Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (98294)	2/2/2005 2:50:24 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793986

it gives the impression that the Times is trying to change the emphasis on what they had written. I don't know how you can miss that. No, I understand how it gives that impression, but there's not necessarily anything sinister in it. Drum's explanation is plausible and it's consistent with my understanding of how such things work. <<"Listen up, folks: the Times, like every other major newspaper, has a separate desk that handles its website. They don't publish one issue a day, either: they update the site continuously. New stories get added, old stories get modified, headlines change, etc. That might be annoying to bloggers, but until a story is committed to print it's subject to change. That's how the web works.>> I suppose the sinister explanation could be so, but it's much more likely one of those cognitive distortions. There is a fine line between some of the stuff that gets posted here and conspiracy theories, which are taboo.