NYT ads.
An example, just for context:
…. readers of the New York Times on Thursday might have noticed something different about their front page. Procter & Gamble ran what is known as a “main news spadia” — an ad that wraps around the front of the paper. The underside of the page is an ad for Febreeze while the front side has the paper’s normal text, giving the appearance that there’s no ad at all.
So how much does a main news spadia cost in The New York Times? Ad buyers estimate around $300,000.
(Source: https://blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2014/06/26/new-york-times-front-page-ad/ )
****************
My guess about why your comment did not appear for a long time after you posted it: “propag@nda” (bummer!)
Yes, as an editor once said to a reporter: your job is to produce copy so the underwear ads don’t run together.
Replace “clicks” with copy for a modern version.
Except that it probably isn’t an advertiser who is doing the complaining and otherwise throwing their weight around.
Agreed. Maybe an owner. or a cartel of ownership?
It’s just groupthink. There is no conspiracy, it is just that everyone, literally everyone, on staff thinks exactly the same.
A lot of pith in a small space.
Isn’t the NYT motto…
“All the news that fits…” … their agenda
Ah , to be able to have a limited window to edit posts on WUWT when you see you have faled to close a tag only after posting .
Or perhaps misspelled failed?
+1
We apparently are left with no alternative except having friends and relatives proof-read before we post. This would undoubtedly slow the posting process, so Charles the moderator could get some well-deserved leisure time.
Ah, but, Mr. Armstrong. Think of all the joy we flubber-uppers would deny to the Brian H’s of the world if we were not forced to leave our errors plastered across the page for all to see?
We will not have lived in vain!
🙂
(Good catch, MarkW 🙂 )
I usually try ignore spelling flubs, but that one was a hanging curve on the inside corner.
🙂
No joy involved, just exasperation.
Brian H! 🙂
WordPress has no comment editing capabilities. You can add a plug-in. However… every plug-in you add to your site is yet another thing to keep updated and in sync with the basic engine (assuming that you can keep it updated, not all developers keep up with changes at WP – and also assuming you trust it in the first place, by the way).
While it would be nice to have, I’d much rather Anthony spend his time doing what he does best – bringing us the best content he can – not doing constant putzing around in the website internals.
If that check from big oil ever clears, Anthony can hire a couple of interns to keep up with that stuff.
I love WUWT and consider it to be a primary source of credible information.
The comment threads can be particularly insightful and educational.
A beacon of light which is very highly valued.
+10
What I like the most is there is almost always a link to the original sources, as well as summary sources and the articles often beat other forums to publication. In the comments I can see both the well-reasoned arguments on both sides, I can see what the trolls are likely to seize upon as well.
I’m actually surprised WUWT doesn’t get more trolls. However, the “comments group” does not suffer fools lightly. When you get slapped down here, it’s usually well stated and documented.
Plus another 10
The credibility of WUWT is enhanced by the rapid, open, and usually authoritative feedback provided by commenters. On the other hand, the credibility of peer-reviewed scientific journals like Nature has been damaged by revelations of corruption and collusion. I’m beginning to wonder whether the future of scientific publishing lies in blogs like this one.
Good paper.
And until we get an honest MSM owner prepared to allow their journalists to publish/broadcast facts and to cover stories like this one there won’t be any change.
I don’t quite think that’s the issue. I think they hire people with an agenda and no intention of describing the facts of stories without passing them through their fantasy filters. Once stories are written, the editors don’t demand rewrites or fact editing to bring them back to reality so long as they pitch the editorially preferred line. Additionally, they seek to print what sells. In the case of climate they believe that providing confirmation to the Warmist biases is what sells.
We have to face it that the leftist media and the wall of nonsense produced by the climate “science” establishment dominates the field. That is the wall we need to chip away at. As an example, the information uncovered on this post regarding rewrites should be newsworthy to competitors of the NYT. If they have no credibility or ethics then we should point out that they have no credibility or ethics and the NYT’s competitors should bring it to ight. It’s news!
People still read the New York Times? When they decided to be propaganda rather than news, I decided to stop caring what they had to say.
The leftists prefer their propaganda to be undiluted by facts.
Since at least the 1920s.
Die Spinnmeisters von NYT.
Many media outlets actively suppress truth. My comments were not posted at several media outlets for pointing out that Pruitt was responding to the question- “do you think CO2 is the primary control knob for climate'” along with stating he didn’t deny anything because he said more research was need to know if it was or not. That factual information exposed the out of context lies they were spreading so they couldn’t allow it to be posted. I am always careful not to violate any terms of use.
Over the years I have failed to clear moderation way too many times for simply posting scientific facts about climate that can’t be dismissed as right wing propaganda.
Truth Matters. Even when it makes editors uncomfortable. The only reason the green liars have succeeded is because the “truth police” are in place. The trouble is, the concept of “Truth Police” is here as George Orwell predicted.
There is nothing lower than a liar….except a censor.
A thief is perhaps lower than a liar, but a liar is a thief of the truth, so I’m being redundant.
Not sure I got that. Could you say it again?
I wonder if the NYT will report on this …….”History of EPA employee misconduct could result in layoffs”
“Only 6.5 percent of EPA employees are “essential,” according to the government’s own calculations ”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/19/history-epa-employee-misconduct-could-result-in-layoffs.html
My estimate is that only about 6.5% of all government employees are ‘essential’, and then only if you stretch the meaning of the word.
