Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

Our letter to the the Public Editor of the Times was forwarded to Rich Meislin, "Associate Managing Editor - Internet Publishing" at the paper. Here is our complete exchange:

On Aug 18, 2006, at 6:51 AM, Rich Meislin wrote:

Dear editor@201k.com,

When we're following a rapidly changing news story like the death of Zarqawi in real time, articles and headlines are written and rewritten throughout the day as developments warrant. A headline you see at one moment can be replaced a minute or an hour later by another that an editor decides reflects the situation better.

More generally, articles on NYTimes.com that include "cnd" as part of the URL are written or edited by our continuous news desk, the group of reporters and editors charged with updating our coverage of major news events between the press runs of the printed paper. Some or all of the articles prepared by the continuous news desk as a breaking news event unfolds are typically replaced in the evening by the package of articles and headlines written for the following day's newspaper, which often benefit from the additional time for reporting, analysis and editing. (At the same time, some of the CND articles prepared for the Web are also used in the printed newspaper.)

The news analysis you refer to -- "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" -- took the headline from the newspaper, "Hatred He Bred Is Sure to Survive Terrorist Death." But it still discusses Zarqawi and the impact his death would have. (I found it by using the link from your June 8 blog post.)

My guess is the Burns video was also replaced by later material, but I haven't yet been able to track down the producer who handled it to confirm that.

Sincerely,
Rich Meislin
Associate Managing Editor
Internet Publishing

At 8:33 AM -0400 8/18/06, Editor - 201k wrote:

Dear Mr. Meislin,

Thanks for your response. I have to point out that the article now found at the link which previously went to, "Analysis: Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" has nothing whatsoever to do with Zarqawi. The new article, entitled, "Hundreds of Iraqi Detainees Get First Taste of Freedom" is about the "good-will" release of Iraqi prisoners from detainee camps by Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki. Neither Zarqawi, nor his death, nor the impact from it, are mentioned.

Thanks also for the explanation of how "continuous news desk" stories are replaced. Can you shed some insight on what "reporting, analysis and editing" led to the relevant headline changes, and when?

1. "Leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq Is Killed" became "U.S. Strike Hits Insurgent at Safehouse";
2. "With Note of Caution, Bush Hails Killing of Zarqawi." became "Bush Cautiously Notes Chance to 'Turn the Tide'";
3. "How the News Spread in the White House" became "After Welcome Piece of News, a Decision to Stay Silent".

Given the news that "the anti-American insurgency has continued to strengthen despite the killing of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi", prior hopes, statements and opinions to the contrary -- from both government and the press -- are worthy of analysis. We'd like to do that analysis, but are faced with two Times "analysis" articles that are no longer available, and three whose themes have been undeniably softened somewhere in the last two and a half months.

Can the Times explain these specific changes and deletions, and provide the missing analyses?

Regards,

201k.

On Aug 18, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Rich Meislin wrote:

Sorry, I'm not sure what the confusion is. As I said, when I click the link that was previously "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" I get a news analysis entitled "News Analysis: Hatred He Bred Is Sure to Survive Terrorist Death," not the "First Taste of Freedom" article you're referring to. The "Hatred He Bred" article is the analysis was written on June 8 and remains as it appeared in the printed newspaper of June 9.

I'm taking the link in question from the June 8 post on your site. It's: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/world/middleeast/08cnd-assess.html

As I also said, the final changes to the continuous news desk articles were likely to have been made when they were substituted with their counterparts from the newspaper. That generally occurs in the range of 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. as the printed newspaper goes to press.

I hope this helps. / Rich Meislin

At 1:30 PM -0400 8/18/06, Editor - 201k wrote:

Thanks again for the response. Clicking on the link in our June 8 post that was previously "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" brings me to "Hundreds of Iraqi Detainees Get First Taste of Freedom", as does clicking on, or cutting and pasting, the same link in your email below.

To check this I cleared the cache, then tried again. Additionally I asked two different 201k contributors in two different states to try, and they both got "First Taste of Freedom" as well.

