January 9, 2015

What did the Charlie Hebdo terrorists say to Sigolène Vinson, the woman whose life they spared?

Jim Treacher, at The Daily Caller, has a piece titled "New York Times Reports On Muslim Proselytizing During Charlie Hebdo Attack, Then Deletes It." He notes that earlier the Times had quoted Vinson saying she was told "I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself." And now the article only has her saying "Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you... You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right."

I go over to the NYT site and search for the name Sigolène Vinson. It appears only in one article, apparently the same article that Treacher is talking about, "Recounting a Bustling Office at Charlie Hebdo, Then a ‘Vision of Horror.'" What it says now is:
Sigolène Vinson...  disputed a quotation attributed to her and carried on the website of the French radio service RFI stating that the gunman had told her she should convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover herself. Instead, she told The New York Times in an interview, the gunman told her: “Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you.” He spoke in a steady voice, she said, with a calm look in his eyes, saying: “ ‘You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.’ ” Then she said he turned to his partner, who was still shooting, and shouted: “We don’t shoot women! We don’t shoot women! We don’t shoot women!”
So is this a case of NYT censorship of something deemed unfit to print? In the current version, it certainly looks as though what happened was: 1. The NYT relied on the French radio report, 2. The NYT sought its own interview and deleted the disputed quote immediately while rewriting the paragraph, and 3. The NYT published an improved paragraph that included the French radio version, the fact that Vinson denies saying that, and the original reporting of a new attempt by Vinson to say what she was told.

Now, what do you do with that — criticize the NYT for suppressing the Islam-related material? I don't think that's the right focus, at least once the third version of the text has appeared. The proper focus is the mind of Sigolène Vinson, who went through an unfathomably traumatic experience, and who has been telling her story while the murderers she faced remain at large and while the terrorist mission — of unknown dimension and ferocity — rages on, without perceptible end. She must feel like a marked woman. I suspect — and the NYT gives me all the material I need to suspect — that the quote from the French radio was accurate, but that after seeing it made public, she got very scared and desperate to censor the part about religion. The new quote is stripped of references to Islam and to the subordination of women and refurbished into a quote stating the widely shared traditional value against killing women in a military operation.

Treacher's attack on the NYT is extremely harsh, by the way. He assumes he knows the motive of the editor who changed the text:
Because you’re one of America’s moral, ethical, and intellectual betters, and you don’t want it to be true. Your reporter hastily left that inconvenient truth in her story by accident, so you airbrushed it out, without any acknowledgment, to preserve the narrative. You turned it into, “Hey, maybe these guys aren’t so bad after all. They didn’t kill the women, right? Let’s not be too hasty.”

Because that’s your job.

The New York Times is garbage. 
UPDATE: Jim Treacher responds in the comments to this post and has a new post at The Daily Caller acknowledging the new version of the story in the NYT. This is too complicated to respond to in an update to this post, so I'm working on a new post.

ADDED: Here's the new post: "The proper focus is the truth."

94 comments:

Amichel said...

Indeed, the New York Times IS garbage.

tim in vermont said...

If this were the only evidence, and it was exactly as Treacher claimed, it would not make the NYT garbage. A long history, going back to supporting Stalin's worst atrocities up to today make the NYT garbage, this incident notwithstanding.

chickelit said...

Somebody here -- preferably ARM or Cook -- needs to stand up and explain all this kowtowing to Islam that the Left and the NYT are so wont to do.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Treacher makes a fair assumption. If he's wrong in this instance, oh well, fake but accurate.

Anonymous said...

My Local WaPo yesterday was published with stories about the CH attack. It was the biggest news story in the world. They clearly wrote about the proximate cause, e.g. Mohammad images, and printed the offending CH cover.

The NYT bloviated about the 1st amendment, then refused to publish the pictures because it might offend a Muslim reader...

They have demonstrated that they are craven cowards, now and previously, so it's not hard to believe they are again...

Lyle said...

This all started when someone from the Daily Caller noticed the change between story 1 and story 2. So before 3. The change from 1 to 2 looks like a biased decision on its face.

