Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
NYT what the hell is up with this?
JOSH MARSHALL SEPTEMBER 12, 2012, 9:23 PM 29926
I’m not sure what’s up with this. But earlier this evening the Times ran a story entitled “Behind Romney’s Decision to Attack Obama on Libya.” The byline was David Sanger and Ashley Parker. The big news out of the story was that Romney himself had been the driver of last night’s decision making. That and a lot of other color and interesting news. As I write, it’s still that piece and lede that’s on the front page. But now it’s been replaced (same url) by an almost unrecognizable piece entitled “A Challenger’s Criticism Is Furiously Returned”, bylined by Peter Baker and Ashley Parker.
I first saw the story through a blast email. Then I saw it on the Times website. Then it was gone.
The thrust of the piece is dramatically different and, unless I’m missing something, leaves out this critical quote from a Romney senior advisor explaining their rationale. “We’ve had this consistent critique and narrative on Obama’s foreign policy, and we felt this was a situation that met our critique, that Obama really has been pretty weak in a number of ways on foreign policy, especially if you look at his dealings with the Arab Spring and its aftermath.”
So basically, we saw this thing happen. It fit with our campaign narrative. So we pounced.
What happened to the other story? Pieces get rewritten all the time, especially with a breaking news story. But this would seem to require some explanation.
I’m not sure what’s up with this. But earlier this evening the Times ran a story entitled “Behind Romney’s Decision to Attack Obama on Libya.” The byline was David Sanger and Ashley Parker. The big news out of the story was that Romney himself had been the driver of last night’s decision making. That and a lot of other color and interesting news. As I write, it’s still that piece and lede that’s on the front page. But now it’s been replaced (same url) by an almost unrecognizable piece entitled “A Challenger’s Criticism Is Furiously Returned”, bylined by Peter Baker and Ashley Parker.
I first saw the story through a blast email. Then I saw it on the Times website. Then it was gone.
The thrust of the piece is dramatically different and, unless I’m missing something, leaves out this critical quote from a Romney senior advisor explaining their rationale. “We’ve had this consistent critique and narrative on Obama’s foreign policy, and we felt this was a situation that met our critique, that Obama really has been pretty weak in a number of ways on foreign policy, especially if you look at his dealings with the Arab Spring and its aftermath.”
So basically, we saw this thing happen. It fit with our campaign narrative. So we pounced.
What happened to the other story? Pieces get rewritten all the time, especially with a breaking news story. But this would seem to require some explanation.
MORE...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/alright_whats_up.php?ref=fpblg
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Rmoney didn't. Also, Rmoney was arrogant and rude as hell holding a press conference on the issue even before the President (complete with blue background and flags either side to look "Presidential"
- what an ass. Then walks off with that smug little smirk. What an insufferable shit.
