Skip to comments.N.Y. Times changes lede of Wildstein story (Christie and G.W. Bridge)
Posted on 01/31/2014 11:54:54 PM PST by Olog-hai
The New York Times changed the lede of its explosive story about former New York Port Authority official David Wildstein on Friday. Whereas the original story stated that Wildstein has the evidence to prove Gov. Chris Christie knew about the George Washington Bridge lane closings when they were happening, the new version has Wildstein saying evidence exists. [ ]
This seemingly minor change carries a big difference in meaning. The original lede reads as though Wildstein is saying he specifically has evidence that links Christie to knowing about the bridge lane closures. The second lede suggests only that evidence exists, not that Wildstein necessarily has it. No note has been added to the article.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
It’s not Christie’s guilt that matters, it’s the seriousness of the charges.
Gee, and this change happens after 6pm on a Friday.
. . . and how much they can be trumped up by the media.
Christie’s lawyer on the phone?
Drudge changed his headline too, I believe. Put a question mark after “HE KNEW.”
This entire debacle over a couple traffic cones screwing up traffic flows on one on ramp is nuts! The event only lasted some three days, and Christy's denial was that he had no fore knowledge of the event and only found out about the chicanery when it was reported in the news...
OK.......so now we have a story based on words from the guy that Christy fired, giving a third time frame of the period when the event was ongoing, claiming Chisty was aware of it at some point. And he knows of evidence that exists.
Well...OK...but Christy said in his long denial, only that he was not aware of the true purpose of the cones and was told that it was a traffic study, but he never denied being informed in whatever way during the event. He denied knowing about the way it was done, the who did it, until the news report.
So to sum up, Christy told the truth about what he knew and when, but he never denied knowing at some point during the event that it was occurring.
The second denial just made public, again reiterated what Christy said in his presser. That he had no fore knowledge of the event and that he did not know about his staffs involvement until the news report. Again he did not deny being informed at some point during the event that it was a traffic study.
I'm no Christy fan, but this is a typical media driven story based on nothing. Based on a inferred denial that never occured in a lame attempt to infer that Christy knew...
It would be pretty silly not to expect that at some point he did not get a call from someone asking what the heck was going on with the bridge, to which he might reply ...I dunno..call the port authority...traffic cones are not my thing..and promptly forget about it.
But Christy never addressed that specific question...so he does not have a statement to call into question. (Did you know there was three traffic cones on the bridge..")
Never asked, and never answered. What he did address was not knowing his staff was involved, and not knowing the purpose of it until he read it in the news paper.
I am sure this huge gigantic scandal will certainly continue unabated..
Do folks not realize that this is same thing the Media did to Herman Cain prior to the run up of the 2012 elections. They target the contender most likely go to represent a threat to Obama and destroyed him.
It worked so well they are now doing it to Hillary’s #1 contender.
Then they can pick a marshmallow for us like they have for the last 20 years!!!
This is all being done by Hillary’s people. It’s their usual devious modus operandi. They did some polling a couple of months back. One of my liberal Democrat siblings was polled and indicated a vote for Christie was in the realm of possibility if it came to a choice between Chris Christie and Hillary. (I said “ick” to both.)
That is correct if you are referring to the introduction of the story.
c.1965, alternative spelling of lead in the newspaper journalism sense (see lead (v.)), used to distinguish this sense from other possible meanings of the word, perhaps especially the molten lead used in typesetting machines.
I guess I am dated. I worked for The Reporter Herald in K=Loveland, Colorado in 1965 or there abouts. Our Editor, Meritt Lewis, would not have tolerated such a spelling. Copy would have come back with great red marks.
It’s something editors do to avoid an instruction getting set into type. We use hed for head, folo for follow as in folo copy, etc.
The timing of the latest "revelation" is no accident--calculated to have maximum impact right when New Jersey is hosting the Super Bowl for the first time.