* someone called citizenspook has a somewhat interesting post - which is probably mostly feverish speculation as we all desperately try to make sense of the Rove unindictment (not least in light of the Leopold fiasco).
at a minimum s/he noted that the NYT changed part of their Rove story from
"Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status."(see news.google) to
"Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, had no comment."I'm not sure that the change is significant - but somewhat odd. I know that the wire-services update stories with new versions - is it common practice for the NYT to do the same?
To that, I could also add (or perhaps explain) a little more. The NYT headline for that story morphed three times (i have the news.google screengrab if required). that kinda seems odd.
According to the date-sort function at news.google, the morphing occured in this order:
- "Rove Won't Be Charged in CIA Leak Case"
- "Leak Counsel Won't Charge Rove, Lawyer Announces"
- "Rove Won't Face Indictment in C.I.A. Leak Case"
In fact, there's even another headline (found here) :
"Fitzgerald won't charge Rove, lawyer announces"That version only has David Johnston's byline, whereas the current version also has Jim Rutenberg
Again, I'm not sure that it is particularly significant - but is it unusual for the NYT to change their headlines and stories? They put up four different versions (all at the same link).
If it is unusual, perhaps it would make sense to take a closer look and watch the details of the story unfold to see if there was any substantive spinning.
Incidentally there is another version, headlined "No Rove Charges Over Testimony on C.I.A. Leak" - essentially the same article - although it is date-lined june 14, whereas the others are june 13 - and it has a separate URL.