On Saturday, in a post titled "Political Correctness Kills in Paris, Terrifies Media," Jeffrey Lord at NewsBusters cited how the New York Times, in covering the Charlie Hebdo massacre, deliberately changed a story subject's quote from what it originally reported.
This post will show how the message massagers at the Times subsequently went another step further, attempting to convince readers that the subject's statement quoted elsewhere isn't what she said.
As Lord noted, in text fortunately captured by Ace of Spades blogger "BenK" Thursday morning and relayed by the Daily Caller's Jim Treacher, Sigolène Vinson, a women who survived the massacre, told "French news media" (more on that later) that one of the terrorists invoked Islam as the reason her life would be spared, saying (bolds are mine throughout this post):
... the man said, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled.
That quote was sent down the memory hole sometime later without a change in the report's online URL. Her account then appeared as follows:
“Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.”
Thus, the word-massage parlor managers at the Times purged Islam as the reason she was spared. But they still weren't done.
Going even further than Lord noted on Saturday, the version of the story which made it into Friday's print edition replaced what was noted above — again, revised at the same URL without notice — with the following two paragraphs (HT Treacher):
Sigolène Vinson, a freelance journalist who had come in that morning to take part in the meeting, said that when the shooting started, she thought she would be killed. Ms. Vinson said in an interview that she dropped to the floor and crawled down the hall to hide behind a partition, but one of the gunmen spotted her and grabbed her by the arm, pointing his gun at her head. Instead of pulling the trigger, though, he told her she would not be killed because she was a woman.
She disputed a quotation attributed to her and carried on the website of the French radio service RFI stating that the gunman had told her she should convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover herself. Instead, she told The New York Times in an interview, the gunman told her: “Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you.” He spoke in a steady voice, she said, with a calm look in his eyes, saying: "‘You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.’” Then she said he turned to his partner, who was still shooting, and shouted: “We don’t shoot women! We don’t shoot women! We don’t shoot women!”
One can only conclude that the Times knew, having been caught red-handed altering Ms. Vinson's story by online watchdogs, that Liz Alderman's final account had to proactively convince readers that the terrorist's Islamic beliefs had nothing to do with why Ms. Vinson's life was spared.
Thus, the paper apparently deemed it necessary to get back to Ms. Vinson for their desired alterations. The guess here is that the woman, likely seriously concerned about her safety, was all too happy to accommodate the Old Gray Lady as much as she could.
That's understandable, but the Times was apparently unable to report that Vinson told them "I didn't say that, or anything like it." All they could say is that she "disputed" it. The word "Instead" in the second excerpted paragraph above appears designed to make readers believe that what she told the Times replaces a completely wrong quote. A careful look at the dictionary definition of the word indicates that the weasel-wordmeisters at the Times may only considers it a "substitute."
A serious problem remains. From all appearances, there is an audio record of Ms. Vinson saying what she originally said — which would, if true, explain why all she could do is "dispute" and not deny.
The Times failed to note that the Radio France International report is actually one filed by Reuters reporter Christian Hartman. Thus, the Times isn't saying that RFI blew it; they're saying, though they appear not to realize it, that a seasoned Reuters journalist blew it in the following possible circumstances:
- He was present at the interview, possibly even recording what was said, and failed to accurately relay what she said in person.
- He was listening to RFI, again possibly recording, and failed to accurately relay her broadcast account.
Hartman's report is still at RFI. Concerning Ms. Vinson's statement, here is the Reuters reporter's original French, followed by the English translation, obtained via Google Translate:
(French) Quelques instants après le drame, Sigolène Vinson se confiait à RFI. « Je suis Sigolène, je suis en vie. Mais c’est horrible, il ya des morts [pleurs]. » Si Sigolène Vinson est encore en vie, c’est parce qu’elle est une femme. L’un des agresseurs a dit : « On ne tue pas les femmes, mais tu dois te convertir à l’islam et te voiler », avant de crier « Allah Akbar ».
(English translation) Moments after the tragedy, Sigolène Vinson was speaking to RFI. "I am Sigolène, I am alive. But this is horrible, there are dead [tears]. "If Sigolène Vinson is still alive, it is because she is a woman. One of the attackers said: "We do not kill women, but you have to convert you to Islam and conceal you" (i.e., cover yourself — Ed.), before shouting "Allah Akbar".
From all appearances, it is Ms. Vinson in "tears" who spoke those words to RFI and perhaps other onhand reporters, and what she said was heard on the air.
It would be one thing if the Times reported that Ms. Vinson told them her original statement inaccurately reflected what the terrorist who spared her life said. But, it would appear, she can't, because it's on the record.
If Ms. Vinson really said what she is reported to have originally said, the Times and Ms. Vinson can "dispute" it all they want, but they can't refute it. If they really can't honestly refute it, Ms. Vinson has, unfortunately, done almost nothing to substantively advance her safety. But the Times, consistent with the cowardice it has shown lately, seems to think it has "solved" its problem. What its reporters and editors have really done is commit what in a sane world would be firing offenses.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
