Posted on 10/04/2009 11:40:54 AM PDT by 50mm
Edited on 10/04/2009 3:31:45 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Those who read the New York Times's coverage of the unsuccessful results of Barack and Michelle Obama's attempt to seal the 2016 Summer Olympics bid for Chicago on Friday afternoon ('For Obama, an Unsuccessful Campaign") might want to read it again.
If it doesn't seem the same, it's because it isn't.
Blogger Weasel Zippers (HT Hot Air Headlines via Instapundit) caught the Times committing a major scrub of the story. But it's really worse than that.
An excerpt of the item's first five paragraphs posted at FreeRepublic at 4:44 Eastern Time on October 2 shows that the article was apparently originally published under the same title with Peter Baker's byline Friday sometime Friday afternoon.
NYT: For Obama, An Unsuccessful Campaign ["He Could Not Even Muster The Silver Or Bronze"]
You are overly generous- the real credit goes to those who helped expose the NYT disassembling.
Busted. Gotta love those guys at Newsbusters...
http://snarkandboobs.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/south-park-dudes-need-to-write-new-song-blame-bush/
Kai Holm, a former Olympics committee member, told the newspaper (translated): “The fact that Barack Obama came, could not do it. I think we lacked emotion, it seemed too empty and business-like. So when Tony Blair promoted London he was around three days to lobby and talk to people. You can not just come with the train one day and try to affect everything. People have felt that it was a lack of respect for the Olympics and sport in general. I think people felt it was too business-like to get into the way we have now seen it many times, and you would have feelings back.”
Hans Bonde, professor of sport history at the University of Copenhagen, told the newspaper: “Here come the more favor Obama just before the deadline and made showoff. He clearly won the battle in the media, but it turned out indeed to be indifferent. IOC members did not feel important, and they were indeed reduced to spectators and not players. So if he had come, he would have had time for a personal lubricant.”
Good question, I don’t know the answer.
Bottom line, they have the legal resources to claim they own the content, FR does not have the legal resourses to defend “fair use” again. We were burned once, this site can’t take the risk, and cost, of another lawsuit.
Attaboy, Steelfish
I think, as a matter of practice, FReepers should copy “embarrassing” articles from lefty web sites, just like Steelfish did, before the lefties realize their mistake.
Thanks. I wondered how people did that.
Much in the same way they scrubbed the ACORN-Barry article(s)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.