All the news that fits
December 23, 2006 8:51 AM Subscribe
Yesterday, 22 December 2006, the New York Times ran an op-ed which was 'redacted', that's to say parts of it were blacked out by the CIA's Publication Review Board. This was after the "White House intervened in the normal prepublication review process and demanded substantial deletions."
The NYT went ahead with the redacted version, but it includes citations from publicly available sources that fill in most all of the blanks demanded by the White House. The result: What We Wanted to Tell You About Iran (redacted) Season's greetings!
This post was deleted for the following reason: posted previously
Hmmmmm. This might have to be redacted. See below.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 8:55 AM on December 23, 2006
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 8:55 AM on December 23, 2006
Third time is charm, eh?
posted by AwkwardPause at 8:56 AM on December 23, 2006
posted by AwkwardPause at 8:56 AM on December 23, 2006
You can make a post in Meta about "the things we wanted to tell you about The Things We Wanted To Tell You."
posted by freebird at 8:57 AM on December 23, 2006
posted by freebird at 8:57 AM on December 23, 2006
<img src="The Hasselhoff Redaction Recursion.gif" class="leftimg">
You'll just have to imagine it.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:09 AM on December 23, 2006
You'll just have to imagine it.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:09 AM on December 23, 2006
Triple.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 9:14 AM on December 23, 2006
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 9:14 AM on December 23, 2006
I shall go back to lurking and try to read more attentively. Whoops! My bad.
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:15 AM on December 23, 2006
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:15 AM on December 23, 2006
From the second thread:
f you highlight the text on the NYT page with the redacted article, you see that underneath the blacked-out lines it appears that each individual letter was replaced with an X. Spaces are intact. No such luck finding the original text underneath the redaction, but I was surprised to see the word divisions left in, rather than one long...
--emelenjr
[responding to my point about it being sort of a gimmick]
It's really a brilliant maneuver -- even more so by the xxx approach, which makes it a sort of cryptogram.
---dhartung
I thought of that, but actually it appears as though the number of Xs is random. In one place you see two single "X"s before the word "Teheran" what could they be?
posted by delmoi at 9:17 AM on December 23, 2006
f you highlight the text on the NYT page with the redacted article, you see that underneath the blacked-out lines it appears that each individual letter was replaced with an X. Spaces are intact. No such luck finding the original text underneath the redaction, but I was surprised to see the word divisions left in, rather than one long...
--emelenjr
[responding to my point about it being sort of a gimmick]
It's really a brilliant maneuver -- even more so by the xxx approach, which makes it a sort of cryptogram.
---dhartung
I thought of that, but actually it appears as though the number of Xs is random. In one place you see two single "X"s before the word "Teheran" what could they be?
posted by delmoi at 9:17 AM on December 23, 2006
In my brief awareness of the wor4ld of blacking out and top secret stuff etc I have often been amused by what gets through and what does not. In sum: a lot reflects total incompetence or plain stupidity.
posted by Postroad at 9:20 AM on December 23, 2006
posted by Postroad at 9:20 AM on December 23, 2006
There's a government 'pre-publication review board'? Creepy.
posted by matty at 9:25 AM on December 23, 2006
posted by matty at 9:25 AM on December 23, 2006
« Older How I got critically bit in my socially... | "The greatest art form of the twentieth century" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by dobbs at 8:55 AM on December 23, 2006