Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

In Which CD Apologizes for Lambert Being Once Again Prematurely Correct

chicago dyke's picture

Change you can believe in!

The Washington Post appears to have changed an already published article without noting the change. The original article started out:

President-elect Barack Obama's transition team has agreed to accompany Treasury Department officials to meet with Capitol Hill leaders to help the Bush administration gain access to the second half of the $700 billion financial rescue package, government sources familiar with the matter said.

With lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressing heated opposition to granting such a request, Treasury officials have come to realize that they need the president-elect's help to obtain the rescue money and are actively engaged with his aides, the sources said.

This can be confirmed via Huffington Post, with their habit of just using the first couple paragraphs of an article then linking to the original if you want to read the rest. Here's what the Washington Post article now says:

Treasury Department officials are laying the groundwork for seeking the second half of the $700 billion financial rescue package from Congress and have approached President-elect Barack Obama's transition team in an effort to gain access to the funds, sources familiar with the matter said.

With lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressing heated opposition to such a request, Treasury officials have come to realize that they need the president-elect's help to obtain the rescue money, the sources said.

There's nothing in the article to indicate that it was changed, when it was changed or why it was changed. Did the Obama team object to the original article and they changed it? If so, shouldn't they issue a notice of correction, rather than just changing the story?

What's that about "rough treatment from the press" again? Oh well, you can't spell "vision" without revisionism, or something. Ian's such a nice guy, heh. Correction? What's that? That's when Debbie Howell tells readers the reason the WaPo is losing market share is because they're not conservative enough, silly.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

That is quite a "correction", no? Look at the change in agency.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

another poster notes that the wapo in fact put the headline "obama agrees..." in more places than just the noted piece. so, for a time, It Was Good. no real explaination for what it's not now. gosh darn those meddling internet kidz, always putting graphs and pics in their caches!

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

and it might have been NPR but I'm not sure, it was on in another room and I was running power saws and a nail gun so maybe I misunderstood. The report was that Bush asked the Obama camp to convince Congress to release the remaining $350Billion and the response was "You need to talk to congressional leaders yourself, but if it would be helpful we'll sit in on the talks."

Sounded to me that Obama doesn't want to usurp the congressional role and also doesn't want to let Bush off the hook with his job. A soft coup is a delicate thing; Obama has already taken over foreign policy, but he could do that without crossing Congress; taking overt control of domestic policy runs the risk of being played by either Bush or Congress or both and ending up with the blame for something he doesn't control directly. Didn't sound sinister on Obama's part to me, but I'm all PMA these days.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

I think he means his sunny "positive mental attitude," which was displayed in all its glory on the Hillary thread. :)

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

And there's a phrase we can both enjoy.

PMA = Positive Mental Attitude, and I certainly needed a bucketload of PMA to wander into that feeding frenzy with a contrary point of view.

Sorry, elixer, and thanks - actually - for the invite, but I think working within the new power alignment will provide the most productive path forward for Progressive interests. That certainly could change, but for now I can't see a virtue to standing outside.

Being willing, eager even, to work with the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress doesn't, for me, mean abandoning Leftist principles or compromising goals. It is a practical decision, a tactical choice, to try and push the emerging Leftward shift as hard and as far as it will carry. Eventually, I know, the changes will fall short of where I want them to be and the tone will have to shift; I'll deal with that when the time comes. Until then I intend to subvert from within.

Turlock