Only days earlier, Cornyn said in a radio interview that it was “terrible” for conservatives to be attacking Sotomayor as a “racist.” But today, the senator did not reiterate those sentiments and pledged that he and other Republican lawmakers would probe deeply into Sotomayor’s past comments and rulings to see if her heritage colors her ability to make fair decisions.
As I proved in the Hot Air post, Cornyn said no such thing. As I said: “Rather than focusing on Sotomayor’s ethnicity, Cornyn focused on Sotomayor’s statements and rulings.” As for the accusation that the GOP would question her “heritage” — well, the L.A. Times simply made that part up.
Guess what? Now, if you click on the link for that article, it turns out that the offending quote is now gone — sent down the memory hole. The passage has now been brought in line with what I said would be accurate:
Days earlier, Cornyn said in a radio interview that it was “terrible” for conservatives to be attacking Sotomayor as a racist. He did not reiterate those sentiments Sunday and pledged that he and other Republican lawmakers would investigate Sotomayor’s past comments and rulings to judge her fairness.
I applaud the fact that they finally got it right — but not the fact that they tried to sweep their earlier false quote under the rug.
In order to prove that the earlier quote was actually published, I now have to provide you with a screenshot. Look at the bottom of the screenshot for the offending quote:
I also saved a copy of the text of the entire article as originally published, here. I normally don’t reproduce articles in their entirety — but given that they’re trying to disappear their embarrassing quote, I think it’s necessary to do so, to prove that I didn’t make up the quote, and to allow you to see it in its original context.
The paper does this on a disturbingly routine basis: publishing articles and then editing them and replacing the entire article at the same Web address. This practice is totally at odds with standard practice of blogs, which is to acknowledge when content at the same Web address has been changed. The blog practice is better; when the content of a link might change without notice at any time, that renders the content less reliable.
When will the L.A. Times figure this out??
UPDATE: Via Highgamma in the comments, here is a link to the original version of the story at boston.com.