Whale Oil blogs:
Earlier today I busted Fairfax with their radical censorship of an article that was published yesterday.
Huge amounts of the original article were expunged and replaced with additions that made no sense. So much was removed that it shows clear manipulation of the story by someone.
WOBH contacted Labour and received an emphatic denial that they were involved in censoring the story. The spokesman for David Cunliffe said “We aren’t that powerful”.
Contact was also made with John Key’s people who as predicted said it wasn’t them.
I stand by my statement earlier that John Key probably laughed out loud when he saw David Cunliffe was calling him a liar.
It is worth following the links to the original story.
The Stuff article, here, originally had as its lead paragraph David Cunliffe saying the Prime Minister is a liar and his word can’t be trusted. They also had a direct quote from him saying “John Key tells lies”.
Now my reaction when I saw the original story was that it just made David Cunliffe look shrill and nasty, and that the more people who saw the article the better.
When Fairfax changed the story an hour later, I assumed they had got the quote wrong and Cunliffe never said what they reported.
However it seems Cunliffe does think it is a good strategy to go around NZ, and call John Key a liar. That’s fine. But why did Fairfax change the story to hide that? Did they think it was defaming John Key? Or did they think it made Cunliffe look too shrill?
Answers to those questions would be welcome.
It also raises the bigger issue of the practice of some media to significantly amend a story, and not note that have amended it. I think significant changes should always be noted.