Check the article at the link, not as posted at the top of this thread. You will note that the text posted on FR is different than the NYT article. The word "problem" does not appear.A bump for your earlier post with my emphasis added.Now I am inclined to believe that the NYT caused this problem rather than the OP, so I sent the following to the Cruz campaign:
In yesterday's NYT article entitled "Ted Cruz Is Guest of Two Gay Businessmen", the third paragraph began with "During the gathering, according to two attendees, Mr. Cruz said he would have no problem if one of his daughters was gay." Sometime early this morning, that text was changed to "During the gathering, according to two people present, Mr. Cruz said he would not love his daughters any differently if one of them was gay."
The original text achieved wide distribution in the blogosphere, e.g. Red State, and had the effect of suppressing support for Sen. Cruz.
The NYT did not note or acknowledge that they made the change, though they did so for two other corrections to the same article.
Thanks for following this and sending your findings to the Cruz for President campaign.
I am certain the important change in the text (and title) of the article was the doing of the NYT. It is in character for the NYT to intentionally misrepresent what Ted Cruz said on a hot-button issue and then correct it without acknowledging the change after the damage is done in the blogosphere. I think we've come to expect biased, unethical behavior from the NYT on a variety of topics concerning conservative politicians.
[[I am certain the important change in the text (and title) of the article was the doing of the NYT. It is in character for the NYT to intentionally misrepresent what Ted Cruz said on a hot-button issue and then correct it without acknowledging the change after the damage is done in the blogosphere. I think we’ve come to expect biased, unethical behavior from the NYT on a variety of topics concerning conservative politicians. ]]
Agreed- they’ve been caught numerous times doing this crap- as has CBS and other msm- Dan rather even boasting his reporting was ‘fake but accurate’ AFTER the damage had been done- and never admitting to wrong doing- Those people operate in a sleazy manner