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
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNYT what the hell is up with this?
JOSH MARSHALL SEPTEMBER 12, 2012, 9:23 PM 29926
Im not sure whats up with this. But earlier this evening the Times ran a story entitled Behind Romneys 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 nights decision making. That and a lot of other color and interesting news. As I write, its still that piece and lede thats on the front page. But now its been replaced (same url) by an almost unrecognizable piece entitled A Challengers 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 Im missing something, leaves out this critical quote from a Romney senior advisor explaining their rationale. Weve had this consistent critique and narrative on Obamas 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.
Im not sure whats up with this. But earlier this evening the Times ran a story entitled Behind Romneys 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 nights decision making. That and a lot of other color and interesting news. As I write, its still that piece and lede thats on the front page. But now its been replaced (same url) by an almost unrecognizable piece entitled A Challengers 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 Im missing something, leaves out this critical quote from a Romney senior advisor explaining their rationale. Weve had this consistent critique and narrative on Obamas 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
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 1388 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYT what the hell is up with this? (Original Post)
ProfessionalLeftist
Sep 2012
OP
i am hearing, obama did not get tough UNTIL romney said soemthing. ya.... the guy stepped in it
seabeyond
Sep 2012
#3
Obama had the sense to keep his mouth shut until he had all the facts
ProfessionalLeftist
Sep 2012
#5
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)1. Hmmm. Someone didn't like the article. nt
jsr
(7,712 posts)2. Eh, the paper of record
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)3. i am hearing, obama did not get tough UNTIL romney said soemthing. ya.... the guy stepped in it
before ANYONE was discussing it cause the events were still unfolding. obama didnt say anything until an appropriate time. suggesting romney stepping all over it is the reason obama responded as he did is stupid bullshit.
some twit of a woman on cnn last night and some x repug senator or something.
ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)5. Obama had the sense to keep his mouth shut until he had all the facts
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.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)6. yup. nt
still_one
(92,394 posts)4. ny times, helped propagate the lie that Iraq had WMDs, and pushed the propaganda that "justified" us
invading Iraq based on a lie
Why should this NOT surprise me