I appreciate the time you've taken to answer my questions; may I just verify that you're saying that the Dexter Filkins article "The Hatred He Bred" article is the same article that was "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency", even if we cannot get to it by its previous link, and that the headlines to the other three articles were changed later the same day or evening they were first posted, and that the printed versions have the newer headlines?

Again -- thank you for your time.

201k

On Aug 18, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Rich Meislin wrote:

That's very odd. I'm sending you a copy of the Filkins news analysis in a separate e-mail. It is the successor to the one that appeared earlier as "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency." I'd appreciate your letting me know where you are physically located; the problem may have something to do with a cache problem on a remote server.

And yes, the three other headlines would have been changed later the same day or that evening, and the printed versions in the June 9 newspaper would have similar or identical heads. (They sometimes change between printed editions as well.) / Rich Meislin

On Aug 19, 2006, at 1:40 PM, Editor - 201k wrote:

201k readers in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and Colorado all get the "First Taste of Freedom" article. No one gets the "Hatred He Bred" article.

Two different searches of the Times' archives -- one for "Zarqawi" and one through "Times Topics > People > Z > Zarqawi, Abu Musab al-" -- found none of the original stories from June 8 (or, actually, ANY Zarqawi stories from June 8) with either their original or altered headlines.

The Dexter Filkins article "The Hatred He Bred" -- which I have to take your word for is the article formerly called, "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" -- comes up neither in "Times Topics > People > Z > Zarqawi, Abu Musab al-" nor in a search for "Zarqawi". It does come up in a search for "al-Zarqawi".

[Note: To clarify for 201k readers: The "Hatred He Bred" article, which Mr. Reislin called "the successor" to "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency", does not come up when you click the link to the original "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" article. Additionally, it's dated June 9, the day after "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" was published.]

The Christine Hauser article, "With Note of Caution, Bush Hails Killing of Zarqawi" now called, "Bush Cautiously Notes Chance to 'Turn the Tide'" comes up in no searches -- not even in a search of her name.

Thanks again your time.

First, two notes: 1. We found the Burns video piece by searching the Times' listing of articles on the "topic" of Zarqawi, though its title has been changed from "The Times's Baghdad bureau chief explains the impact of today's announcements in Baghdad" to "Death of a Terrorist: John F. Burns reports on the killing of the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the aftermath", and 2. We realized after sending our last reply to Mr. Meislin that he'd described the Dexter Filkins article as "the successor" to "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" and not as the same article with a new headline.

So here's the problem:

Of the five stories the Times put on its on June 8 front page on the death of Zarqawi, all five have had their headlines (and who knows what else) changed in a way that unquestioningly softens the purported impact of Zarqawi's death. Two are impossible to find using their original links or the Times' search -- though "a successor" to one of them is findable through the search if you look really, really hard (but not under "Zarqawi" or at the Times' own listing of articles on Zarqawi).

Moreover, while Mr. Reislin was generous with his time - which we appreciate - he offered absolutely no illumination as to why these articles were changed. We have no idea what additional "reporting, analysis and editing" led "an editor" to decide that downplaying the reaction and importance of Zarqawi's death "reflect[ed] the situation better" -- or when. We know only that the articles were changed -- not only online but possibly after early editions had gone to print.

Here's the reality: on June 8, 2006, when the NY Times first reported the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- a man whose centrality in the insurgency had been greatly promoted by both the Bush Administration and the press -- they had no less than seven headlines on it on the front page. Of those seven, five linked to articles, one linked to a photo essay, and one brought readers to the forum for a "discussion" of the importance of the death. They also sent out a "News Alert" email.

