Yipes--some stuff I saved from the New York Times later got censored by the paper! Apparently the NYPD's use of snipers on rooftops and plainclothesmen in the crowd during the Feb 15 protest has gone down the Memory Hole--reported on February 15 but deleted the next day. Here's what I highlighted and saved sometime late on the evening of the 15th and posted at 12:59 am on the 16th (scroll down just past the photos to see the original, with sarcastic comments):
The police did not disclose details of their security operation, but did say that 5,000 officers were involved. [It was mounted during one of the most intense national security alerts since the attacks of 9/11. In addition to the thousands of uniformed officers in the streets, it included sharp-shooters on rooftops, mounted officers, radiation detectors and other hazardous-materials detection and decontamination equipment, bomb-sniffing dogs and plainclothes officers mingling in the crowds.] (brackets added)
It appeared that the police had not anticipated such a large crowd. At 1:45 p.m., Chief Joseph J. Esposito, the highest-ranking uniformed officer, ordered the department's highest mobilization, a rare measure that brought 1,000 officers from precincts and other commands around town. The alert was last used in November 2001, when American Airlines Flight 587 crashed in the Rockaways.
The article I quoted those words from, as it currently appears in the Times online edition, no longer contains the bracketed language; the two paragraphs have been combined into one, which is now the last graf of the article. The changes occurred sometime on Feb 16. And here's another version saved on Feb 15 by the website Unknown News:
The police did not disclose details of their security operation, but it was mounted during one of the most intense national security alerts since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and it included thousands of uniformed officers in the streets, sharp-shooters on rooftops and plainclothes officers in the crowds. Interestingly, the verbiage I saved included more detail than what Unknown News quoted--perhaps because I captured it earlier in the day on the Feb 15? Their version makes no mention of mounted officers, "radiation detectors and other hazardous-materials detection and decontamination equipment," or bomb-sniffing dogs. It is incongruous that the second paragraph doesn't appear in their version, though, if in fact mine is the earlier save. March 15, 2003 Update: Both the Memory Hole and Unknown News have added the version I found to their accounts of this. Russ Kick at the Memory Hole found independent verification of what I saved here.
The ephemeral nature of the web allows rewrites of history. We need a new form of
microfiche for the 21st century.
I just added the following to the main post:
March 15, 2003 Update: Both the Memory Hole and Unknown News have added the version I found to their accounts of this. Russ Kick at the Memory Hole found independent verification of what I saved here.
As Kick interprets the data, the Unknown News version came first, mine came next, and the censored version came last. That makes sense, even though it's conjecture since we don't know precisely what times the various versions were saved.
And to some people it's academic anyway--they don't see what the fuss is about. I mentioned this post to a couple of my center-left friends and the reaction was "So? I'm glad the NYPD was up there protecting us."
Well, they'll be happy to know that more protection is on the way, under the name Operation Atlas (a printer-friendly, possibly non-sign-in-required [?] Times link is here). Bottom line: beefed-up police presence in NYC once the gangster-in-chief starts his war. This plan is the public policy equivalent of running the AC at full blast so you can have a fire in the fireplace in midsummer: in other words, if'n ya don't have the war, dumbasses, ya don't need all the cops.
|
Yipes--some stuff I saved from the New York Times later got censored by the paper! Apparently the NYPD's use of snipers on rooftops and plainclothesmen in the crowd during the Feb 15 protest has gone down the Memory Hole--reported on February 15 but deleted the next day. Here's what I highlighted and saved sometime late on the evening of the 15th and posted at 12:59 am on the 16th (scroll down just past the photos to see the original, with sarcastic comments):
The article I quoted those words from, as it currently appears in the Times online edition, no longer contains the bracketed language; the two paragraphs have been combined into one, which is now the last graf of the article. The changes occurred sometime on Feb 16. And here's another version saved on Feb 15 by the website Unknown News:
Interestingly, the verbiage I saved included more detail than what Unknown News quoted--perhaps because I captured it earlier in the day on the Feb 15? Their version makes no mention of mounted officers, "radiation detectors and other hazardous-materials detection and decontamination equipment," or bomb-sniffing dogs. It is incongruous that the second paragraph doesn't appear in their version, though, if in fact mine is the earlier save.
March 15, 2003 Update: Both the Memory Hole and Unknown News have added the version I found to their accounts of this. Russ Kick at the Memory Hole found independent verification of what I saved here.
- tom moody 3-14-2003 7:14 am
The ephemeral nature of the web allows rewrites of history. We need a new form of microfiche for the 21st century.
- mark 3-14-2003 9:40 am
I just added the following to the main post:
March 15, 2003 Update: Both the Memory Hole and Unknown News have added the version I found to their accounts of this. Russ Kick at the Memory Hole found independent verification of what I saved here.
- tom moody 3-15-2003 9:07 pm
As Kick interprets the data, the Unknown News version came first, mine came next, and the censored version came last. That makes sense, even though it's conjecture since we don't know precisely what times the various versions were saved.
And to some people it's academic anyway--they don't see what the fuss is about. I mentioned this post to a couple of my center-left friends and the reaction was "So? I'm glad the NYPD was up there protecting us."
Well, they'll be happy to know that more protection is on the way, under the name Operation Atlas (a printer-friendly, possibly non-sign-in-required [?] Times link is here). Bottom line: beefed-up police presence in NYC once the gangster-in-chief starts his war. This plan is the public policy equivalent of running the AC at full blast so you can have a fire in the fireplace in midsummer: in other words, if'n ya don't have the war, dumbasses, ya don't need all the cops.
- tom moody 3-16-2003 10:13 am