Furthermore, the New York Times editor Baquet is defending not publishing the Hebdo cartoons because it doesn't want to offend the Muslim family in Brooklyn. And this is the New York Times that defended the Piss Christ in Brooklyn.

Let's not go to easy on the New York Times or people like the Guardian who are saying "je suis Charlie" yet refuse to publish comments, commentary, and images that Charlie Hebdo would publish. These people are of weak intellect and character.

damikesc said...

He's right. The same Times won't reprint the cartoons (justl ike in 2012)because they're afraid of Muslims killing them.

Note: They have ZERO concerns with op-eds, etc attacking Christianity or Judaism. So it's not a sensitivity thing.

The Times hasn't EARNED benefit of the doubt.

The Times DOES bend over backwards to apologize for Islamic violence. They've painted the pro-life movement as murderers based on the killing of a doctor, what, well over a decade ago?

But noting that Islam has a bit of a violence problem is a bridge too far?

The NYT censored unpleasant info, just as they ignore anything that paints their preferred narrative in a negative light.

Fuck the New York Times. May their bankruptcy be harsh and may the reporters struggle.

damikesc said...

The Progressive movement is on board with the whole "The killing are wrong BUT.." mentality here.

The Progressives hate free speech. They want to ban what they term to be hate speech.

There is nothing good about Progressives any longer. Conservatives need to realize that Progressives are no better than Islamists when it comes to a society they want to exist.

chickelit said...

By the way, I never got a response from NYT/Obama apologists as to the meaning of POTUS' old remarks (in the context of France):

Obama did say that the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. What did he mean by that? To whom was he speaking when he said that? I certainly hope it wasn't to Americans, because it does fly in the face of our freedoms. I think he knew that, but said it anyway.

When the leader of the free world opines on the future, it's important to note which modal verb he uses - should, could, must, will. etc. He used "must" and not "should." If he had used "will not" then I suppose there would grounds for treason right there. As it is, he said, in so many words, that the future must not belong to the cartoonists.


The question what did he mean by that?

tim maguire said...

I understand things happen in the 24-hour news cycle where being first is vital and you can only delay so much for fact checking. But this could have been avoided if the NYT followed standard netiquette for updates and revisions instead of trying to memory hole inconvenient assertions.

Maybe Treacher is being too harsh; he is not inclined to give the NYT the benefit of the doubt. But, really, has the NYT earned the benefit of the doubt? Treacher's conclusion fits within the larger context of the NYT's behavior regarding "the narrative."

Anonymous said...

I go over to the NYT site and search for the name Sigolène Vinson.

FWIW, the Brit papers have the Quran conversion version. I trust them more than the NYT even if they don't have a 1st Amend...

Oso Negro said...

Never forget - the New York Times helped cover up Stalin's Holodomor in Ukraine in the 1930s and did not retract until the 1980s. Leftists stooges then, leftist stooges now.

rhhardin said...

"The proper focus is the mind of Sigolène Vinson, who went through an unfathomably traumatic experience, and who has been telling her story while the murderers she faced remain at large and while the terrorist mission — of unknown dimension and ferocity — rages on, without perceptible end. She must feel like a marked woman."

That's a soap opera take. Women are so fragile. With all their feelings raging it's amazing you can even get words ouf of them.

Guys sort of take it as expected.

PB said...

What happened was the NYTimes published the article with the direct quote then the political correctness machine took over and directed that it be revised so as not to offend the followers of "The Prophet Mohammed". Not that they would ever refer to Jesus as "The Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God".

In order to believe that the NYTimes was merely correct a mistake is to overlook the massive history of political correctness.

Bryan C said...

"He assumes he knows the motive of the editor who changed the text"

And you assume you know the mind of Sigolène Vinson. You determine that, for her, the motive for self-censorship is fear of retribution.
Treacher determines that, for the editor, the motive for self-censorship is...fear of retribution.

I think you're both right. Vinson's fear is understandable. The NYT's fear is disgraceful.

amielalune said...

Whatever the "truth" behind this (and we'll certainly never know), Treacher is definitely correct -- the NYT is garbage. And you, Ann, are lying to and deceiving yourself in order to cling to the "great" newspaper of your youth.

dreams said...

