Blatant WSJ Revisionism Redlined

Zerohedge ^ | 5/102011 | Tyler Durden

[cowtowney]

Yesterday, when we posted the full original letter submitted by True Finns leader Timo Soini titled "Why I Won't Support More Bailouts" as presented by the Wall Street Journal in verbatim, we were surprised that the WSJ, traditionally the bastion of various Fed interests (a topic previously dissected in "On The New York Fed's Editorial Influence Over The WSJ"), would allow such a truthy letter to appear on its pages. Today, courtesy of Karl Denninger who pointed out something glaringly disgusting, we were forced to look again at the letter as it now appears on the website of the WSJ. Shockingly, as the redline below indicates, the entire letter was scrubbed with blatant deletions from the original text which can still be found on the pages of Zero Hedge. It is high time that the WSJ readers demand to know whether this unprecedented scrubbing was due to an editorial intervention, or if Soini himself was responsible for this blatant revisionism. If the latter is indeed the case, perhaps supporters of the True Finn party in Finland should inquire who it was that forced their leader to adjusted his letter in such a way. And here we are making fun of Jean Claude Junker for openly lying to the media...

[cowtowney]

amazing censorship at the WSJ WSJ needs to explain

[billorites]

Unprecedented scrubbing? Blatant revisionism?

Letters are always edited for style and length.

This doesn't strike me as any better or worse than usual. Soini's position is maintained in the revised text.

Am I missing something?

[JerseyHighlander]

Am I missing something?

Tylers' unending need to reach for hysterics to drive web traffic.

[cowtowney]

“Am I missing something?”

Have you even read the differences? You wouldn’t ask that question if you had.

Edited for style and length? Get a clue.

[billorites]

"Edited for style and length? Get a clue."

Apparently anything so patently obvious is not deserving of an explanation or any discussion whatsoever. That's fine.

You and Mr. Denninger can hide out in the bunker. I'll have to take my chances above ground.

Best wishes to all.

[Dr. Sivana]

Letters are always edited for style and length.

And sometimes the papers do a crappy job.

Years ago, I accused the Hartford Courant of calumniating Gov. candidate Tom Scott for misrepresenting his position on abortion.

I chose the word carefully. It was the right word, as it was factually wrong, and that the writer would have known it was factually wrong.

The Courant, perhaps thinking that its readership should be spared a seventh-grade vocabulary word, changed the word I used to slander.

As J. Jonah Jameson pointed out to Peter Parker, the correct term would be libel. Slander applies to spoken language; libel applies to the written word.

If the folks at the Courant can't even get a word that should be in the front of every newspaperman's mind, they are hopeless. I didn't even bother following up, for fear of what they would do with my letter the next time.

[billorites]

Changing your language goes a step beyond editing for style or length, IMHO.

I expect a great deal more from the editorial page of the WSJ than the Hartford Courant. The Journal is writing for a better educated and more sophisticated reader.

Calumny is such a delightfully 19th century sort of word! The sort of word Safire or Buckley would toss around.