- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The New York Times.... of all media...
Posted on 9/11/19 at 1:08 pm to pjab
Posted on 9/11/19 at 1:08 pm to pjab
quote:
The article was edited too.
But what did they actually edit?
Per the time stamp it's been edited multiple times since noon when I posted the 2nd paragraph of the article which made reference to terrorism.
This post was edited on 9/11/19 at 1:20 pm
0
Posted on 9/11/19 at 1:08 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
The tweet was rightfully edited
"edited". Yeah, it was deleted because of the backlash they were getting. They thought they could get away with it, and saw rather quickly, that that was a terrible mistake.
It's ok to admit when you were wrong, like you did earlier. Yet you seem to be backtracking on that now.
Posted on 9/11/19 at 1:15 pm to BugAC
quote:
edited". Yeah, it was deleted because of the backlash they were getting. They thought they could get away with it, and saw rather quickly, that that was a terrible mistake. It's ok to admit when you were wrong, like you did earlier. Yet you seem to be backtracking on that now.
I'm not backtracking on anything.
I originally stated the tweet was still up after you mentioned they deleted it because I was focused on the article moreso than the tweet. I quickly realized that they edited/issued a new tweet so I was incorrect that the original tweet was still standing. That's why i said I was wrong.
What do you think they were trying to get away with? You think any one saw that tweet and thought the planes flew themselves? Again, the article called 9/11 an attack and terrorism. Odd that they would include that in the article if they are trying to "sanitize" as has been suggested.
This post was edited on 9/11/19 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 9/11/19 at 1:19 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
Again, the article called 9/11 an attack and terrorism. Odd that they would include that in the article if they are trying to "sanitize" as has been suggested.
Most people only read headlines or tweets and aren't actually going to click on the article, the NYT has people smart enough to know this.
Posted on 9/11/19 at 1:20 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
I'm not backtracking on anything.
I originally stated the tweet was still up after you mentioned they deleted it because I was focused on the article moreso than the tweet. I quickly realized that they edited/issued a new tweet so I was incorrect that the original tweet was still standing. That's why i said I was wrong.
What do you think they were trying to get away with? You think any one saw that tweet and thought the planes flew themselves? Again, the article called 9/11 an attack and terrorism. Odd that they would include that in the article if they are trying to "sanitize" as has been suggested.
Be honest, if Fox news had a tweet that said "Man killed by gun" and when you read the article it turned out that a white police officer killed a black man for resisting arrest, do you really think a proper defense would be "well we put the details in the article; Fox isn't trying to 'sanitize' anything."
99% of liberals would be apoplectic and rightfully so.
Posted on 9/11/19 at 1:24 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
Again, the article called 9/11 an attack and terrorism. Odd that they would include that in the article if they are trying to "sanitize" as has been suggested.
And again, Was it ridiculous for them to cave to liberals to demand them change the headline of “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism” to “Assailing Hate but Not Guns.” What is your reasoning that happened?
Posted on 9/11/19 at 1:26 pm to CleverUserName
#needcommonsenseairplanereform.
It wasn't the aeroplanes.
It wasn't the aeroplanes.
Posted on 9/11/19 at 1:27 pm to jchamil
quote:
Most people only read headlines or tweets and aren't actually going to click on the article, the NYT has people smart enough to know this.
This isn't a current event. It's not like people are going to skim that tweet and be mis-informed about 9/11. They were promoting their article--an article that correctly characterized 9/11 as a terrorist attack.
Posted on 9/11/19 at 1:32 pm to CleverUserName
Good catch. I've seen the same thing with articles about car accidents: 'An SUV ran over and killed a pedestrian yesterday in New Jersey.'
Posted on 9/11/19 at 1:32 pm to buckeye_vol
Those goddamn planes and their sentient decision making capabilities
Posted on 9/11/19 at 1:33 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
How is it “tin foil” when it’s in black and white?
So everything printed in black and white has it's intended meaning. Is that what you're saying?
Posted on 9/11/19 at 1:41 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
This isn't a current event. It's not like people are going to skim that tweet and be mis-informed about 9/11. They were promoting their article--an article that correctly characterized 9/11 as a terrorist attack.
Just stop and google "some people did something" and get the context this discussion sits in. The NYT is not oblivious to this context.
