re: The New York Times.... of all media...

quote:

---

Like I said, the article doesn't shy away from calling it terrorism. While the tweet is the first thing many see, it doesn't change the tone or intent of the article. That was my point.

I'm glad they edited the tweet; I just don't share your view that it was a deliberate attempt to sanitize anything given the actual content of the article. You believe what you want, though.

---

My first instinct is to agree. But if I know that 90% of the tweet recipients are either too lazy or too stupid to read the linked article, I suspect that the NYT probably realizes this as well. They would seem to have an ethical obligation to be a bit more accurate, if they can fit accuracy into their 280 characters.

With that being said, the same people would be whining, if the Times had mentioned terrorism in the tweet, but not ISLAMIC terrorism. If the NYT had mentioned Islamic terrorism, the same crowd would be whining that the Saudis were not mentioned. If the Saudis had been mentioned, they would be whining that the tweet did not call Muhammad a pedophile and a murderer.

Some people just insist upon being offended.