You are being generous.
“HA”, most ever elected politician will disagree by claiming that the employment of nearly all (93.5%) of the government employees were ‘essential’ to their being “elected” …… and are essential’ to their re-election. Iffen a politician starts laying-off or firing government employees his/her incumbency will be in dire jeopardy.
To be elected via support of the lefty liberal “troughfeeders” you have to promise to hire more government employees.
“Sometimes simple mistakes are made,in…”
I’m triggered by this 😉
..Quick, run to your “Safe Space” before it’s too late !!
Back in the day we had our ‘safe space’ we could retreat to when we needed to get away from a world that was unfair and judgemental. Of course, we didn’t call it a safe space.
We called it The Pub. And it had free peanuts. ~¿~
Back in the day we had our ‘safe space’ we could retreat to when we needed to get away from a world that was unfair and judgemental. Of course, we didn’t call it a safe space.
We called it The Pub. And it had free peanuts. ~¿~
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=song+my+room&qpvt=song+my+room&view=detail&mid=6216A46855F7A2169C906216A46855F7A2169C90&FORM=VRDGAR
From the Beach Boys
The heroic defenders of free speech. Journalists, editors, and especially publishers have always expressed a point of view. In this case they appear to be expressing it after the fact. American mainstream media sold their themselves as objective at a time when they felt monolithic. That era is over.
There will be a job fair for the many job openings in air brush artistry, re-editors, and switchboard operators for communications with political and advocacy groups.
No wonder Obama’s
yes we can…global warming…weather weirding…climate change… clean air movement is misunderstood byanthropogenic global warming skeptics…global warming skeptics…allies of fossil fuel Industry…climate change dissenters… climate change denia!ists.Tough job to keep up with it!
Is it only me who is quite encouraged by this? If the forces of darkness felt they were in the ascendancy then the occasional semantical tweak would be the expected norm. Fourteen covert post-publish revisions can be viewed as nothing other than sheer desperation and panicked hysteria. It’s at times like these I can see the hydra writhing in agony. Thanks for the post Mr. Goldstein and I raise my glass to you.
I would be careful of assuming that we, who rely on goodness and honesty, are getting the upper hand.
Oh it will be a long time before I’d venture that far. For now though it’s gratifying to see those who rely on twisted ideology and deceit having bad times.
What has the upper hand is Reality. Even the most Totalitarian of regimes can hold it off for only so long.
Fourteen covert post-publish revisions….
“I am the great and powerful Wizard of Oz!”
(youtube)
sheer desperation and panicked hysteria.
Yep.
Don’t mistake noise for power.
It is my experience that the NYTimes, and other news outlets, actively suppress dissenting views, judging from the comments that I’ve read and submitted (at times to no effect despite peer-reviewed references) and that at one point I noticed were curiously absent, as if suddenly the “dissenters” must have had a change of heart. Our local on-line newspaper, respectable overall, refused to publish my commentaries on warming, including a relatively mild summary of the recent Congressional Hearing. All this leads me to believe that we are losing the war because we are meant to lose the war: for some reason, the powers that be want the climate agenda to move forward, and they’re not about to let any facts get in the way.
“for some reason, the powers that be want the climate agenda to move forward, and they’re not about to let any facts get in the way.”
These are True Believers. They believe the world is in danger from human-caused climate change/global warming, so they think that gives them an excuse to use any trick they can think of to help their efforts to stop this destruction of the world.
That’s true for some of them.
For many others they don’t care whether CAGW is true or not.
They mean to create heaven on earth through communism/socialism and they will use any vehicle they can to grab the power necessary to force the needed changes on the rest of us.
“Well-intended but ill-informed people being led by ill-intended but well-informed activists.”
In reply to MarkW, my suspicion is that it’s not necessarily communism/socialism, but maybe a form of fascism, or simply the rule of the very rich over the rest of us.
Fascism is a form of socialism, and all systems with strong governments result in a world in which the rich rule over the rest of us.
With the NYT, it looks like some senior executive, other than a purported editor, is asking for changes. There are some subjects the Times has a party line on, and climate change is one of them.
+1
Another Schumer-directed tool
New York Times seem to need someone like Ike Antkare to excel in the semantics of their gibberish.
Leo Goldstein,
There is no war more important than the war for facts. I don’t care if the earth is warming or cooling. I care how my life is tortured by those who mistreat facts. I want peace, truth and salvation.
If the facts showed the earth was warming and I was the reason, and that warming was harmful then I would feel compelled to allow my life to be interrupted and changed to address it. But so far, I have been lied to for 40 years. I have been told by “authority” figures that the earth is warming and cooling. I have been told that it natural and man made. I have been told that the warming and cooling is going to end life on earth. Well, somebody is lying. A lot of people are making a lot of money telling lies about the environment. I am not one of them.
Liars assault me, my children, my society with such profound, endless, and voluminous BS so often, that it is difficult to know which end is up. It is a whirlwind of nonsense.
So Mr Goldstein, you have a friend in me as you “out” the liars at the NYT. Liars disgust me. Stupid people annoy me a little. They are inconvenient, but liars are dangerous and to be guarded against.
I want the truth regardless of the pain it causes me. Pain will pass. I commend you also for your courage to avail your true identity. Even that kind of courage is rare.