"Indeed, the New York Times IS garbage."

Agreed. It requires a lot of mental gymnastics to not believe your lying eyes.

JSD said...

I’m glad that at the level of outrage in the Hebdo massacre, but this is not an isolated incident. Russian Oligarchs and Mexican cartels kill journalists with impunity all the time. There is no free press in those countries and there is no outrage. Ironic in that NY Times major shareholder is Mexican Oligarch Carlos Slim.

Jim Treacher said...

The proper focus is the truth.

rhhardin said...

Terrorism is entertainment.

Everybody reads and takes a position.

The right response is don't report, don't listen.

Then the terrorism stops. It depends on the entertainment value.

Henry said...

I have to say that as soon as I saw Instapundit's link to Treacher's rant I knew it was an idiot hit job.

News outlets consistently update and revise their breaking news stories. It's an old anti-media trick to spot a revision and shriek about bad intentions.

Institutional biases are rife in the MSM, but breaking news is rarely where they show up. (The real issue is not event coverage, but what they choose to cover when events don't drive.)

This constant conservative inclination to be vexed by randomness is not just stupid; it's boring.

Lyle said...

So Henry... why is the New York Times saying it is "je suis Charlie", but not publishing Hebdo's cartoons because it doesn't want to offend some Muslim family in Brooklyn?

dreams said...

The despicable liberal Bill Baher is right when he says the liberal US is becoming a pussy nation.

chickelit said...

Henry said...

News outlets consistently update and revise their breaking news stories. It's an old anti-media trick to spot a revision and shriek about bad intentions.

I seem to recall Althouse herself catching the NYT in some questionable revision, unrelated to the present story.

Was that a stupid & boring anti-media trick?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Henry said...
I have to say that as soon as I saw Instapundit's link to Treacher's rant I knew it was an idiot hit job.


But panicky bloggers need something to panic the public with so it's all grist for the mill.


Matt Sablan said...

The New York Times is pretty cowardly and craven, but if the woman says she was misquoted, you pretty much have to change the quote as a journalist.

Henry said...

Lyle wrote: So Henry... why is the New York Times saying it is "je suis Charlie", but not publishing Hebdo's cartoons because it doesn't want to offend some Muslim family in Brooklyn?

That sounds like a fair complaint to me. Quisling editors. But that's not breaking news.

Fernandinande said...

The New York Times is garbage.

Damning with faint praise.

“The average newspaper, especially of the better sort, has the intelligence of a hillbilly evangelist, the courage of a rat, the fairness of a prohibitionist boob-jumper, the information of a high school janitor, the taste of a designer of celluloid valentines, and the honor of a police-station lawyer.” ― H.L. Mencken

The NYT is worse than garbage.

Big Mike said...

He's certainly right about the Times, isn't he?

I can see where Treacher, a satirist himself, would be even more strongly affected than the rest of us. Frankly, I think given the entire body of work of the Times, and the fact that they decline to publish the offending cartoons for fear of offending some unknown reader, Treacher's interpretation is not at all fanciful.

Meanwhile, Althouse, I don't agree with your far-fetched interpretation one little bit.

garage mahal said...

If he's wrong in this instance, oh well, fake but accurate.

Conservative journalism. If it isn't true it very well could be!

tim maguire said...

garage mahal said...
If he's wrong in this instance, oh well, fake but accurate.

Conservative journalism. If it isn't true it very well could be!


I'll ignore the deliberate misreading of the comment (and since when are blog comments journalism?) and focus on something else--is this you taking a stand against the "fake but accurate" attitude?

Can we quote you on it in your future comments?

JK Brown said...

Perhaps she fears reprisal, but not from the men who did the massacre as they are being run to ground. But it is not unwarranted for her to fear every Muslim who approaches her. Most will pass her by but there is no way to tell if one is aligned with the cult of the murders.

Or she may have realized or had a friend draw her attention to the fact that the quote undermines the Leftist/feminist party line and she'd likely not be invited to anymore dinner parties and lose a lot of her social circle.

David said...