If you are charitable you can say it was an honest mistake. Given their record, I am not willing to be charitable. No editor would normally allow a passive voice sentence like that tweet.
Posted on 9/11/19 at 1:45 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
What do you think they were trying to get away with? You think any one saw that tweet and thought the planes flew themselves?
Why did Ilhan Omar say "some people did some things?"
Why did Barack Obama refuse to say "Islamic Terror" for so many weeks after the Orlando night club shooting?
Why do you think media made it a point not to mention Islam when a terrorist attack happened during Obama's tenure?
quote:
Again, the article called 9/11 an attack and terrorism.
The tweet did not.
quote:
Odd that they would include that in the article if they are trying to "sanitize" as has been suggested.
The tweet was deleted and replaced with the article. Why was that?
This post was edited on 9/11/19 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 9/11/19 at 1:45 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
They were promoting their article--an article that correctly characterized 9/11 as a terrorist attack.
Yet their tweet characterized 9/11 as a plane attack.
You're no Will Lutz.
This post was edited on 9/11/19 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 9/11/19 at 1:58 pm to BugAC
quote:
The tweet was deleted and replaced with the article. Why was that?
My understanding is that the original tweet also included a link to the article.
I'd be curious to know to what extent they edited the article after they re-tweeted it. If the original version of the article excluded the same characterization of 9/11 as the current version (i.e. terrorist attack) then yeah, I'm done here and you can downvote away.
ETA:
Fox News article detailing change in article
quote:
The story, by James Barron, was also changed to note that “terrorists commandeered” the airplanes that brought down the World Trade Center.
I stand corrected. Everything I've said here is bullshite. The article was also sanitized.
This post was edited on 9/11/19 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 9/11/19 at 2:08 pm to Jorts R Us
Well done.
The only thing you did wrong was give that trash rag the benefit of the doubt in the first place.
The only thing you did wrong was give that trash rag the benefit of the doubt in the first place.
Posted on 9/11/19 at 2:10 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
I stand corrected. Everything I've said here is bullshite. The article was also sanitized.
While it may not make sense to you, because you are being rational, for someone to sanitize 9/11 in favor of the perpetrators, you have to remember you are dealing with liberals who hate this country and everything it stands for, and is looking to change this country to a socialist/communist utopia that resembles, in no way, what this country has ever been.
They are scum, they are liberals. They do it, because that's what liberals do.
Posted on 9/11/19 at 2:10 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
airplanes attacked
What a joke
Posted on 9/11/19 at 2:15 pm to Old Sarge
Three options here IMO
1) Intentionally crafting this stuff, parsing language to avoid any Muslim references and barely any terrorism references. As in, a directive not to reference it or editors changing stuff to eliminate it.
2) These NYT people are so woke that it's completely natural for them to craft everything like this. They don't have to even think about writing out Islam from Islamic attacks, but of course they have no such conditioning when it comes to white supremacy, etc.
3) Just sloppy, no-thought writing.
I think it's probably #2. That's just the type of person that works for NYT. By the time they're writing features it's second-nature to think and write in a way that eliminates any far left sacred cow issues from even the most inseparably intertwined topics/events. Which is probably even worse than #1.
1) Intentionally crafting this stuff, parsing language to avoid any Muslim references and barely any terrorism references. As in, a directive not to reference it or editors changing stuff to eliminate it.
2) These NYT people are so woke that it's completely natural for them to craft everything like this. They don't have to even think about writing out Islam from Islamic attacks, but of course they have no such conditioning when it comes to white supremacy, etc.
3) Just sloppy, no-thought writing.
I think it's probably #2. That's just the type of person that works for NYT. By the time they're writing features it's second-nature to think and write in a way that eliminates any far left sacred cow issues from even the most inseparably intertwined topics/events. Which is probably even worse than #1.
Posted on 9/11/19 at 2:17 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
think it's probably #2. That's just the type of person that works for NYT. By the time they're writing features it's second-nature to think and write in a way that eliminates any far left sacred cow issues from even the most inseparably intertwined topics/events. Which is probably even worse than #1.
You more eloquently illustrate the dichotomy i simply describe as “liars or loons”
Either way it’s fake news.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News