Thank you, Leo, for educating me. I’m sadder but wiser, thanks to you.
BTW, some here might be unaware of Leo Goldstein’s very useful Climate Search Engine. It is a great resource!
Dave Burton,
Thanks for the link to the search engine by Leo Goldstein. I already tested it for Global Cooling, Peter Gleick, and Climategate. The difference with Bing, Google etc is profound.
Thanks! A great site.
Yes, I think so highly of Leo’s Climate Search Engine that I put a search form using it right near the top of the “Resources” page on my sealevel.info web site, right alongside the WUWT site search form.
The New York Times – Poster Child for Propaganda.
We are approaching the world depicted in Stargate SG-1 episode Revisions where all knowledge is accessed using “the link”, a direct neural interface to the central library. Ah, but what The Link giveth, it can also taketh away. These are not the memories you are looking for …
The Times and WaPo are now just unreadable propaganda. I’ve simply blocked them from my news feeds on my Apple devices. Apple loves to push everything leftist through its app. You have to manually pick what you want but it gets rid of the biased crap out there. It’s funny they all think negative propaganda is going to change people’s minds when that’s partly why they lost the election in the first place.
The Washington Post is a wholly owned subsidiary of the CIA, or is that the other way around, or is CIA owned by Amazon or the other way round, or does Jeff Bezos run everything. I believe WaPo ran the very first story on the whole Russian arm waving thing. Hmm. CIA pays Amazon 60 million more for its cloud information contract than IBMs similar bid. Then Bezos buys the biggest house in Washington DC paying a million more than the asking price. Hmmm.
http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-buys-23-million-mansion-in-washington-dc-2017-1
https://www.blackagendareport.com/wp_under_amazon_cloud
“CIA pays Amazon 60 million more for its cloud information contract than IBMs similar bid.’
What is your evidence of this?
“CIA pays Amazon 60 million more for its cloud information contract than IBMs similar bid.’
What is your evidence of this?
I can’t find the original article where I thought it was $60 mil but other articles are putting it at $50-$54 mil.
http://www.crn.com/news/cloud/240163382/amazon-wins-600-million-cia-cloud-deal-as-ibm-withdraws-protest.htm
Can’t find the original article?
Perhaps it was in the NYT?
“Can’t find the original article?
Perhaps it was in the NYT?”
That’s funny, Gunga! 🙂
“It’s funny they all think negative propaganda is going to change people’s minds when that’s partly why they lost the election in the first place.”
These high-leftists believe themselves to be the anointed intelligentsia, and that the rest of us are just stupid. Not just conservatives, but all people who are not members of the anointed intelligentsia. The propaganda is created more for their own followers than for the those who disagree. Their disinformation is not meant to persuade non-believers. Non-believers are to be demonized. The propaganda is for the multitude of foot soldiers and pawns.
I have sisters who know nothing about climate or atmospheric science, but have no problem dismissing all of my scientific arguments because: “97% of all scientists agree that climate change is a crisis! The science is settled.”
The ‘elites’ continue to use propaganda because it works…for a while. More importantly…what else are they going to do? They cannot speak the truth. That would undermine everything they have worked for. They have to stick with the method that got them this far. They have to keep lying. There problem is that they do not control ALL media. The truth is spreading. The days of the CAGW paradigm are numbered.
“The ‘elites’ continue to use propaganda because it works…for a while. More importantly…what else are they going to do? They cannot speak the truth. That would undermine everything they have worked for.”
Good point! 🙂
Re your remarks concerning Apple, I have long had the feeling that it is, in general, a lefty go-to company for electronics. Am I wrong about this? In universities, in Canadian gov bureaucracies and many other non business organizations it seems to be wall to wall Apple. In business, on the other hand Apple tends to be the exception. I’ve never seen anything written on this so I’ve wondered if my perception is correct. I cast no assertions on you, chilemike. Just curious. Even more curious, why would one of the world’s biggest corporations have such a corner on the market?
Generally speaking, Gary, you are correct. While many fiscal conservatives use Apple, they, like the majority of Apple users tend to be more socially “liberal” than PC users. One estimate I saw was ~58% of Apple = “liberal” and ~38% of PC users = “liberal” (self characterization).
Why?
Aside from the often tech-challenged libs (well, look at the cars they tend to choose to buy!) simply choosing Apple because it sounds “organic” (something else they’ve often been brainwashed into buying due to their lack of science knowledge) it is simply:
branding.
That’s all. Saavy advertising has pushed Apple as the Subaru of the tech world.
http://www.ecofuturedevelopment.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/SubaruAndTheEarth.jpg
Doing right by the planet isn’t just important to us, it guides every decision we make as a company.
Subaru
(Source: http://www.ecofuturedevelopment.com/top-5-companies-showing-true-corporate-responsibility-or-not/ )
Apple is the holy brand.
(Note: it appeared from the internet articles I scanned that Samsung is now attacking this directly and trying to position itself as the “socially responsible” blah, blah, blah, (barf!) brand.)
********************************
Again: (not at you, Gary, at hasty readers) I am NOT saying NO conservatives buy Apple. I am NOT saying NO liberals buy PC’s. I am NOT saying Apple does not make good products. I am ONLY talking about why there is a strange-but-true liberal-conservative buyer demographic phenomenon here.