I agree with the analysis but NYT could have made it more clear by explicitly noting the changed language, either in the text itself or a concurrent note.

Ms. Vinson has her own problems, having had to choose between two very bad options. Eventually she will face criticism and her own guilt.

I don't see why all papers must now publish what Charlie Hebdo published. I don't need to see that to understand the story. There is a monster loose. Should everyone be judged by whether they put monster bait on their front porch?

Matt Sablan said...

David: If people simply did not publish it, I'd be fine with it. But one place published an image from the magazine/weekly and blurred out part of the offensive picture, while leaving an unblurred part of the picture that was a racist caricature of a Jewish person. So, in some cases, I think that the hypocrisy of the media needs to be pointed out.

The New York Times, for example, has often published offensive images [though I don't think that there have ever been any sexually explicit pictures] previously. They could easily have chosen some of the less offensive ones, but instead, chose to cop out about it.

If they had been consistent for the last ten years or so in trying to not offend people, instead of it being their goal to offend only certain people, they'd be getting a lot more good will on this decision as opposed to the more logical, "They're just cowards who'll only punch down," line of thought that seems popular.

CWJ said...

I tend to side with Henry on this, but with a very large caveat.

Yes, breaking stories are constantly revised. However, I believe revisions certainly come more quickly and less grudgingly when the revisions coincide with the editors' biases. Indeed, one wonders as to the differential effort newspapers expend questioning and confirming the initial facts of a story depending upon how well those "facts" coincide with said biases.

Ann Althouse said...

Jim Treacher said... "The proper focus is the truth."

I agree. And the truth is that there is a third version, described in my post that sheds light on what happened.

You haven't updated your post to talk about it, so how are you following the proper focus?

paminwi said...

JK Brown: that is exactly what I thought. Her friends have said to her "you can't criticize Islam". She is afraid of being ostracized from "her group" so she needed to take back her comments.

Remember, this is where she worked so we know her mindset BEFORE this horrible incident and when she was afraid and distraught she said exactly what she heard and then, VOILA!, I can't say that!

Ann Althouse said...

"FWIW, the Brit papers have the Quran conversion version. I trust them more than the NYT even if they don't have a 1st Amend..."

Did you even read my post?!

The NYT has better detail about that version, which is also included. They did their own interview. It's Vinson, apparently, who changed her story, and I assume that is out of fear.

Big Mike said...

It's Vinson, apparently, who changed her story

@Althouse, only if you believe the Times was practicing journalism in the traditional sense of seeking the truth, not in the modern media sense of pushing propaganda.

dbp said...

I don't see why either Sigolène Vinson or the NYT have a rational reason to fear consequences from the original quote.

I would think the killers would want to be known for saying,

""I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself.""

Ann Althouse said...

JK Brown said..."Perhaps she fears reprisal, but not from the men who did the massacre as they are being run to ground. But it is not unwarranted for her to fear every Muslim who approaches her. Most will pass her by but there is no way to tell if one is aligned with the cult of the murders."

There's also no way to tell whether or a stranger who approaches you is Muslim — not in most cases. It sounds like you are trying to justify anti-Muslim policies and actions. You need to climb back down off that ledge.

The problem is that there is a military invasion of a country that needs to defend itself, and the enemy is hiding among the peaceful citizenry. That is what should properly be feared, whether one has gone through a terrible trauma or not.

Explaining the attack as the work of madman murderers is bad, but so is undifferentiated hostility toward Muslims.

Religious war has plagued human civilization throughout history. It's not some weird marginal behavior of madmen and it's not a specifically Muslim problem. This is the story of humanity, and you are part of it.

And freedom of speech is not something that human beings throughout history have understood and internalized very well. We struggle to embrace it even in the United States, despite our venerable, judicially enforceable constitutional text.

The tradition of penalizing blasphemy is much more entrenched in human culture, including ours. It's just convenient to pretend not to notice what blasphemy is getting punished in your own culture.

CWJ said...

David wrote -

"I don't see why all papers must now publish what Charlie Hebdo published. I don't need to see that to understand the story. There is a monster loose. Should everyone be judged by whether they put monster bait on their front porch?"

