Okay, fine, sure. I will reiterate the case for those who are not engaging with it.
-
-
Replying to @kurtdwalters @dancow and
1) There was a substantive removal from the story without a correction.
2 replies 2 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kurtdwalters @dancow and
2) The original has multiple sources saying *advocacy to disclose info about Russian activities on FB* caused friction / resistance by Sandberg & other execs. The second does not. It vaguely references disagreements.
2 replies 3 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kurtdwalters @dancow and
3) Not seeing the difference in meaning (and in relevance to Sandberg's possible future aspirations) between the two requires a level of political naivete I'd be surprised to see from reporters.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @kurtdwalters @dancow and
4) A separate story written afterward has some specificity – Sandberg/Stamos disagreed about Russia. What was the content of their disagreement? Who was on what side? The reader no longer knows.pic.twitter.com/GWK9llxP6x
4 replies 4 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @kurtdwalters @dancow and
Kurt Walters Retweeted Nicole Perlroth
5) That the change came after FB PR was in touch with NYT raises questions. Readers can't know the precise content of what FB PR or FB sources with NDAs/golden handcuffs said after – how would they? But it raises questions.https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976159345195941888 …
Kurt Walters added,
Nicole PerlrothVerified account @nicoleperlrothReplying to @colinkalmbacherIt was a) not a reporting failure (the story is even more specific about the disagreements.) b) FB PR gave us a statement from Stamos after the first post in which he described the dynamic "as productive." We appended that to our story, while also laying out disagreements.2 replies 3 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kurtdwalters @dancow and
6) If the defense is that NYT routinely removes substantive information from its stories without a correction, that... raises more concerns than it dispels. And seems like a ripe question for
@jayrosen or@mathewi to weigh in on.1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @kurtdwalters @nicoleperlroth and
On this point, I can't speak for the NYT, but no, it does not seem to be their policy to remove substantive information (or make edits) without a correction. Though I'm betting we disagree on what "substantive information" is.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dancow @kurtdwalters and
How is Sandberg's view on what to do about Russian influence on Facebook not substantive? Which side of the debate was she on? Earlier, the NYT said she opposed pushing back. Now the NYT won't say what her position was. That's a huge difference -- and hugely to the benefit of her
3 replies 4 retweets 5 likes -
Ryan- that’s in the story, she opposed Stamos. And in our follow up story we delve into it more.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.