I read an article this morning (Sorry, I looked for the link and couldn’t find it) about the current head of Apple getting a reward for supporting free speech. The article mentioned that just a month ago, Apple removed the app for downloading the NYT from the Chinese version of the App Store at the request of the Chinese government. Many lesser news sites had already been removed.
Rush Limbaugh uses Apple computers.
I happen to prefer Microsoft because I could build my own, and Microsoft made it so easy.
I tried to delete my account at the Washington Post but there was no button, cell or anything to click on. So I went directly to the ombudsman, as the “helpdesk” link didn’t work (as did the “unsubscribe” button for a newsletter not – not that I had voluntarily subscribed). The reply came swiftly – from the internet provider: “E-mail undeliverable”.
Where art thou, ombudsman@washpost.com?
The ombudsman is located at:
bezos@amazon.com
This is why the Amendments to the US Constitution remain in the text at the Archives and can only be repealed by further amendments. Truth is a vanishing commodity today. Our Founding Fathers knew better.
Na… Like Wikipedia, they probably just use William Connolley as post-publishing editor. Balance and accuracy ‘left the building’ ’bout the same time Elvis did.
On our campus the New York Times is given away to the students for free. Luckily millennials no longer read paper copy, but rely on Facebook instead.
At free, they’re still not getting their money’s worth!
What…! Facebook is their go to for knowledge! I’ve been worried about a totally uneducated generation which is the end game of Nouveau Monde Elites. These kids don’t have the least inkling of what is being done to them. The finishing touches on this goal is the very clever creation of safe places so they can protect themselves from other viewpoints, information and knowledge. They are taught to be afraid of such uncleansed and non sanctioned information. A would be speaker has ‘trigger’ words underlined so students aren’t upset. I would never have believed that this would work, but there you are.
NYT for free:
I have had a feeling that the idea of “boycotting” these distorted media, and of cutting cable, are not going to end the use of these media to solidify the “progressive” agenda by these overlords.
The government subsidizes CNN, so they could lose many viewer but still remain viable.
Now, I see how the NYT is remaining viable: they apparently are reaching out to universities to buy and distribute the paper. –Just like I get a “free” USA Today with my stay at any of several nice hotels.
I think these progressive totalitarian globalists – Bezos, Gates, etc., Soros, etc. would and may now be bankrolling the mainstream media because they need this MSM to promote their view of the world.
From the evidence usually offered up, are they ABLE to read?
The NYT lost what little integrity it had long before 2012! It has been a liberal outlet for at least decades, along with WaPo. The only reason for reading either is to know what the schemers are up to.
The newspaper business is hard these days. Layoffs are the order of the day. That means fewer editors.
In olden days, not that long ago, an editor would vet a story and its headline and there wouldn’t be much need to fix anything post-publication. These days, the story just goes up unchecked.
The changes addressed in this article are not about mistakes. The revised editions are not more accurate. They are more slanted! This isn’t about a lack of editors allowing factual errors to slip by. This is about an abundance of spin-doctors altering the news.
IMHO, a competent editor would have got the propaganda right the first time. 🙁
jclarke341- You are correct , sir!
It is difficult for the NYT, because they may publish a perfect story story today, and then the needs of their little politco-media klatch may change tomorrow and they will have to sneak back in and re-write in order to meet those new needs.
The saddest part of this issue is that the NYT is no longer a “paper of record”. There is no expectation that what was written during a news cycle is what a researcher might find years later.
The global elitists and their useful idiots would have gotten away with it all, if it weren’t for that pesky internets that Allen created, how ironic.
Who is this ‘Allen’ creature?? It is my understanding that an ‘Algore’ created the Internet!
That’s why the NY times is called fake news (they stopped using the term when caught faking it).
But the web site (Kudos for finding it!) probably scrapes the target websites periodically, so cannot possibly catch all changes (but most), Given how often the NY Crimes changes their stories, there are probably a few changes that are missed. At least they have the first and last versions.
If it’s changed, such scrapings will catch it. Unless it changed, then was changed back between scrapings.
What might happen is that two separate edits might get counted as a single edit if they both occur between scrapings. However both edits will show up in the difference report.
That is what I was referring to. You just said it clearer than I did. Thanks
NYT -Turning whine into vinegar
On-line news organizations should mark any parts of a story that have been revised, with the original version and an explanation provided for each revision.
That would constitute integrity.
Who was the guy who said that climate scientists were going have to decide for themselves about where the dividing line between being honest and being effective should be?
Is this a guessing game? I have no freakin’ idea.
MarkW is probably referring to this:
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/02
“It is entirely appropriate that it is Schneider who should be resurrecting a diagram that was considered by scientists as ‘too vague or subjective’ for AR4, but which nevertheless ‘vividly shows’ how close to disaster we are. After all, in a notorious unguarded moment, he did once make this telling comment to a reporter:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. [Quoted in: Schell, J., “Our fragile earth,” Discover, 10(10):44-50, October 1989.]”
end excerpt
Courtesy of the wonderful search engine link provided in an earlier post
defyccc.com/search/
Maybe some web version of Microsoft Word’s “Track Changes” option? They could set some kind of tell-tale to indicated an article has been revised and you could choose to view changes or not.
You are both assuming that the NYT is interested in integrity. I’d like to remind people that the NYT has been lying to people since, at least, they ran an article on how the Ukraine was just fine under Stalin while the reporter knew damn good and well that Stalin had appropriated the ENTIRE harvest in an attempted genocide.