I don't necessarily disagree with this. But I agree with Lyle's comment upthread more. Your comment would carry more weight had the papers not also played the "je suis Charlie" card. One or the other. Pick! Having it both ways only serves to put their hypocrisy into sharp relief.

Ann Althouse said...

"@Althouse, only if you believe the Times was practicing journalism in the traditional sense of seeking the truth, not in the modern media sense of pushing propaganda."

I have been monitoring and criticizing the NYT for 11 years on this blog. It's one of the main things I do here. I examine the evidence -- on a daily basis. And that's what I'm doing here. So don't accuse me of being muddled in some naive belief in this case. Rather it is Treacher and you who are mired in your preconceptions and not analyzing this competently and fairly. If you are against propaganda, don't write propaganda.

Ann Althouse said...

"I don't see why either Sigolène Vinson or the NYT have a rational reason to fear consequences from the original quote. I would think the killers would want to be known for saying, "I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself."""

1. The NYT seems to be trying to get the quote right and the dispute about it made clear, so there's no basis for assuming the NYT is acting out of fear.

2. Vinson was severely traumatized, so there's no basis for expecting her to have rational thoughts.

3. Vinson might want to have a lower profile vis a vis terrorists, but she might also be under pressure from people around her and worried about seeming anti-Muslim.

dbp said...

Given her harrowing experience, it is certainly possible that Mlle Vinson has not had a chance to think clearly about her assailant's motives.

So she might have changed her story out of misplaced fear.

Henry said...

CWJ wrote: Having it both ways only serves to put their hypocrisy into sharp relief.

True. But cowardly papers can still do good reporting.

That is really the essence here. The New York Times advanced the story with more in-depth reporting. Like them or loathe them, there are very few news media organizations in the world that have the resources to do this.

Even in the stories that appear biased (and here I have to agree with your 9:44), in-depth reporting almost always reveals more information than pure bias can finesse.

Ann Althouse said...

4. The new quote is "But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right." Perhaps she is paraphrasing and was paraphrasing before and she doesn't know what they said but only how she remembers hearing it. What if they really said "But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right." And she thought about it and what it seemed to mean is that they are telling her she needs to convert to Islam, read the Quran, and cover yourself. Or maybe they said something more like convert to Islam, read the Quran, cover yourself, and now when she tries to remember it, it seems more like they were saying think about what you are doing and do what is right.

Ann Althouse said...

Have you ever tried to quote something verbatim, even when you've just heard it and are not under stress. It's hard!

I often try to reproduce quotes as I write this blog, and I have to guess what exactly was said. Or I'm trying to transcribe something from audio, where I can go back, and it takes much rewinding and repetition to get a verbatim quote.

"Ear-witnessing" is just not that good. Memory is imperfect. We have thoughts when we hear something and our interpretation influences what we thought we heard. Forced to make the quote verbatim, we can and should have a lot of doubt.

It comes up in discussions all the time, even with someone who is right there, where you'll claim someone said something and they'll say that's not what I said, that's what you think you heard. That happens especially when you are afraid they are saying something that you don't like or when you're hoping they are saying something that you do like. Your own thoughts get in there and confuse everything.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, ouch. Fair critique, but I nonetheless think you generally tend to bend too far backwards to give the Times the benefit of doubt. I apply Occam's razor to the Times and find that the easiest way to explain them is to assume that they flat don't care about what's true and what's false. Obviously you and I disagree. Yes, your four points above are plausible.

But so is my perspective, and IMHO it's the maximum likelihood interpretation.

Anonymous said...

Ann Althouse said...
"FWIW, the Brit papers have the Quran conversion version. I trust them more than the NYT even if they don't have a 1st Amend..."

Did you even read my post?!


Yes Hostess. I think I'm one of your solid readers for the last at least 7 years (as far back as a search of my posts goes). I try to be polite to everybody here and contribute to the discussion.

I see no reason why you complain about my observation, but if you don't value my thoughts, I can stop contributing...

Jim Treacher said...

"You haven't updated your post to talk about it, so how are you following the proper focus?"

