
New York Times Changes January Headline to Remove Mention of Wiretapping - mbgaxyz
http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2017/03/new-york-times-changes-january-headline-to-remove-mention-of-wiretapping-1.php
======
Animats
This is just the print headline and the online headline not matching. That's
normal, because the print headline has tight space constraints. Newspaper
headlines are rewritten during page makeup.

The New York Times' own image of their own front page says "Wiretapping".[1]
On the same page, there is the story "Trump Arrives, Set to Assume Power". The
online version of that story has the longer title "Trump Nominees Make Clear
Plans to Sweep Away Obama Policies"[2] Stories may also be cut for length in
the print edition, but not online.

[1]
[http://www.nytimes.com/images/2017/01/20/nytfrontpage/scan.p...](http://www.nytimes.com/images/2017/01/20/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf)
[2] [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-
cabinet...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-cabinet-
hearings-obama-policies.html?_r=0)

~~~
oxide
The title seems to suggest something nefarious, but it instead it ultimately
amounts to a non-issue.

I run into this formula once a day it seems. Yesterday it was a pink tap water
article.

~~~
kitsuac
It will depend from which sources you get your information. Maybe the legwork
will be done by someone sufficiently motivated to definitively prove one way
or another, but I wouldn't really consider this a closed case. I'm shocked if
anyone alive in 2017 really thinks this is something the media would never do.

[http://newsdiffs.org/article-
history/www.nytimes.com/2017/01...](http://newsdiffs.org/article-
history/www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-
investigation.html)

~~~
Animats
That's useful. It shows minor changes being made during the first 9 hours
after the article appeared on line. The title changed from "Inquiry on Aides
To Trump Studies Wiretapped Data" to "Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry Of Trump
Aides" two hours after the first posting. That's an editor at work.

~~~
kitsuac
Yea, I never knew these news diffing sites existed. Looks like "Wiretapped"
was indeed removed at some point in time, which seems to contradict the
description given in the redaction/apology article. But this tool doesn't give
any insight as to when that change occurred since its final snapshot was only
a day after the original article was posted.

------
comex
> However, according to the Wayback Machine, the online version of the story
> has had a different headline _since it was first posted_

So... you're saying they didn't change it?

It's common for NYT articles to have different titles in different places; if
you go to the homepage and click one of the headlines, the article title will
generally be different from the headline. This makes some sense, since there's
more space on the article page and it's less important to summarize the entire
article when the full text is right below.

For context, Trump fans are alleging some kind of media coverup of the fact
that wiretaps recorded certain Trump associates, which supposedly conflicts
with denials of Trump's claim that Obama had ordered him or Trump Tower to be
wiretapped. It does not; the main difference is between wiretaps recording X
and wiretaps targeting X, as apparently at least some of the wiretaps were
targeted at the Russian ambassador himself (and happened to record, e.g.,
Flynn). I also haven't seen reports that Trump himself was recorded in such a
way, though for all I know it's possible.

------
pesenti
It's not unusual for newspapers to fiddle with headlines. This one was
modified around the time it was published.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20170120230201/https://www.nytim...](https://web.archive.org/web/20170120230201/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-
russia-associates-investigation.html) (way before Trump's new allegations).
Perfect example of fake news....

------
CPLX
This is the ultimate non-story, the NYT often edits its headlines several
times an hour, after publishing or whenever they feel like it.

Check this twitter account for a constant running feed of this:
[https://twitter.com/nyt_diff](https://twitter.com/nyt_diff)

~~~
cypherpunks01
That's a cool twitterbot! Thanks for the link.

------
lingben
> Editor’s Note: The following piece is based on an error. The Times did not
> in fact change the headline of a January 19 article after its publication as
> was alleged. Andrew C. McCarthy acknowledges and explains the error in this
> post. The text of his column as originally published remains below for
> reference. We regret the error and apologize to our readers.

[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445628/barack-obama-
do...](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445628/barack-obama-donald-trump-
fbi-wiretap-russia)

------
tzs
National Review article on this:
[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445628/barack-obama-
do...](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445628/barack-obama-donald-trump-
fbi-wiretap-russia)

That article has been updated to note that it was incorrect, and links to
another National Review article going into further depth on their mistake and
apologizing: [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445649/mccarthy-
error-a...](http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445649/mccarthy-error-
apologize-nyt-headline-not-changed)