You’re right, Rhoda, the New York Times has been lying for a very long time.
“… the reporter knew damn good and well that Stalin had appropriated the ENTIRE harvest in an attempted genocide.”
There are very few of us left who know that. The students are not taught inconvenient history; rather they are indoctrinated. (and the students pay for their own indoctrination)
Someone once said something to the effect that he who controls history controls the future. The government schools and the main stream media control history.
Rhoda:
They become interested in integrity when their own shoddy practices come back to hit them squarely in the balls. Hopefully their revisionism becomes an issue.
@Rhoda R
My reply was in the broader context of Killer Marmot’s post which did not limit itself to the NY Times. Other on-line sources may have greater integrity.
I wonder what coverage they will have on the book burnings of non-AGW approved settled science climate change books at schools and libraries?
NYT infiltrated and going going gone . A brand in full collapse .
Don’t forget the current CEO of NYT, Mark Thompson, had plenty of experience in running an organisation that distorts facts, as he was CEO of the BBC. He hasn’t change his spots.
I suspect rogue employees on the website, putting in things that the copy editor would not approve. These updates probably are not a priority for editing.
What…! Facebook is their go to for knowledge! I’ve been worried about a totally uneducated generation which is the end game of Nouveau Monde Elites. These kids don’t have the least inkling of what is being done to them. The finishing touches on this goal is the very clever creation of safe places so they can protect themselves from other viewpoints, information and knowledge. They are taught to be afraid of such uncleansed and non sanctioned information. A would be speaker has ‘trigger’ words underlined so students aren’t upset. I would never have believed that this would work, but there you are.
Could be (in some instances) residue of testing . . Been lots of talk about how to better influence people’s perception of “scientific” (particularly CAGW) issues/stories . .
Thanks, Mr. Goldstein.
I take it all Watts Up articles are fact checked, errors in published articles corrected and acknowledged and all mentioned in an item have the chance to comment?
I’m pretty sure that whatever else it might do, the NY times does that….
“I take it all Watts Up articles are fact checked, errors in published articles corrected and acknowledged and all mentioned in an item have the chance to comment?”
Didn’t you read what Anthony had to say about that, Griff? It’s right there at the bottom of the article. He answers all your questions.
What, Griff actually read an article he’s commenting on?
We already know that he never reads the articles that he cites as proof of his positions.
That’s pretty good evidence he didn’t read it.
Back to basics, Griff. Read before commenting.
Hmmmm. They did eventually purge Jason Blair for his “misdeeds”.
Get a Gripp, Griff. The subject isn’t fact checking, it’s stealthy revisions. Step on another rake.
http://s28.postimg.org/bfijguaq5/stepping_on_rake_cartoon.png
Footnote by Anthony WattsWUWT occasionally has changes to articles from time to time, and we have a policy on it:
Stories that have been posted may get edited in the first hour after they first appear. Sometimes errors or mistakes (particularly in formatting) aren’t seen until the post is published. If something doesn’t look right and the post is brand-new, try refreshing in a few minutes. Of course, after an hour if something is still wrong, don’t hesitate to leave a comment to point it out.
The main reason for changing of articles at WUWT is spelling and formatting mistakes, and they usually occur within the first hour. Sometimes simple mistakes are made,in the body or in the title, and commenters catch them almost immediately. A good example is in the story New ‘Karl-buster’ paper confirms ‘the pause’, and climate models failure. The word “sleight” was misspelled as “slight”, and that was fixed right away and noted in the comments with thanks to the commenter who spotted it.
Sometimes, there’s errors related [to] title spelling, such as the article: AL.com thinks ‘global warming’ is increasing ticks in Alabama, except it’s cooled over the last century there
I boobed, and typed AI instead of AL originally so I had to fix that. I left a note at the bottom of the article:
Note: about 5 mins after publication, the title was changed to correct a misspelling.
And on occasion, we have a factual error in the article. These are handled via either strikeouts (if the error is multiple words) or as a word or two in [brackets] if it is a simple fix.
We aren’t perfect here at WUWT, nobody who publishes online is, but I try to make sure that fixes are known to the readers.
Rate this:
Footnote by Anthony Watts
WUWT occasionally has changes to articles from time to time, and we have a policy on it:
Stories that have been posted may get edited in the first hour after they first appear. Sometimes errors or mistakes (particularly in formatting) aren’t seen until the post is published. If something doesn’t look right and the post is brand-new, try refreshing in a few minutes. Of course, after an hour if something is still wrong, don’t hesitate to leave a comment to point it out.
The main reason for changing of articles at WUWT is spelling and formatting mistakes, and they usually occur within the first hour. Sometimes simple mistakes are made,in the body or in the title, and commenters catch them almost immediately. A good example is in the story New ‘Karl-buster’ paper confirms ‘the pause’, and climate models failure. The word “sleight” was misspelled as “slight”, and that was fixed right away and noted in the comments with thanks to the commenter who spotted it.
Sometimes, there’s errors related [to] title spelling, such as the article: AL.com thinks ‘global warming’ is increasing ticks in Alabama, except it’s cooled over the last century there
I boobed, and typed AI instead of AL originally so I had to fix that. I left a note at the bottom of the article:
Note: about 5 mins after publication, the title was changed to correct a misspelling.