I don't take orders from you. But as it so happens, I've just added another post about the NYT's "correction."

Ann Althouse said...

I said: "You haven't updated your post to talk about it, so how are you following the proper focus?"

Jim Treacher said: "I don't take orders from you. But as it so happens, I've just added another post about the NYT's "correction.""

If you are dedicated to the truth, why characterize my question as an "order"? I'm not ordering you around, just seeking the truth -- according to the "proper focus" -- and asking good questions. Why do you portray me as doing something other than that? Do you regard a question as an "order" to answer?

Jim Treacher said...

If you don't want to sound like you're ordering people around, stop ordering people around. I don't work for you.

phantommut said...

Somebody here -- preferably ARM or Cook -- needs to stand up and explain all this kowtowing to Islam that the Left and the NYT are so wont to do.

I'll give it a go:

These young men are not responsible for their actions. They are born of noble savages, their laudable traditions have been suppressed and perverted by constant involuntary exposure to the dominant Western paradigm.

Ann Althouse said...

"If you don't want to sound like you're ordering people around, stop ordering people around. I don't work for you."

Well, as I said, I just ask what I think are good questions.

But it's interesting that you refer to working for somebody who's not me. You criticize the NYT and you work for The Daily Caller. What should we infer about the orders you're getting from them? You seem awfully concerned about getting "orders"....

dreams said...

"If you don't want to sound like you're ordering people around, stop ordering people around. I don't work for you."

That is the parent part of Althouse's personality, not the adult or child. "I'm OK, You OK." It seems to me.

Henry said...

"I don't work for you," was Tom's labored explanation.

furious_a said...

Why didn't NYT publish for the record that they were revising the quote based on follow-up reporting? Instead of the memory-hole edit?

Anonymous said...

I see this is getting stuck in the weeds, so to speak, as Althouse and Treacher argue about giving orders.

However, going back to the original subject, Treacher has a good point.

RFI claims to be quoting Vinson. The NYT is basically calling RFI liars.

Can they both be right? Or are we looking at propaganda from the NYT?

My money is on RFI, but only because I don't know them as well as the NYT.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Lecturing schoolmarm Althouse rears her post menopauseal head. That tone comes out any time her nonsense gets some pushback.

We aren't students in your class that you can threaten, you old bat.

Jim Treacher said...

That's right, Ann. It's about everybody but you.

Read my follow-up, or don't. Either way, have a terrific day.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Well, as I said, I just ask what I think are good questions.

Your questions address the mind-set of the woman in question. Treacher's questions address the mind-set of the New York Times.

I know nothing at all of the woman, but the New York Times has an undeniable reputation of shading or sacrificing the truth for its own political causes.

buster said...

Has anyone ever made a criticism of Althouse that doesn't pass her off?

David said...

CWJ said...
Your comment would carry more weight had the papers not also played the "je suis Charlie" card.


That is true. I am not asserting that the Times (or anyone else) is unaffected by the risk involved in publishing stuff that riles radical muslims. There's little doubt that most publications are affected by this, brave words aside. Terrorism does have an impact, though in the longer run it's often not the impact that the terrorists are looking for. But I agree with Althouse that this is not a very good example of a publication caving.

Next Adventure said...

For what it's worth, RFI still has their quote from her with no modification. It is basically version number 1 that ran in the NYTimes: "12:10 : RFI a pu joindre l’une des journalistes de Charlie Hebdo, Sigolène Vinson qui était dans la rédaction au moment des faits. Elle a été braquée par l’un des deux hommes qui lui a dit : « Je ne te tue pas car tu es une femme et on ne tue pas les femmes, mais tu dois lire le coran et te voiler ». Ensuite, il est parti en criant « Allahou Akbar, Allahou Akbar »." http://www.rfi.fr/france/2min/20150107-france-fusillade-siege-charlie-hebdo-paris-armes-satirique-caricatures/

buster said...

"Puss" not "pass".

Henry said...

furious_a wrote: Why didn't NYT publish for the record that they were revising the quote based on follow-up reporting? Instead of the memory-hole edit?

