New York Times Edits Their Story on #OccupyWallStreet (Screenshot)

October 2, 2011
By

Anyone that’s keeping up to date on the Occupy Wall Street protests is well aware of the media blackout which occurred during the unprecedented police crackdown on protesters.

 

The New York Times has been part of the problem – in this image, note that within 20 minutes, the writer changed and the blame was shifted onto the protesters.


Natasha Lennard, a writer for the New York Times was allegedly among those arrested, so we can assume they will assign blame to her as well.

 

In an earlier post on FreakOutNation we quoted them:

According to the New York Times, one law enforcement official said it was “a planned move on the protesters.

(My emphasis)

I assume we’ll have to take screen grabs when quoting them in the future, just in case the blame is shifted once more. The New York Times has a vested interest in wanting to keep Corporate power intact – they are a Corporation.

 

Many thanks to SOA Watch on Facebook.

Tags: , , ,

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/JOon-Hancocky/100001984456337 JOon Hancocky

    That’s apologetic bull. The NYT changed the blurb because initially it had assigned blame to the NYPD. They changed it to portray Occupiers as guilty because they have a relationship with the NYPD that they want to keep healthy.

    If that’s your version of “Journalism 101″ I suggest you go enroll at a community college and take an introductory journalism ethics course.

    If no one read the second version, no one would know they lied? That doesn’t make your case at all.

    And last, the story in question wasn’t a column, and yes columnists, reporters, photographers and editors do work together. So the decision to change the blurb may have come from an editor rather than a photographer or columnist; that doesn’t mean that NYT is absolved from tampering with public opinion through dishonest editing, as you ludicrously suggest.

  • tori

    More like it’s bad reporting to say “the police cut off” when that is something that one side is disputing and that will go to court. Not only that, but it isn’t clear what “cut off” means. The edited paragraph just states events that unarguably occured without any subjective-sounding statements. If the marchers got onto the bridge then obviously the police let them, otherwise the story would be about how the police tried to block, or did block, them from going onto the bridge. It’s Reporting 101. There is no blame shifted onto the marchers. If you hadn’t read the first version you would not be angered by the second.

    None of the columnists “run” the Times.

  • Sirius Lunacy

    If you Google Al Baker at NYT you will find that there are several articles with the byline of Al Baker and ____. Almost all of those cowritten articles have to do with police actions. Perhaps this is not the only article in which police actions have been softened up after the fact.

  • BoB

    Notice the article byline the original article was by Colin Moynihan the post edit byline reads by Al Baker and Colin Moynihan Me thinks someone sent word from on high to squash any protester friendly reporting

  • Tori

    Oh good grief. Maybe some new information came in. The Times is not against protesters. Yes it is a corporation, but so is Burning Man. The Times is not a multinational corporation. You can read plenty of left-leaning editorials in the Times. Think Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert.

    • http://FreakOutNation.com Anomaly100

      @Tori, They haven’t reported this accurately yet.

    • tsam

      @Tori,
      Sure, then I’ll think Brooks, Friedmand, Douthat and Dowd and plainly see that the plutocrats are running that asylum.
      There is no need to represent the “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” contingency in what presents itself as a newspaper.

  • Maxwell Strachan

    Would love to use that screen shot for HuffPost. Please email me if interested, thanks!

    • http://FreakOutNation.com Anomaly100

      @Maxwell Strachan, Of course. Go right ahead and use it.

      • Maxwell Strachan

        @Anomaly100,

        Awesome, can you send me email confirming that you are the owner of the photo and blog? Will link back to here. Thanks!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/JOon-Hancocky/100001984456337 JOon Hancocky

    That’s apologetic bull. The NYT changed the blurb because initially it had assigned blame to the NYPD. They changed it to portray Occupiers as guilty because they have a relationship with the NYPD that they want to keep healthy.

    If that’s your version of “Journalism 101″ I suggest you go enroll at a community college and take an introductory journalism ethics course.

    If no one read the second version, no one would know they lied? That doesn’t make your case at all.

    And last, the story in question wasn’t a column, and yes columnists, reporters, photographers and editors do work together. So the decision to change the blurb may have come from an editor rather than a photographer or columnist; that doesn’t mean that NYT is absolved from tampering with public opinion through dishonest editing, as you ludicrously suggest.

Related Posts