At 318, you can see the full text of the article at the same link that I posted earlier today. Luckily, I had kept the tab open.
The text is different at the link now. The article was obviously edited and updated. I have seen this in other papers like the Daily Mail.
If you don’t believe me, why don’t you email the writer?
I’m taking you at your word and I hope you kept a screenshot. This is a material change to a published article. If I had to guess, I’d say the Cruz people were livid that the words were first presented as a direct quote, and a damning one at that. There is sure a different meaning in the article now. This would be high-order journalistic malpractice.
Or maybe the reporter is livid because a lilly-livered editor softened an actual quote under pressure from the campaign. His journalistic integrity is certainly impugned. We may never know the truth here.
Jim, this is a perfect example of why “fair use” needs to be revisited and this example may be of value in a future defense. As I have written before, had this been print media, there would be hardcopy and as for most of the sources posted here, a press run in the thousands. The next edition might contain a markedly different replacement article but the record is clear and documented in all those original copies.
There is no such safeguard in the new media unless sites like FreeRepublic post entire articles as electronically published as the record for everyone to see. This is in the public’s interest to have in new media a “print” record as we have had for centuries in the Gutenberg media.
There is a risk that a poster may have introduced subtle changes and it may be necessary for software such as ours to automatically archive the text from the link at the time of posting. That would be a prudent defensive measure.