Liz Alderman's original reporting references French News Media, as captured here:

Instead, she told French news media, the man said, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled.

The revised story updates this account with additional information from Ms. Vinson herself:

She disputed a quotation attributed to her and carried on the website of the French radio service RFI stating that the gunman had told her she should convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover herself. Instead, she told The New York Times in an interview, the gunman told her: “Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you.” He spoke in a steady voice, she said, with a calm look in his eyes, saying: “ ‘You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.’ ” Then she said he turned to his partner, who was still shooting, and shouted: “We don’t shoot women! We don’t shoot women! We don’t shoot women!”

Nothing is being hidden here. In the revision, Alderman paraphrases the original quote and adds what Ms. Vinson asserts is the correct quote.

And to repeat, all news services treat all breaking news stories like this. They post an original story and update it throughout the day.

buster said...

"Piss" not "pass".

damikesc said...

And to repeat, all news services treat all breaking news stories like this. They post an original story and update it throughout the day.

...without mentioning updates?

Henry said...

...without mentioning updates?

Yes. You should read how annoyed ESPN's "Top Commenters" get about contract stories that lead with about one sentence in the morning and end up with multiple paragraphs by nightfall.

Laslo Spatula said...

""But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.""

I think they were just paraphrasing the Charles Manson song "Look at Your Game, Girl".

Helter Skelter in 2015, people.

I am Laslo.

Anonymous said...

Henry said...Nothing is being hidden here. In the revision, Alderman paraphrases the original quote and adds what Ms. Vinson asserts is the correct quote.

In the second revision, nothing is being hidden.

The Treacher post was about the delta between the base version with "quran" and the first revision w/o "quran" but also without the RFI reference and denial of the quote...

One can still argue about who is afraid, the woman or the NYT and why the quote changed...

B said...

I criticize the NYT for altering articles without acknowledging and justifying the changes. Thankfully the internet never forgets.

cubanbob said...

"There's also no way to tell whether or a stranger who approaches you is Muslim — not in most cases. It sounds like you are trying to justify anti-Muslim policies and actions. You need to climb back down off that ledge.

The problem is that there is a military invasion of a country that needs to defend itself, and the enemy is hiding among the peaceful citizenry. That is what should properly be feared, whether one has gone through a terrible trauma or not. "

@althouse these two positions contradict each other. Either we have a war in which case we don't allow enemy immigration and the propagation of enemy ideology or we are not at war.

Anonymous said...

cubanbob said...

Fixed

Either we have a war in which case we don't allow enemy colonization and the propagation of enemy ideology or we are not at war.

Lyle said...

Boko Haram Islamists killed 2,000 civilians this past week.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/01/09/boko-haram-sacks-baga/

Jesus fucking Christ Islamists.

Anonymous said...

Lyle Said...

Any of the MSM asked Michelle O or Jennifer P about the power of twitter outrage lately?

#BringBackOurGirls?

Lyle said...

Drill Sgt,

It would be great if we had strong press that would ask such questions, but we don't.

Anonymous said...

"There's also no way to tell whether or a stranger who approaches you is Muslim — not in most cases. "

remembering one of the rules of gun fights or urban policing:

"Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet"

Achilles said...

Henry said...
...without mentioning updates?

"Yes. You should read how annoyed ESPN's "Top Commenters" get about contract stories that lead with about one sentence in the morning and end up with multiple paragraphs by nightfall."

That is only because journalism schools aren't quite as low as education schools in terms of academic rigor, but they are close. Journalists have spent the last half century rewriting history without attribution because they have an agenda. This is just one example where the correction just happens to go the way they want it to go.

The corrections ALWAYS take the story the way they want it to go. That is the problem.

Anonymous said...

AA: Religious war has plagued human civilization throughout history. It's not some weird marginal behavior of madmen and it's not a specifically Muslim problem. This is the story of humanity, and you are part of it.

Yes, we're part of history. "History", however, is not some sempiternal state of being where all events, including religious wars, are occurring simultaneously and undifferentiably. However much religious wars are a product of common and enduring human tendencies, and however much a deep acquaintance with the history of religious wars in general might improve our understanding, they are still specific, temporally-limited events whose resolution requires understanding their specific features. And the current religious war being waged in France is, as a matter of fact, specifically Muslim.

