[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Interesting True Archival Urban Legend



Here is the truth regarding an interesting archival urban legend

From: "Stephen C. Miller" <scmiller@nytimes.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:22:44 -0500
To: IRE-L@po.missouri.edu
Cc: borders@mail2.nytimes.com
Subject: Re: True or False:  NYT Article Removed from Website and Nexis?

I'm posting an official reply to this query on behalf of the Times.

>Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:51:55 -0500
>To: "David Schankula" <dschanku@mail.slc.edu>
>From: Bill Borders <borders@nytimes.com>
>Subject: article on bin Laden tape.
>
>
>Dear Mr. Schankula:
>
>I apologize for not answering your question earlier about who I am. Should
>have. I am a senior editor of The New York Times, and one thing I do
>around here is look into these kinds of questions. I am sorry it has taken
>me several days to get you a reply, but as I told you earlier, I really
>had no explanation, and couldn't even guess what it could be. But now I know.
>
>The John Burns article you read was indeed prepared in the first week of
>last September. It was scheduled to be published in the paper of Sunday,
>Sept. 9. On the afternoon of Saturday the 8th, it was posted on the Web
>site by editors who expected it to be in the paper printed later that day.
>
>At the last minute, the article was held out of the paper, as sometimes
>happens with the Sunday paper, because space was tighter than had been
>expected, and this account of this tape by a relative unknown named bin
>Laden did not seem very pressing. In the normal course of things, it would
>have presumably been printed in the paper in the following few days, or
>maybe the following Sunday. Because it had not been published in the
>newspaper, it was taken off the Web site, which is completely routine.
>(This was still, remember, before the attack on the World Trade Center,
>and before bin Laden's name was widely known.)
>
>Then came Sept. 11, giving bin Laden's tape a new and different
>significance. John Burns rewrote and lengthened the article in light of
>the attack on the World Trade Center. That article was published
>immediately, in the paper of Sept. 12, and posted on the Web site.
>
>So that's that, no conspiracy, no governmental involvement. In hindsight,
>of course, we wish the article HAD been printed in the newspaper two days
>before the attack, which certainly would have made The New York Times seem
>quite smart.
>
>Thanks for your interest. If there is anything more that I can tell you
>about all this, please don't hesitate to get back to me.
>
>Best regards, Bill Borders
>
>
>
>At 09:25 PM 2/19/02 -0500, you wrote:
>>Dear Mr. Borders,
>>
>>A Yahoo! search for "On Videotape, Bin Laden Charts a
>>Violent Future" produces, among other things, the following link:
>>
>><http://srd.yahoo.com/goo/%22On+Videotape%2c+Bin+Laden+Charts+a+Violent+Future
%22/12/T=1014170243/F=40b33bba9b0105ca68abdc5a9868bcd2/*http://www.nytimes.c
om/2001/09/09/international/asia/09OSAM.html?todaysheadlines>http://www.nyti
mes.com/2001/09/09/international/asia/09OSAM.html?todaysheadlines
>>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/09/international/asia/09OSAM.html?todaysheadlin
es
>>
>>
>>This takes you to the September 12 article.
>>
>>The search also produces this link:
>>
>><http://www.intellnet.org/news/2001/09/09/6500-1.html>http://www.intellnet.org
/news/2001/09/09/6500-1.html
>>
>>which produces the article in the nytimes.com layout. i'll send it along
>>as its own email momentarily.
>>
>>
>>Now, I did go today to the library to look at the microfilm from
>>September 9th. Indeed, the article is not there. Were I a cospiracy
>>theorist, my immediate thought would be that the Times took it out when
>>setting the microfilm. I am not, however, and thus, I am somewhat
>>baffled. If you have any explanations for this, I'd love to hear them. It
>>could be an elaborate hoax, but I doubt that. Because there is an actual
>>nytimes.com web address for the specific article in question, I am led to
>>believe that once upon a time, the specific article existed at that
>>address. Because that address, when entered, takes one directly to a
>>similar article from three days later, automatically, I am led to believe
>>that someone at the Times did this intentionally--and without making any
>>note of it to the reader. They are, indeed, different articles. One talks
>>of the neglect the video has recieived, the other talks, repeatedly, of
>>the helplessness of america. In fact, it beats us over the head with it.
>>It's an interesting change. Now, if the article from September 9th was
>>never printed then, of course, it would make sense that Lexis-Nexis would
>>not have it on file. However, would that also explain why nytimes.com
>>does not have it in its own archives? And further, why was the original
>>article scratched--and its address linked directly to a different one?
>>Why would the Times take off its own site an article which might well be
>>insightful in the examination of possible intelligence failures pre-9/11?
>>
>>
>>Thank you again, and, again, I look forward to hearing back from you.
>>
>>David Schankula
>>
>>
>>ps: Also, what position do you hold at the Times? I sent my letter to the
>>"editor" and also to Maureen Dowd. For who are you directly working, if
>>you don't mind my asking?
>>

At 09:37 AM 02/23/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Does anyone from the New York Times or Lexis/Nexis have any further
>background on whether this is true?
>
>Michael Ravnitzky, mikerav@mindspring.com
>
>Subject: Fwd: NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE "SCRUBBED" OFF WEBSITE AND NEXIS
>
>[1] NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE "SCRUBBED" OFF WEBSITE AND NEXIS.
>      Loss of access to online materials is not just a problem of
>      government information.   A New York Times article published on
>      Sept 9, 2001 has been withdrawn from the Times web site and
>      Lexis/Nexis.  The piece about Osama Bin Laden by reporter John
>      Burns discusses  a 2-hour videotape by Bin Laden that intelligence
>      agencies first saw in June 2001.  The Times replaced the article
>      with a different article by Burns on September 12.  The original
>      article and a story about its removal are available here:
>
>           http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5942


Stephen C. Miller
Assistant to the Technology Editor
The New York Times
229 W. 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
212 556-7564
scmiller@nytimes.com
"Why not go out on a limb, that's where the fruit is."
    Mark Twain

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>