New York Times silently edits its "lost all credibility" line

They just added "on this issue" to it. Doesn't seem to be a big deal - they are just making bit more explicit what was already implied. It would be different if they had removed the line completely or changed their stance 180 degree.

What a phenomenal idea for a site.

I'm so happy that newsdiffs exists! I had come up with the same idea (and name) independently after noticing substantial edits to articles on a major NZ news website, but never got around to creating the tool. I'm excited to check out their github repo and see if I can setup tracking for the sites I'm interested in.

One reason for this edit may be that Drudge's link to the story reads "NYT: He has lost all credibility..."<p>This is just below a link reading "Fournier: Obama's Police State..."<p>[Note, I support everyone highlighting this issue, even Drudge. There's been far too little concern with the fear of terrorism being used to justify the erosion of our civil liberties, first by Republicans under Bush, and now by Democrats under Obama.]

I'm sure the editorial board's original intent was to say that Obama had lost all credibility on this particular topic. They were simply clarifying. Losing all credibility isn't really true in other contexts.

Question: Isn't Newsdiffs setting themselves up for a lawsuit by re-printing the article?

They're professional writers, they knew what they wrote and how people would read it.<p>This is just the plausible deniability phase.

If they're going to edit, they really need to add a comma in this sentence:<p>"That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the 9/11 attacks by members of Congress ..."

I'm guessing because of this front page Fox News article: <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/06/new-york-times-editorial-board-says-administration-has-lost-all-credibility/" rel="nofollow">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/06/new-york-times-ed...</a>