That’s what’s known as an “evergreen tweet.” You could send out that tweet anytime and it’d still be relevant.

So, what’s The New York Times done now? Oh, you know. Just taken some journalistic liberties. Nothing major:

Scherer is referring to the Times’ article claiming that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie “knew about lane closings.” In other words, according to the Times, Christie was aware of what was going on during the traffic mess that later became known as “Bridgegate.” Kate Zernike, who wrote the article, originally wrote that David Wildstein, former Port Authority official, had evidence proving Christie’s guilt.

Now, the article says something else:

Well, well! What a difference a few words makes.

Indeed. Now, why on earth would The New York Times ever do something like that?


That’s one heck of a news organization you’ve got there, New York Times.

Even Piers Morgan is disappointed:

And when you’ve lost Piers … well, you know.

That’s just crazy talk!

Editor’s note: This post has been updated with additional tweets.



Twitchy coverage of the “Bridgegate” scandal