The Times also did some shaky rewrites on their "San Bernardino murderers pre-announced their jihad on social media" reporting, as well as with the "Clinton Cash" exclusive that fizzled. And both of those became breaking stories that played into conservative spin before they were painfully corrected days later. The Times has been having sourcing and editing problems that giveth and that taketh away, no matter which political party you root for.
I don't think "sourcing and editing problems" explains why the Times removed a very well-sourced quote that made the One appear less than competent. And it looks more like an editorial decision rather than an editing problem. In this case, the Times is in no sense a victim. But they do need to find a way to "memory hole" the fact that something went down the memory hole. Convincing the other Democrat stenographers not to report it is a good first step.
The Times' editing problem here was that they deleted the quote without a reasonable explanation, or indicating that they'd done so.
The hubbub over it did cause the Times to issue a statement saying they excised the candid quote because they needed to "trim for space" in the print edition.The problem is, though they took out Obama's 66 newsworthy words, they then added 116 new ones. In other words the "trim for space" resulted in a longer article. Ok, let's say the new stuff was so important, they needed to get rid of text elsewhere. Why would you choose the most eyebrow-raising information in the entire article, if not for political reasons?
Post a Comment