And on occasion, we have a factual error in the article. These are handled via either strikeouts (if the error is multiple words) or as a word or two in [brackets] if it is a simple fix.
We aren’t perfect here at WUWT, nobody who publishes online is, but I try to make sure that fixes are known to the readers.
One fact is certain: G… doesn’t check the facts – that is, maybe sometime he does, to winnow out the inconvenient ones.
He does get his information straight from the sources though – the alarmist and profiteering lobby and propaganda outfits.
If he had read and would read the NYT now, he couldn’t write his last sentence with a straight face; I, for one, could feel his smirking-vibration.
How old is he?
Imagine that giffiepoo!
There is already a proper process well established in the professional and graduate world for properly handling errors at print time.
Or at any time, to be exact.
Where did NY Times issue their corrigenda?
To consider the world properly; Libraries around the world will archive physical copies of the original print issue, virtual original issue copies, microfiche and perhaps microfilm.
NY Times secretive ongoing adjustments of articles turns the original library copies into utter falsehoods.
Look under any article posted on WUWT, giffiepoo. WUWT posts and keeps a corrigendum. Even for errors discovered days later.
Don’t worry giffiepoo; everything you think is erroneous is not. Real science keeps the truth and falsehoods forever. You will be in your dotage some day giffiepoo and your relatives will still laugh at your paid for advocacy as Piltdown man and Lysenko levels of stupidity.
Must be nice to go down in history as one of the d_mbest fools ever born. Molehill glory, where teachers use abject idiocy to teach future generations hw to think and practice real science.
I haven’t noticed so much the later revisions to articles, after all how many times is the average reader going to read an article. But the NYT clearly has a warmist bias to their climate articles and I’m certain that the writers that cover the climate beat are instructed to write articles with a warmist slant. If the articles are revised after publication my guess would be that the revisions come from senior editors or people higher up in the executive ranks.
I really don’t see anything sinister about it but rather view it as the NYT enforcing their world view, sometimes a bit after the fact. The best thing WUWT readers can do is to continue to watch for it and point it out when it occurs. The NYT is not going to change what it’s doing to satisfy WUWT denisons, but catching and exposing their game will get their attention and drive home to them that they can’t get away with this kind of manipulation without getting caught at it..
The Time will also publish an article and claim climate change causation in their headline, when the article itself might have very little to do about climate change. A month or so ago, there was an article in the Sunday Times about Mexico City, written by someone not on the climate team. The article was about the perennial water problems of a city that has exploded in population and that is built in an arid part of Mexico. Only late in the article was there a perfunctory mention of climate change being part of the problem.
I found the article fact-based and quite interesting. The influence of the climate police seemed to be in the headline, not in the body of the article itself. This is irritating but rather harmless, in my view.. If the NYT wants to promote a point of view outside of the editorial page then I guess they have that right. But in doing it they’re surrendering their claim to objectivity and damaging their reputation in the process.
Actually, I suspect that there is a lot of outright bribery going on in the news business. And I think there are enormous sums of money involved and that it is common. Paying off the editor or the reporter is cheaper than advertising and more effective. Look at a certain car company.
Maybe ole Tucker Carlson can get a New York Times editor on his show and ask him to explain why they did these changes to their articles after the fact.
“I haven’t noticed so much the later revisions to articles, after all how many times is the average reader going to read an article.”
It might get a little awkward if one quotes an article, and then the posted url reads differently. I guess people in the future shouldn’t depend on their memory of what an article said, because it might no longer say exactly what you remembered it to say, and might change the whole meaning.
In Anthony we trust (but verify). 😉
” In God we trust, all others pay cash”
Thanks, check is in the mail.
I reveal my true identity and it seems mods outrank gods.
God
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 19, 2017 at 6:06 pm
Well, Clipe, just to offer a little commiseration (if THIS comment makes it through!), I just got tossed into the spam bin (no “in moderation” error message –shrug). I just tested the only possible “bad” word. Nuthin’. Oh. Well. 🙂 Glad you are here.
Don’t scream: I pray for you almost every day. 🙂 (seriously!)
@ Clipe,
You’ve been here long enough to knows who’s running the show 🙂
Hey Janice,
Long time no talk, good to see your comments.
Good to see you, too, James. I was thinking about you the other day, for it was you (along with John F. Hultquist) who so warmly welcomed me to WUWT in mid-April, 2013. Thank you! (again) I hope things didn’t get TOO impolite the other day, lol. 🙂
Take care,
Janice
@ Clipe,
You’ve been here long enough to knows who’s running the show 🙂
That might be a stretch, but we could certainly do worse.
“That article has been revised or rewritten at least six times after its original publication, all without any notice to the readers.”
So we need to save the article, not the url, if we want a good copy of what we read. The dishonest news media doing more dishonest things.
Yeah, it kind of makes citing a source rather difficult when the source keeps changing. Future cites from the NYT will require a date stamp. 😉
“Apparently, NY Times still had some integrity back then.”
No.
Not only no — but hell no.
some integrity – the key word is some
The NYT adopting Stalinists practices shouldn’t surprise as others have noted the NYT Moscow correspondent in the ‘20s and ‘30s Walter Duranty, according to George Orwell’s advice to the British Foreign Office, was probably a paid Soviet agent and not to be trusted.