The headlines of three of those initial articles were:

1. Leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq Is Killed.

2. How the News Spread in the White House.

3. With Note of Caution, Bush Hails Killing of Zarqawi.

Sometime after these articles were published (and possibly even after early editions were printed) the headlines were changed to:

1. U.S. Strike Hits Insurgent at Safehouse

2. After Welcome Piece of News, a Decision to Stay Silent

3. Bush Cautiously Notes Chance to 'Turn the Tide'

The fourth article from June, called "Analysis: Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency", is nowhere to be found. We're told its "successor" is an article called "The Hatred He Bred". We have no way of comparing the original to its "successor", but we do know three things: 1. the new headline softens the import of Zarqawi's death, 2. the "successor" article isn't the one you get when you click on the link to what had been "Analysis: Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency", and 3. you can't find the original article in the Times' archives, and you have to look pretty damn hard to find its "successor".

We also know you won't find any of the original articles (with either headlines) if you search for "Zarqawi" or even go to the Times' own listing page for articles on the topic of "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi". In fact, you won't find any stories on Zarqawi from June 8 at all -- the archives skip June 8. June 8 never happened.

And you won't find any version of the Christine Hauser article originally titled "With Note of Caution, Bush Hails Killing of Zarqawi" and now titled, " Bush Cautiously Notes Chance to 'Turn the Tide'" -- not even if you search for the name "Christine Hauser".

What you will find is this:

THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: THE PRESIDENT; Bush Responds To the Killing Of a Terrorist With Caution
June 9, 2006, Friday
By JIM RUTENBERG; CARL HULSE CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FOR THIS ARTICLE. (NYT); Foreign Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 11, Column 6, 774 words

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - In celebrating the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as a victory for Iraqis and Americans, White House officials were careful on Thursday to acknowledge that his death would not mean the end of the insurgency he had led. The muted approach marked a departure from the triumphalism with which the White House has greeted some other major events in the war in Iraq.

It boils down to this: a reader researching the Times' archives for their coverage of the death of Zarqawi will find articles reporting a measured, "cautious" reaction to it.

Why is this important? Because in reality, when Zarqawi was killed, the NY Times made a big deal about it. They ran seven headlines on the front page. The top story was "Leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq Is Killed". They covered multiple angles, including the President's reaction ("Bush Hails Killing of Zarqawi"), backstage color on how the White House handled the news ("How the News Spread in the White House"). They offered an "analysis" called "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" and an opinion from their Baghdad bureau chief "explain[ing] the impact of today's announcements in Baghdad".

There was nothing "cautious" about it.

It was all very, very dramatic -- especially considering that, exactly two years earlier, the Times described this "Leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq" as "a Jordanian jihadist who sought help from Al Qaeda in waging the anti-American insurgency after the fall of Mr. Hussein...whose links to the terrorist group and Mr. Hussein's government remain sketchy".

This is a man about whom, a month before his death, the Times said: "officials' view of Mr. Zarqawi as the main architect of violence in Iraq is more convenient than the possibility that much of the mayhem is committed not by foreign jihadists but by Iraqi-born Sunni Arabs".

And as we've discovered, two and a half months after his death, the Times reports that "the anti-American insurgency has continued to strengthen despite the killing of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi".

The question before us is simple: given the Bush Administration's history of building up individuals in order to "put a face" on the enemy, and given the Times' history of, well, let's be generous and call it "buying into" Administration spin on things, and given the specific history of the Times' evolving and somewhat inexplicable descriptions of Zarqawi: what should a reader think about this "odd" -- but uniform, and consistent -- revision of the paper's coverage of the death of Zarqawi?

Is it just a matter of the paper recognizing that their original excitement was misplaced? If so, exactly what does it mean that they can simply change history? Is reinterpreting the main thrust of an event "a correction"? Shouldn't it at least be noted somewhere?

In other words, exactly what is "the record" at the "paper of record"?

Or, has the Times changed not just their coverage of Zarqawi, but the history of their coverage of Zarqawi in accordance with the changing importance the Bush Administration has put on him? First, an unknown "Jordanian terrorist" whose effectiveness and connections to al Qaeda were "sketchy", then the "Leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq" whose death was "hailed" by Bush, then just an "insurgent at a safehouse" about whose death the White House decided to "stay silent"?

Which is it?