This morning, the New York Times ran the following above-the-fold story by Carl Hulse:
Congress Jets Off as D.H.S. Shuts Down
Despite a deadlock over funding for the agency, lawmakers left town and left Democratic and White House negotiators to try to work out a deal in their absence.
The story, as of 10:04 AM ET, included the following passage:
"Republicans, who only weeks ago appeared to be pivoting on immigration following the killings of two U.S. citizens by federal agents in Minneapolis, appear to have snapped back to a bellicose stance, buoyed by polls that show voters are firmly behind President Trump’s handling of the issue."
A few commenters asked in exasperation, “What polls are those?” Because what Hulse wrote contradicted virtually every recent poll showing most Americans being firmly opposed to Trump’s handling of immigration. Hulse provided no citation of, or link to, the polling he was referring to.
However, note the changes to a later (3:01 PM ET) version of the same passage:
Republicans, who only weeks ago appeared to be pivoting on immigration following the killings of two U.S. citizens by federal agents in Minneapolis, appear to have snapped back to a bellicose stance, buoyed by polls that show their voters are firmly behind President Trump’s handling of the issue, and voters overall trust their party more to handle it, though that edge is shrinking.
The most recent version provides links, and the line which includes “...buoyed by polls that show voters are firmly behind...” was changed to “...buoyed by polls that show their voters are firmly behind...”
“their voters”
As in Republican voters. Kind of an important detail to have omitted from the original story.
To its credit(?) the NYT updated the story to include the context that was lacking from the early version, perhaps due to the criticism levied by a few of its commenters who noticed the original passage’s obvious disconnect from reality.
On the other hand, the lie-weary cynic in me sees the early version as an example of how the media can also give a false impression (i.e., that the public supports Trump) by simply omitting a single word — in this case, the word “their” — from a story.
As Mark Twain famously said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” The same can be said of a story that isn’t corrected until time has passed.
In fact, a later commenter criticized the earlier commenters who called out Hulse’s original version, saying they made “erroneous posts”.
See how this works? The original story is wrong by omission. Then a number of readers see the problem, comment, and receive multiple recommendations from fellow readers who saw the same problem. Later, the story is “corrected”, and a reader of the corrected story criticizes those who (accurately) identified the problem in the first place.
Again, the 24/7 barrage of mis- and disinformation from this administration and so many media sources covering it has made me cynical, weary... and wary.
