Joseph Curl catalogs the cavalcade of creative writing that the New York Times engaged in over the weekend on Bridgegate. The Times reported on Friday that Chris Christie KNEW about the bridge closing that is now dogging his administration. The original story said that the governor knew all along:
“The Port Authority official who personally oversaw the lane closings on the George Washington Bridge in the scandal now swirling around Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said on Friday that the governor knew about the lane closings when they were happening, and that he had the evidence to prove it,” read the lede of the blockbuster story.
But the Times stealthily edited the piece until it went from “Christie KNEW” to “evidence exists” that he knew (without producing said evidence) to Christie was “linked to knowledge” of the closures. What does that even mean?
It turns out that the supposed evidence comes from David Wildstein, the former Port Authority official who has resigned in the scandal and has been publicly clamoring for immunity in the scandal. His lawyer wrote a two-page letter that mentions “evidence” once. That’s not much, but it was enough for the New York Times to run a story and then change it 20 minutes later to weaken the story’s central point.
So what has happened to the New York Times?
Nothing, actually. This is the same newspaper that advanced the Soviet cause during the famines via Walter Duranty’s apologism, and it’s the same newspaper that undermined the US cause in Vietnam through reporter Harrison Salisbury, and it is the same newspaper that has consistently reported from the left, favoring Democrats and slashing Republicans, for about a century now.
Once in a while, they get caught now. But nothing at that paper has really changed.