News and Commentary on Politics, Media and Culture

Update: Yet Another Story on the MSM two for one Phenomenon : Blue Crab Boulevard – Recycling Stories In Hopes Of Gaining Traction

—- END UPDATE —-

Most of you are aware that the New York Times printed a July 23 Article titled “Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror” but I bet you were not aware that they printed an earlier version of the same story on July 22 (late night) titled “Bank Data Secretly Reviewed by U.S. to Fight Terror”. The stories are nearly identical but the Times made some key changes that I believe slightly altered the perception of objectivity by the Times Reporters.

I note the differences below but first a little background on this practice.

It is not uncommon for AP stories and other syndicated forms of news to appear in various versions, I have seen this many times. However I am not used to seeing this done for reports that are not meant for syndication unless they are for corrective reasons; and then usually with a side note about the update.

In my mind the Times printed a second version of the same story with a new headline to make them appear more objective in the slightest of ways. I have not spoken to them for comment but I have a feeling that the Times was already under a great deal of criticism or expected they would be and decided to print a revision.

I am suspicious of their intentions if for nothing else than because they changed the Headline to do it. Why not just update the story and note it?

The changes are slight and took me quite some time to compare.

After reading about this New York Times “two for one” I direct you to the bottom of this article where I caught the NY Times doing the exact same thing in October 2004. It is an eye opener that in my opinion displays the underhanded ways the New York Times tried to breathe an extended life into a story that they deemed damaging to the President right before the election.

The notable differences in the two versions of the Swift Bank article are as follows:

The early edition portrayed the data as sensitive while the late edition changed that wording to confidential. Perhaps they knew that bloggers and pundits would start asking if the information was classified and made the quick switch.

That access to large amounts of sensitive data was highly unusual

Vs. the later changed edition:

That access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual

The Late Addition added the following mention of the White House perspective on the Times story. This is not mentioned in any way in the first version.

Mr. Levey agreed to discuss the classified operation after the Times editors told him of the newspaper’s decision.

On Thursday evening, Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary, said: “Since immediately following 9/11, the American government has taken every legal measure to prevent another attack on our country. One of the most important tools in the fight against terror is our ability to choke off funds for the terrorists.”

She added: “We know the terrorists pay attention to our strategy to fight them, and now have another piece of the puzzle of how we are fighting them. We also know they adapt their methods, which increases the challenge to our intelligence and law enforcement officials.”

Referring to the disclosure by The New York Times last December of the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping program, she said, “The president is concerned that once again The New York Times has chosen to expose a classified program that is working to protect our citizens.”

The early version of the Times report used the word exploit to describe the CIA operation. Contrast that to the late edition that swapped out exploit for the word “use”.

Intelligence officials were so eager to exploit the Swift data that they discussed having the C.I.A. covertly gain access to the system, several officials involved in the talks said. But Treasury officials resisted, the officials said, and favored going to Swift directly.

Vs.

Intelligence officials were so eager to use the Swift data that they discussed having the C.I.A. covertly gain access to the system, several officials involved in the talks said. But Treasury officials resisted, the officials said, and favored going to Swift directly.

The use of the word “exploit” in the earlier version is a transparent display of bias by the New York Times reporters; perhaps they thought better of it in the rewrite.

The earlier version of the story led the reader to believe that the Treasury was ducking the question of whether or not they had sought specific legal opinion on the authority to search the records. The later version removed such implication.

Treasury officials would not say whether a formal legal opinion was prepared in authorizing the program, but they said they considered the government’s authority to subpoena the Swift records to be clear. “People do not have a privacy interest in their international wire transactions,” Mr. Levey, the Treasury under secretary, said.

The later version removed that portrayal:

Treasury officials said they considered the government’s authority to subpoena the Swift records to be clear. “People do not have a privacy interest in their international wire transactions,” Mr. Levey, the Treasury under secretary, said.

I believe that this change is particularly insightful. Readers on the left who already have a predisposed suspicion of the government will glom onto the earlier characterization as proof that the government acts recklessly without regard to the legal implications of such searches. Such characterizations are not a mistake in my opinion.

The late addition made it clear that the analysts were required to justify the searches. This early version mentioned the documentation but omitted that it was a requirement. Perhaps I’m being a bit nit picky here but I think the context of this being a requirement is important to show that the government was being careful to protect peoples rights.

Early edition:

an electronic record of every search and a form documenting the intelligence that justified each data search. Mr. Levey said the program was used only to search the records of individuals or entities, not for broader data searches.

Updated version in the late edition:

an electronic record of every search and a requirement that analysts involved in the operation document the intelligence that justified each data search. Mr. Levey said the program was used only to examine records of individuals or entities, not for broader data searches.

These changes may seem small to some but I believe it underscores that the New York Times is aware of their bias and they tried to soften the bias in the rewrite.

However, this practice is not new to the New York Times as I mentioned earlier. The following is a synopsis of a blog post I made two years ago on the same subject.

Two stealthy versions of the same article were kept on the NY Times website for two whole days as the Times presented somewhat selective findings within the Charles Duelfer Iraqi Survey Group report.

The original report was printed on Wednesday, October 6th 2004 with the headline “U.S. Report Finds Iraq Was Minimal Weapons Threat in ‘03“. Round two of the same article appeared on October 7th, with updated and rearranged text under the new headline, “U.S. Report Finds Iraqis Eliminated Illicit Arms in 90’s“.

The following graphic shows a comparison between the first paragraphs of each article. Changed and altered text is highlighted in color.

Figure 1 – 1st Paragraph of October 6th release.

Figure 2 – 1st Paragraph of updated release with new headline on October 7th

The differences between the two versions of the Times report include updated information, rearranged text and a new influx of sensational superlatives that appear to be designed to diminish President Bush’s argument for going to war with Iraq.

All in all this gave the Times a second chance to present an old article under a new headline and keep their version of the story alive for yet another day.

The story behind the story can really be found in how the NY Times chose to ignore a ream of information in the ISG report itself that actually leaned in favor of President Bush on Iraq and other issues.

For instance, it became clear that the Times and friends couldn’t keep the lid on the Oil for Food scandle for too much longer. I believe they attempted to obscure that information so they tried their best to keep the most damaging aspects of the report on the front page for two successive days.

The intentions of the New York Times seem all too clear.

It appears to me that the Jayson Blair incident was less of an aberrant mishap and more of a situation bred by a culture of bias and unprofessional journalistic integrity. The American way is one born of choice. The Times constantly chooses to undermine National Security in lieu of biased stories that meet their political agendas. I choose to spend my dollars somewhere else. What choice would you make?

Others Blogging on the Times Leak of Classified Data
Captains Quarters : The Washington Post Doesn’t See The Problem, Either

Weekend Reading
Wizbang has an interesting take on the latest NY Times Story that details troop level reductions. : The New York Times, Crossing the Damn Line
Be Sure to stop by Flopping Aces regularly – They Have a great article on the Times and reaction from others in the media concerning the leaked stories: Where’s the Outrage

Weekend Free For All
Stop the ACLU

 Send this post a Friend  

No Comments »

Trackback URI | Comments RSS