1. This is exactly what happened to me in Chicago in 2003. The cops have a three step strategy:

    1) Allow people to enter an area that’s easily cut off.
    2) Arrest them for being there.
    3) Lie about it.

    1. with more and more people getting their news from the internet and the ethereal state of the net, it makes 1984 seem like a predication instead of fiction.

  2. Contra most of the commenters here… look, they’ve been caught out and the change has been broadcast across the internet. 1984? Give me a fucking break! This is not just a shocking example of blatant media manipulation (and yes, it is truly shocking). It is also and at least as importantly an example of how impossible it has become for any authority to exert any real control over the media in a net-dominated world.

    1. Yes, but the people who is educated enough to know about the existence of media manipulation and cares enough about politics to research for more independent and accurate media is a mere fraction of those who will mindless look through the newspaper or listen over the tv set. As a thecnique, consent manufacturing is still dominant.

  3. It appears that the story above is taken from the City Room blog, though it’s being portrayed as a NY Times story that was later…um…”clarified”. Blogs tend to be given a bit more slack, in large part because they aren’t necessarily vetted to the same extent that actual stories (at least in theory) are.

    I see nothing wrong with updating the post when more information becomes available, which is done all the time in blogging. But of course one should acknowledge not only that a change was made to the post, but also what the change was. I think the general consensus is that you should either <strike></strike> (in case that doesn’t display properly it’s supposed to be the strike tag) the original text and place the new text afterward, or you should include an “Update” section before or after the post detailing the change. The blog in question has only an Update timestamp with no other details given.

    The graphic implies that the NY Times is trying to shift blame on to the protesters, but at worst it only shows that a single blogger was doing so. Heck, the blogger himself (or themselves, since the by line changed as well) may have made the change in good faith, attempting to keep their reported facts in line with what they understood (rightly or wrongly) the real facts to be. But in this day and age one cannot simply change their reporting without being called on it.

Comments are closed.