The tradition of penalizing blasphemy is much more entrenched in human culture, including ours. It's just convenient to pretend not to notice what blasphemy is getting punished in your own culture.

And what punishment of blasphemy in our society is JK Brown conveniently pretending not to notice?

Anonymous said...

The NYTimes voices the opinion of the elite, of which Althouse aspires to, that are assured that Western libertinism will seduce the Jihadists before too many us are killed.

In post-truth America that is as good an explanation as needed.

In another comment I wrote:

"The obtuse shall inherit some dirt," which applies here as well.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

"If he's wrong in this instance, oh well, fake but accurate.

Conservative journalism. If it isn't true it very well could be!"

It's like watching a liberal trying to eat his own face.

Gahrie said...

Has anyone ever made a criticism of Althouse that doesn't pass her off?

Well I bust her (metaphorical) balls pretty regularly about her emotionalism, and poor sportsmanship on a pretty regular basis, and she rarely lashes back.

Jason said...

Althouse: Tough conservative crust, creamy hippie-chick center. "YOU SHOULD BE EATING YOUR VEGETABLES, YOUNG MAN!!!"

Achilles said...

Ann Althouse said...

"If you are dedicated to the truth, why characterize my question as an "order"? I'm not ordering you around, just seeking the truth -- according to the "proper focus" -- and asking good questions."

This is garbage. The Muslim attackers are yelling the truth for everyone to hear and the NYT is trying to muffle them to keep their narrative alive. If you want the truth you can read about Boko Haram kidnapping girls and turning them into sex slaves or killing and burning down entire villages. The terrorists in Paris were screaming why they killed those journalists. The NYT tried to put out information that they weren't targeting women. Complete and total garbage.

If you are giving these people any benefit of the doubt you are trudging methodically over into the cowardly scum column.

Unknown said...

"Explaining the attack as the work of madman murderers is bad, but so is undifferentiated hostility toward Muslims"

Unfortunately, they don't give us a choice. Did you ever hear of TAQIYYA?

Swifty Quick said...

Fact is, over the last generation or two the NYT squandered away its reputation as The Newspaper of Record by behaving as a hack partisan rag, and have lost any right to the benefit of the doubt.

DanTheMan said...

I'm inclined to believe her first statement, if it was captured accurately.
Isn't a spontaneoous, 'immediately after the fact' nature of such comments the basis of the "outcry witness" exception to barring hearsay?

JD said...

I understand the respect for the First Amendment on this blog, but allowing such despicable comments from commenters like this PresidentMomJeans person really serves no purpose. Not policing her own blog of such useless and ugly commentary does her no service. I don't understand why his comments are allowed to stand and not immediatly deleted.

Anonymous said...

LindaH: These comments detract from the general comments, serve no purpose and reflect badly on the blog owner. Why would someone allow such dirt in their own house?

I have no difficulty scrolling right past idiots like "MomJeans". It's automatic, really. Why not add something interesting to the conversation at the party instead of just dissing the hostess's housekeeping?

Anonymous said...

I understand the respect for the First Amendment on this blog, but allowing such despicable comments from commenters like this PresidentMomJeans person really serves no purpose. Not policing her own blog of such useless and ugly commentary does her no service. I don't understand why his comments are allowed to stand and not immediatly deleted.

She has been asked, and has answered this, many times since I have been reading her blog.

She has a very liberal policy about what she allows in the comments section. As far as I know, she has only ever banned one person.

damikesc said...

I understand the respect for the First Amendment on this blog, but allowing such despicable comments from commenters like this PresidentMomJeans person really serves no purpose. Not policing her own blog of such useless and ugly commentary does her no service. I don't understand why his comments are allowed to stand and not immediatly deleted.

Is cutting and pasting this in multiple topics really necessary?

Be said...

In the search, one was was talking about The Girl Doing the Right Thing. Why the heck did this come to mind tonight?

http://youtu.be/-xLfxNuW-xo