Replies

My question was why the OP chose to misrepresent this as "breaking news." That's where it was posted, and originally it was posted with today's date.

I don't think the OP intended to misrepresent the article as 'breaking news'. I think it was simple human error.

More to the point, the article sheds light on the thinking of someone who may soon be a major contender for the office of President. In that wise, it's important data for us to have.

That's all.

If it's important to know, it's important to be accurate about it. Look at this from the other side of the issue to see why it matters.

Two years ago, Marco Rubio was everybody's darling on FR; then he got behind the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill in the Senate. Now he's fallen off the radar. [Justifiably so, IMHO. I'm not an amnesty advocate.]

So far, so good.

But suppose I posted an article, purporting to be from yesterday, which had Rubio's previous, known, much older and more conservative position on immigration in Breaking News and suppose also that I dated the article as January 26th, 2015. And suppose, as actually happened, that Rubio was among many potential presidential hopefuls speaking at a big conservative forum over the last several days.

Now finally suppose that, after the date was changed to the correct date by the mods, I continued to pretend that I had been truthful about the original article date all along.

If you don't think I would have been charcoal broiled over that, you haven't been paying attention to FR etiquette very long.

Truthfulness matters. If I wanted to be lied to for "worthy causes" I'd go to a Leftwing forum.