According to a new report from the Washington Examiner by Jerry Dunleavy “The New York Times quietly deleted its assertion that an October article from the New York Post about the business dealings of Joe Biden’s son Hunter was “unsubstantiated.” In the reworked report, the outlet reported on a Federal Election Commission decision that dismissed a Republican complaint arguing Twitter violated election laws by blocking users from sharing the story during the heat of the 2020 election.”
Per the report:
When the New York Times posted the report early Monday afternoon, it read: “The Federal Election Commission has dismissed Republican accusations that Twitter violated election laws in October by blocking people from posting links to an unsubstantiated New York Post article about Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s son Hunter Biden.”
A tweet from the outlet’s main account, which started trending on Twitter, similarly called the New York Post article an “unsubstantiated article.” New York Times national political reporter Shane Goldmacher, who wrote the initial draft, similarly called it “unsubstantiated.”
Neither tweet was deleted as of Monday evening, but the New York Times article was changed without any editor’s note, which happens in the media business. However, this article stands out, as the rewrite was substantial and the original version drew intense scrutiny and backlash with its word choice.
The new version, published hours later with technology reporter Kate Conger added to the byline, removed the “unsubstantiated” claim and other significant details from the story. If not for screenshots taken earlier, the full version of the original report may have been difficult to track down as the original URL now redirects to a new one.
“Twitter decided briefly last fall to block users from posting links to an article about Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s son Hunter,” the revised report says.
Read more here.