This sort of of ‘historical revision’ is typical of ALL Establishment mouthpieces. It matters not whether the Establishment concerned is Left, Right, Up, Down, etc. The idea of the Press representing a check on the abuses of Government (I know — a lot of CAPITALS here) only has a chance of working when the presses are owned and operated by individuals who are either disconnected from the political Establishment or who, while having some connections, disagree with its aims.
In the past, when access to even recently written information was not so easy, embarrassing-after-the-event articles could often be quietly ‘forgotten.’ Historical revisionism has been detected in chiselled hieroglyphic records on Egyptian walls. People just have to be realistically aware of what can happen and maintain a healthy level of intellectual scepticism.
The article is illuminating, but should not be surprising. It brings to mind the reported reply of John Swinton to a proposed toast to an independent Press at a congregation of newspapermen around 1880:
“There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
“There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
“The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
“We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks: they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”
And with that, I recommend to you the very long You Tube documentary, “Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick.”
Do you see rich people under your bed every night?
“It brings to mind the reported reply of John Swinton to a proposed toast to an independent Press at a congregation of newspapermen around 1880:”
Mr. Swinton nailed it. A perfect description of our current western news media.
The poster is misrepresenting the facts. Changing a few terms here and there, or even a few sentences, is not “completely rewritten”. Try not to be so hyperbolic, it’s not necessary.
“The issue is that the articles should be marked as amended.”
Yes, and links should be provided to previous versions.
Changing “climate dissenter” to “climate denialist” in a title is a huge revision.
“Completely rewritten” means just that: more than 50% of the original version was removed, and more than 50% of the content of the later version was not in the original one.
I have presented the facts correctly, and provided links for everybody to verify them.
NYT aren’t the only ones. Washington Post does it, too. Articles are often revised long after publication. This is why I do not trust online media. One can not “unprint” a newspaper so news organizations needed to ensure the content was correct and once printed, it lived forever. With online content, what a story says today can be something completely different tomorrow. Researchers in the future looking through our archives will not get an accurate picture of what our people were hearing when events unfolded.
Stealthy editorial changes is consistent with similarly stealthy land temperature changes…..or so it seems to me – particularly when the raw data is deleted/omitted.
“Stealthy editorial changes is consistent with similarly stealthy land temperature changes”
Both kinds of changes seem aimed at promoting the CAGW narrative.
The New York Times.
Here today, changed tomorrow.
(Perhaps Hansen is one of the editors?)
When it come to Yellow Journalism the New York Time excels like to other!
“Remember The Maine”!
Ordered in 1886 and commissioned in 1895, classified as an armored cruiser, built in response to naval forces in Latin America.
Maine was out of date by the time she entered service and sunk by an explosion in Havana Harbor 15 February 1889.
Popular opinion regarding the sinking was inflamed by articles printed in the “yellow press” such as those by William Randolph Hearst (publisher of the San Francisco Examiner and the New York Journal) and Joseph Pulitzer (publisher of the St. Louis Dispatch and the New York World — leading national voice of the Democratic Party of the day and for whom the Fabled Pulitzer Prize is named after and who established the Columbia University Journalism School) blamed Spain.
Yellow journalism, a.k.a. yellow press, presents stories, “news”, with little or no legitimate facts, and rely on exaggerations, scandal-mongering and sensationalism.
Ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_%28ACR-1%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize
“Yellow journalism, a.k.a. yellow press, presents stories, “news”, with little or no legitimate facts, and rely on exaggerations, scandal-mongering and sensationalism.”
Sounds just like the MSM. Here the poor people of Earth are trying to sort out and deal with their problems, and they have to wade through this storm of MSM misinformation and try to make sense of it all.
We’ll muddle through though, because more and more people are starting to get wise to what is going on with our elites and our elite news media. They are starting to see that they are not being told the truth.
“When it come to Yellow Journalism the New York Time excels like to other!”
The NYT was not associated with either Hearst or Pulitzer. It’s original report on the incident is here. It is quite balanced.
Whoosh.
The sound the point makes as it goes completely over Nick’s head.
“The sound the point makes”
So what was that point?
The heart and soul of the left wing/socialist/communist (pick one) agenda has always been the lie. Tell it loud enough and often enough and it becomes the truth. Control the educational institutions and news media and you have the battle almost won. Blame others for what you’ve done wrong and take credit for anything good. It never changes. Let’s not forget, either, that fascism was a form of national socialism, not at all right wing. So, I’m not exactly shocked by this but it is great to see the specifics brought to light.
“Control the educational institutions and news media and you have the battle almost won.”
I think that’s about where we are at, too. We have an uphill battle on our hands.
That battle is gonna be fought right here, on the internet.
“…but at the length truth will out.” William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice 1596
The truth that there is no consensus about the human impact on climate will come to light.
The truth that the climate models are modeling the theory of AGW, not the Earth’s climate, will be revealed..
The truth that the value for climate sensitivity to rising CO2 in the models is a random-ass-guess will eventually be understood.
The truth that the way science is now funded has a bigger impact on what scientists say than , will become common knowledge.
Even the truth that the whole climate change paradigm was orchestrated by a relatively small group of self-anointed elites, for the purpose of gaining more power and control over the masses, will eventually be a given!
The question is…how many people will die from this illusion before the ‘truth will out’?
Good summation, jclarke341.
You do not consider what you WILL do.
And you do not consider WHAT you will do.
themselves to blame.
