New York Times Public Editor Calls Out Her Own Paper for Stealth Editing of This Sanders Article

[Attorney in Texas]

link; excerpt:

New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan penned a scathing blog post targeting her paper’s top brass Thursday morning, after senior editors stealth edited a recent story on Democratic presidential hopeful Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, changing the tone of the story from positive to negative.

The original story, titled “Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years via Legislative Side Doors,” was “glowing,” according to Sullivan. But after the changes, the story became “disparaging,” she argued. The headline was changed to: “Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories.”... “The changes didn’t go unnoticed,” Sullivan wrote. “Hundreds of Times readers expressed their disappointment or anger in emails to me on Tuesday and Wednesday, as well as on Twitter and Facebook.”... When Sullivan approached her paper’s top editors inquiring why the changes were made, they said because the additional paragraphs added more “nuance” and “depth” to the story. Unlike factual changes, which most agree need to be noted, the Times editors said they felt the edits, which changed the tone and “substance” of the story, didn’t need to be addressed in an editor’s note.

In the end, Sullivan, whose job is to keep the Times honest and ensure that editors are upholding proper editorial standards and ethics, believes at the very least, some explanation is due:

The changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when it first went up might come away with a very different sense of Mr. Sanders’s legislative accomplishments than one who saw it hours later. (The Sanders campaign shared the initial story on social media; it’s hard to imagine it would have done that if the edited version had appeared first.)

UPDATE:

Link to "NYTimes Public Editor on Sanders Story: Yeah, We Screwed Up;" excerpt:

For those who haven’t read the accusations of bias and irresponsible journalism against New York Times editors following a series highly questionable revisions on a story about Bernie Sanders’ legislative experience in Congress, start at Medium and finish with Matt Taibbi’s piece in Rolling Stone. Short version: A few hours after a piece by Jennifer Steinhauer called “Bernie Sanders Scored Victories For Years Via Legislative Side Doors” went up online, there were significant changes made by editors to turn the piece from “pretty positive” to “vaguely negative.” The changes included the addition of paragraphs like these:

But in his presidential campaign Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball legislative approach to suggest that he could succeed.
Mr. Sanders is suddenly promising not just a few stars here and there, but the moon and a good part of the sun, from free college tuition paid for with giant tax hikes and a huge increase in government health care, which has made even liberal Democrats skeptical.

...Amazingly, considering how the paper of record has dodged accusations of an obvious pro-Clinton bias this election cycle, Sullivan actually took some responsibility on behalf of the Times. The meat of the accountability section:

... The changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when it first went up might come away with a very different sense of Mr. Sanders’s legislative accomplishments than one who saw it hours later. (The Sanders campaign shared the initial story on social media; it’s hard to imagine it would have done that if the edited version had appeared first.)

Given the level of revision, transparency with the readers required that they be given some kind of heads-up, and even an explanation.

Sullivan even concluded by admitting the editors had exercised a level of bias: “I would also observe that the “context” added here looked a lot like plain-old opinion to this reader, and quite a few others.”

[merrily]

1. MSM has been low to Bernie, but especially WAPO and the NYT.

[Kalidurga]

2. Well now we know who are friends aren't...

Some already knew that MSM has been corrupted for quite some time. Kids under 35, might not know this though.

[merrily]

3. I think Millennials know.

[Kalidurga]

4. Mine sort of do, sorta don't.

They know that the media isn't honest. But, they really have no idea the extent of the dishonesty.

[malokvale77]

5. Indeed they do.

My daughter and her kids call and/or text me numerous times a day to let me know what's on their minds. It's not anything coming from the MSM.

Which is why this from freepress.net is so important: https://internet2016.net/voter-guide/

[merrily]

7. Nice link, malokvale77. Thank you.

[malokvale77]

10. You're welcome

I did an OP here in the Sanders group but it sunk like a rock.

[dorkzilla]

6. Apart from their obvious bias against a good man

The thing that pisses me off is that this will finally MAKE me agree with my RW mother and step-dad that the NY Times is a shitty newspaper, unworthy to line a birdcage with.

The days when they could be looked upon to publish FACTS as FACTS disappeared in the Bush years and I foolishly thought they'd have learnt their lesson. Stupid me.

[malokvale77]

11. I wouldn't poison my compost pile with that rag. nt

[bernbabe]

8. Good for Margaret Sullivan

Hope she doesn't lose her job.

And hope this wasn't just a plant piece to save face.

[mak3cats]

9. Margaret Sullivan used to be the editor of the Buffalo News...

...and I was not happy when she left for the NYT because she was so good. She's going to the Post later this year, so I guess she doesn't care about burning bridges. Brave and principled woman!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/business/media/times-public-editor-joining-washington-post-as-media-columnist.html?_r=0