[nab]

This link implies that the NYT is backtracking about a piece apparently "blaming encryption." The NYT article referenced did not at all focus on encryption, and it didn't go so far as to definitively blame encryption.

The only paragraph discussing encryption is buried in the middle of the article. """ The attackers are believed to have communicated using encryption technology, according to European officials """

The lede did not mention encryption at all: "The attackers in Friday’s terrorist assault in Paris communicated at some point beforehand with known members of the Islamic State in Syria, officials on both sides of the Atlantic say."

https://web.archive.org/web/20151115191248/http:/www.nytimes...

[kohito]

you're saying its only possible the NYT "blamed encryption" if encryption was the article's main topic or the article's lede?

[davesque]

No, actually they're not saying that at all. They're saying that the article only barely mentions encryption and doesn't try to push an opinion on the matter.

[kohito]

I'm confused. Can you say more?

[vehementi]

What are you confused about?

[azernik]

Since there was so much other content there, the pulling of the article could have had nothing to do with that one sentence.

[001sky]

NYT changes the there story headlines alot these days ...

After Paris Attacks, C.I.A. Director Rekindles Debate Over Surveillance

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/us/after-paris-attacks-cia...

[grandalf]

That's part of the strategy. The most eyeballs see it right after it's released, and the intended effect is created. They've been doing this for quite some time. The first experiments were with using different headlines for the same story in the online and print edition. Generally the print edition headlines are the most restrained.

[lochlainn]

Do you have any more information on this tactic? It's fascinating, I didn't realize that there was actual intent to it.

[grandalf]

I don't know the intended goal. It might just be clicks or page views, but what typically happens is:

- Article launches with sensational, buzzfeed quality linkbait headline.

- Article gets lots of clicks

- The title is quietly changed to a more restrained version which often matches the print edition title.

At first I thought there must just be different editors overseeing the web and print editions, but now I think it's an intentional form of viral marketing or activist editing.

In some cases, the sensational headlines really diminish the journalistic quality/seriousness of the article, or create the impression that a minor point in the article was the main thrust of the article.

Similarly, there has occasionally been a headline that appears intentionally boring so that the paper can publish a story but effectively hide it from view.

So in a nutshell it's classic misdirection, enabled by the digital medium, since tracks can be fairly easily covered making it harder for those who care/notice to call attention to it. For a while I thought about creating a screenshot archive of changed titles but eventually just stopped reading the paper.

[martey]

I remember reading this article about how newspapers have started tailoring their online headlines for Google/SEO in 2006: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/weekinreview/09lohr.html

More specifically, the NYTimes public editor wrote about headlines earlier this year: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/public-editor/hey-google-c...