Articles edited for White House approval?
TheOtherWashington | February 28 2006
More and more bloggers (Firedoglake, AmericaBlog) are noticing changes being made in online articles without any explanation from the paper. Here's one more for the pile.
Last August, when Cindy Sheehan was camping in Crawford, a local paper ran a Washington Post article about Bush's refusal to meet with her. One sentence caught my eye:
[Columbian (Vancouver, WA), Sunday August 21, 2005]
Wow, what kind of delicate flower is our Commander in Chief if he can't stand to see protestors? So I go to the computer to get the online version of the article for an easy cut and paste, and surprise, surprise. The article had been changed. Now it said:
The president had made it clear, going back at least to a California railroad swing during his 2000 campaign, that he does not care to meet with protesters or to reward them.
TheOtherWashington's diary :: ::
One word changed. See vs. meet. At the time I though it was just semantics, and forgot about it. Only later did I ask, what protestors in 2000 wanted to meet with candidate Bush, then governor of Texas? Anyone?
Then I wanted to know what the heck happened during that campaign stop in 2000. A Lexis-Nexis search turned up this gem:
[August 12, 2000, Saturday Los Angeles Times
no link, the article is only available in paid archives or through LN]
DEMOCRATS SAY RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED;
CAMPAIGN: GORE BACKERS SAY THEY WERE DENIED FULL ACCESS TO THE BUSH RALLY IN OXNARD. BUT POLICE CHIEF CONTENDS SAFETY WAS HIS TOP CONCERN.
A handful of Ventura County Democrats said their civil rights were violated this week when they were denied full access to an Oxnard rally held for Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush.
These supporters of Democratic nominee Al Gore said Oxnard police officers told them on Wednesday that they could not enter the main rally area--at the city's public transportation center--because they did not have tickets to the free event.
But when Bush started speaking and the area was opened to the general public, officers still prevented them from getting close to the train depot, they said.
About 5,500 people turned out for the first stop in Bush's whistle-stop tour through California, including as many as 75 Gore supporters. The tour ended Thursday in Lodi.
Republican Party officials, who received a temporary use permit to hold the campaign event at the Amtrak station, said they set up a separate area for protesters and anyone who identified themselves as Bush opponents. And they did not issue tickets to anyone wearing a Gore button or hat or carrying a Gore sign.
Terry Holt, communications director for Victory 2000, which helped organize the political rally, said the Oxnard event was a chance for Ventura County residents to hear Bush speak. Protesters or people carrying anti-Bush signs would have been a disruption, he said.
Alison Mizraji, 38, a legal assistant from Ventura, said she was even more disturbed by what people were saying to her outside the rally. She held a sign that said "Bush Is Bad for Children," wore a hat proclaiming "No to Bush" and carried fliers detailing Bush's voting record in Texas.
When she tried to enter the rally, police told her that she couldn't because it was a private event. So she stood far away from the train, where she couldn't see Bush and could barely hear him.
Mission accomplished, Dubya. All protesters were blocked from your line of sight to protect your fragile psyche. It was a warm up for the 2004 campaign and the Social Security Fake Townhall Events. Would he collapse in a trembling heap if he saw a sign that criticized him? Why does anyone think this guy is tough on terror? He's afraid of SIGNS!!!!
I have some questions for Mike Allen. Why did your article change after it was first printed? Who complained that you had told the truth?
Last modified February 28, 2006