Sounds like the New York Times has almost completely re-written their original story about Kavanaugh’s latest accuser, Deborah Ramirez, without making any sort of editor’s note about the edits and changes made.
How strange.
The NY Times article on Ramirez has been almost completely re-written after being published originally. No editors notes. Nothing. https://t.co/Xe0kJ4lrQ6
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) September 25, 2018
What makes this look even shadier is the piece they edited out is in regard to Ramirez’s inability to find any witnesses who could or would corroborate her story …
This @NYTimes story… not only the headline changed, but a rather wholesale text revision too…https://t.co/ftHt1Vh8Nqhttps://t.co/GcWdUvmD2D pic.twitter.com/xmIB4Wy4FE
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) September 19, 2018
Oopsie.
Now, why would they edit out such an important fact?
Gosh, we’re super confused here … *eye roll*
The @nytimes quite literally revises history every day on their website without noting that articles have been revised (unless it's an actual correction), and on top of that prevents search engines like Google from automatically caching their pages, making comparison even harder. https://t.co/fX6nMULt4K
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) September 25, 2018
Shady.
AF.
Wow.
Reminder: The @NYTIMES uses its robot.txt page to preventing Google and other search engines from caching its webpages. pic.twitter.com/ib3bR4V6WF
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) September 25, 2018
Sean Davis leveled the narrative that the line in question was still there ‘in this other story’:
And it's not up. In the article. That I just linked. Which previously contained the passage. And which has been rewritten wholesale with no explanation and no editor's note. https://t.co/jY2PqW8Nq9 https://t.co/BenBtk2wmB
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) September 25, 2018
Give ’em Hell, Sean.
They're not "backing away from the point," they're just secretly removing it from new articles referencing the allegations. And this is supposed to be a defense of their obvious wholesale stealth editing? Please. https://t.co/x1BcW1ecVS
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) September 25, 2018
PLEASE indeed.
And to be clear, "It's still in an article from two days ago," is a completely non-responsive answer to the question, "Why did the New York Times secretly delete that line from its most recent article on the topic from yesterday without any explanation or note?"
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) September 25, 2018
They won’t answer Sean’s question because if they did they’d have to admit they are trying to control the narrative rather than report the facts.
We see you, New York Times.
And just as bad, the substituted language injected an editorial opinion — that the Times reporting "did not rebut" Ramirez's story — in place of the fact reporting harmful to her story https://t.co/cVjm6GHA7d
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) September 25, 2018
Just wow.
The New York Times seems to have ghost edited their Brett Kavanaugh article immensely.
Before: https://t.co/9W8O5xwngI
Now: https://t.co/AIL86dmkurNews Diff: https://t.co/FFqUg4rWdD pic.twitter.com/nldonR8cgC
— Nick Monroe (@nickmon1112) September 25, 2018
Unreal.
Ok, that’s not true. At this point seeing the media’s gross and blatant bias isn’t all that unreal … which is incredibly sad.
Related:
TOO FAR! Jimmy Kimmel’s ABHORRENT and violent joke about Kavanaugh BITES him right in the a*s
Now WHY OH WHY would they do that?! NYT quickly scrubs source of yearbook hit piece on Kavanaugh
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.