Friday, 1 April 2011

I take it back

The MSM is ^NOT alive. It's still shit-scared.

The Star story reporting on Stevie Peevie's limit of five media questions a day has been pulled and replaced with more crap about the one-on-one debate.

Weirdly, the comments on the previous version are still there.

So, who SHRIEEEEEEKED?

And why the fuck did the Star buckle?

Luckily, you can still read it in its entirety at Politics and Its Discontents. Maybe Lorne is prescient?

And those gonaddy things? Still elusive.

12 comments:

doconnor said...

The story about the five questions is on the front page of the print version, sitting there on every newspaper box in the city. They won't be able to pull that.

fern hill said...

Good to hear. But still I'd like to know why the online version was changed.

fern hill said...

Arggghh! I just deleted a comment from Sixth Estate. Blogger thought it was spam and I thought I was unspamming it, but hit delete instead. I've emailed Sixth Estate asking forgiveness and repost.

Antonia Z said...

The online version wasn't changed. It was updated.
I would hardly call front page A1 skyline censorship.
http://twitpic.com/4g8c14

deBeauxOs said...

For awhile there, Antonia, the original version was not available online - as well, its replacement on the website was different though the comments to the OV were still in place.

It all seemed very fishy.

So what's the link to the updated online version, please?

Sixth Estate said...

Fern hill -- No worries. My post was stating that today another article from CP was altered on quite a number of media sites, from an article describing Conservative patronage to an article describing energy policy planks of the Tories and NDP.

Antonia Z said...

So some web editor probably made a mistake. I would hardly call an A1 above the fold story censorship.
It's cached here:
http://bit.ly/guVAMQ

fern hill said...

I don't know, Antonia. There might be a pattern developing.

deBeauxOs said...

Once published on newsprint aka dead tree version, the story could hardly be withdrawn without causing a big hoohaw. But deep-sixed on the web? Easy enough, if a web editor gets told to do so by someone higher up in the food chain.

Antonia Z said...

I know nothing about the CP story except that I think this is it and it's here.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SpecialEvent7/20110331/harper-apologies-patronage-110331/
and here
http://www.metronews.ca/winnipeg/canada/article/819291--pork-and-patronage-on-campaign-trail
and here
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/election-roundup-119048259.html

As for the Star story, I can assure you that the only way a story would be pulled is if it contained an egregious error (which can be corrected online) or libel. The story contained neither.

Never ascribe to nefarious motives which can be blamed on stupid human error. The web folks are overworked, as well are right now.

Sixth Estate said...

Here's the details, Antonia:

http://sixthestate.net/?p=1432

Check out your second link. It's not there anymore, it's been replaced with another article. I know paranoia is unbecoming, but I don't make stuff up. As I explain on my blog, a few sites kept it, more tossed it. The Winnipeg Free Press, your third link, is actually one of the ones that didn't. The story used to be here, but as you can see, it's not:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/special/federal-election/national/harper-looks-to-recover-in-newfoundland-rivals-target-child-care-environment-118974689.html

Dr.Dawg said...

So some web editor probably made a mistake.

If the Star simply made an error, why do we have to look for the story in a cache?

Just fix the error and apologize. Sheesh, A., you know I love you, but this doesn't add up. It's as bad as the CP mass disappearance.

Post a Comment