This ordinary left / right squat.
As if something were done with.
Disgusting.
Self-confirmation:
I know it better.
___________________________________________
Better bet better, you better better.
The AP occasionally pulls articles that disappear entirely. Of course a savvy citizen may be able to locate a cached copy. There is one case of this that sticks in my mind, it was on the 26 of June 2012 published by Seth Borenstein in an AP article that claimed a new world-record for a high temp. in Death Valley. Seth actually brought his own thermometer, set it in the sun and used it as the evidence for his claim. (Sans the Stevenson Screen). That article was up less than 90 minutes. I went back to get a copy of it and couldn’t find it.
Curiously enough it was claimed here only a few days ago that blogs were better than journals
since they could fix errors more quickly. And yet now if a newspaper changes an online article
that is seem as a bad thing.
It should be noted that if you want a fixed version of the NY Times then you can buy a hard copy
or go to the library and look up what they printed in each edition for a particular day. There is
nothing to state that the NY Times should have a website or that the website should be fixed and
unalterable once things are published. What counts as best journalistic practice for an online
news site is still evolving and is in flux.
If you don’t bother what’s changed and why, give me your wallet for a while. You’ll get it back.
Good point, jaakkokateenkorva! 🙂
Even websites providing like justia which provide free access to legal info may have gotten in on the act if you believe a Dec 14, 2011 American Thinker dot com post;
“On October 20, 2011, New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio accused online legal research behemoth Justia.com of surgically redacting important information from their publication of 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions which cite Minor v. Happersett, an 1874 decision which arguably contains language that appears to disqualify anyone from presidential eligibility who wasn’t born in the country to parents who were citizens.”
Adjustments have been going on for a long time and it seems that the way to combat the disinformation aspect of the adjustment game may be as much “cultural” as it is procedural/legal.
“Poor Roger Harrabin.” Really? The warmist spokesman for the BBC.
I think he had been browbeaten into becoming the warmist spokesman.
I don’t mind if simple spelling and grammar issues are corrected without notification in the article. So long as the changes don’t change the meaning of the sentence.
Besides, if you read through the posts you will find 1 to 20 people calling Anthony’s attention to the error.
Rules for Climate Radicals; Power is What the Enemy Thinks You Have
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/16/rules-for-climate-radicals-power-is-what-the-enemy-thinks-you-have/
In a radio interview I heard some years ago a BBC employee recalls his first day of work at the media establishment. An experienced colleague-mentor led him upstairs and out onto the roof. The two of them then stood together on the edge of the roof and urinated down on the people many floors below at ground level. (They were both male BTW.) This, the mentor explained was an important rite of passage impressing on a new employee the correct BBC attitude to hold towards the general public.
It has been many decades since the forlorn ideal of media impartiality disappeared without trace from the BBC. It has for years stopped even trying to conceal its true nature as out-and-out propagandist for the hard left.
However by espousing the left the media have destroyed the left. When those BBC patriarchs did their ritual territorial pissing on the people below, they made the mistake of believing their own group-think about the general public being intellectually inferior and servile to a ruling class of which the BBC was the flamboyant aristocracy. The people were not brain-washed and saw through the cheap manipulativeness of the left-press. Humans haven’t emerged from a billion years of evolution by being stupid.
Therefore several decades of airwaves filled with hard-left agitprop has produced a reaction in the opposite direction. People are waking up to the fact that they have lived their whole lives listening to an unopposed unelected undemocratic stalinist hard left press. They are finding that they don’t have to get on the train to Siberia if they vote conservative (labelled with the hate-speech term “Tory” analogous to the “N” word for afrocaribbeans) or if they hunt or fish 🐟 or if they are church-going Christians (the left are oddly besotted with the arch-chauvenistic random murdering muslems but seeth with genocidal hatred at any hint of christianity).
The great BBC-CNN project failed. People still create and work for private companies. People still think right-of-center thoughts. They still feel pride and loyalty toward their own country and respect and gratitude toward those who fought wars for survival and independence against left-wing dictators. They continue to find women and men to be different from each other. They still consider it OK to have a mother and a father. They sometimes hunt, fish and watch sports. And with the internet they form global communities who find the truth for themselves and turn their backs on a paternalistic hard-left press who tried and failed to force everyone too see the world through a red mist of Marxist hatefilled pernicious Malthusian nihilism. All that left-hate can now fade away like a morning mist on a sunny ☀️ day.
BBC & Guardian are well known for this STEALTH editing
For them news reporting = “NARRATIVE CONSTRUCTING”
… as if they are the PR dept of an NGO or political party.
They’d argue that “news is ongoing and pages are simply updated as info comes in”
However it also happens on prewritten editorial pieces when they realise they have made a mistake or can turn up the spin against skeptics.
You’ll see that NewsSniffer https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/ monitors them
And On Twitter twitter.com/bbc_diff montitors some BBC edits
You’ll note that new BBC article about Labour Party’s plan to award 4 new national holidays has been “tuned up” 7 times
https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/1366984/diff/3/4
BTW Creating Holidays is effectively the same as INCREASING taxes
… cos for every day lost the gov has to hire extra Labour at holiday rates
News Sniffer monitors some NYT
“It currently monitors a few key feeds from the BBC News website, The Guardian, The New York Times, The Independent, The Washington Post and The Intercept.” since 2010