I'm not sure if that NYT article's been edited since it was originally published or what. It's so brief and conflicts with a screenshot I see on Twitter that I don't know what to think. Maybe it's simply that I'm not subscribed to the NYT anymore? (Of course, I'll never subscribe to WP because Bezos doesn't need my money.)
https://twitter.com/lawrencehurley/status/1277398891936219139/photo/1 A little more context, here: https://lawandcrime.com/politics/wapo-editor-squashed-2018-woodward-article-that-wouldve-unmasked-kavanaugh-as-backstabbing-source-report/ It's interesting that Google returns a lot of right-leaning sources for this story, similar to the Slate Star Codex issue <https://slatestarcodex.com/>. I suppose it's thinly justified as right-leaners' opportunities to attack left-leaners' favorite sources. I enjoy things most when, e.g., orgs like the ACLU band together with, e.g., Reason to argue for privacy. Blatant partisanship annoys me. At least *pretend* to be open-minded! >8^D On 6/29/20 9:48 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote: > I'm catching up after rescuing 30 days of FRIAM from the spam folder. > > In an even more meta-news context, The New York Times revealed yesterday that > the Washington Post pulled a Bob Woodward article that would have outed Bret > Kavanaugh as an anonymous source, directly contradicting testimony Kavanaugh > was giving about what he did and did not do while serving on Ken Starr's > staff. Keeping faith with your sources. > https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/business/media/martin-baron-washington-post.html > > <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/business/media/martin-baron-washington-post.html?> -- ☣ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
