The Blue Pill.

[BIAD]

A picture is worth a 1000 words!

Ahahahaaaa... I checked the image that you kindly offered with Snopes and sadly...
their poor freakin' attempt to declaw the intention of The Wall Street Journal fails terribly in
my opinion.

Below is from Snopes:

WHAT'S TRUE
An image showing two editions of the same day's Wall Street Journal with opposing headlines
about Donald Trump's immigration stance is real.

That'll do me Snopes, thanks very much. Next please!

WHAT'S FALSE
The Wall Street Journal did not publish different headlines in different markets in order to sway
voters away from Trump.

Hmmm. You're saying that it's false that they did not -ergo TRUE that The Wall Street Journal DID
publish different headlines in different markets in order to sway. Okey-dokey... it's bears out your
true claim!

ORIGIN
On 1 September 2016, a photograph purportedly showing two editions of The Wall Street Journal with
markedly different front page headlines regarding Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s
stance on immigration was circulated on social media:



This image was passed around on the Internet accompanied by the claim that the Wall Street Journal
had deliberately published one headline, “Trump Softens His Tone,” in a pro-Trump market area in an
attempt to sway readers away from the the GOP nominee, and the other headline,
“Trump Talks Tough on Wall,” in a non-Trump market area to bolster support for Democratic presidential
nominee Hillary Clinton.

However, these opposing headline editions were not distributed to different political or geographic
markets, nor were they intended to influence voters.

This picture shows two editions of the Wall Street Journal published at different times of the day.
The paper on the left came off the press early in the day, while the paper on the right was produced late
 in the day. Print newspapers sometimes undergo revisions throughout their daily runs and typically employ
marks to distinguish the various editions — in this case the differing WSJ editions are distinguishable by
the number of stars displayed in the masthead:



Colleen Schwartz, the Vice President of Communications at The Wall Street Journal,  confirmed that these
editions were printed at different times, not in different markets. The edition on the left was published after
Trump met with Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto early in the day (and referenced the seemingly
cooperative tone of their discussion), and the edition on the right was published after Trump delivered a
speech on immigration later in the day
(and referenced Trump’s reasserting his stance that he would force Mexico to pay for the building of a
wall along the U.S.-Mexico border):

Yes, the images represent two different editions, published at different times, and the headlines represent
the news at the time of publication — before and after his speech.
SNOPES:
.......................................


Bullshit. Sure, it's a mature explanation that a piece was written because of information known at that
time of the day and yeah, it's possible that after secondary information arrived later in that day, an alternate
opinion could be preferred.

But The Wall Street Journal PRINTED the first paper and I know the logistics involved from a Journalist
accepting a certain narrative, arranging the article, having it sub-edited for fine-tuning, processed through
the system to be on an actual printing plate and then printed. The freshly-created newspaper is then taken
from it's printed location and delivered.

And all of that costs money! Money that isn't frittered away in Journalists musings and selective views.
A newspaper needs to show a steady trustworthy manner of delivering information and no Editor worth
their salt would allow such a shoddy costly flip-flop action without explaining it to the reader.

Many people forget that this isn't a single newspaper, thousands are printed off and the time involved
just isn't available from the moment a story evolves up to when a newspaper is purchased by a customer.
This isn't something that can be casually manipulated during one day.
A website page...? easy, but a newspaper is real and you can't delete it!

Journalists are not the only people involved in making a newspaper regardless of what Clark Kent and Lois
Lane want you to think. The deliberation of typing an article in an office is a long way from being an actual
real physical object and even if we discount the time it takes to produce a single story -never mind all the other
articles, adverts, and interior parts that all fluid due to many variables, the excuse that Colleen Schwartz offers
holds no water.

It's bullshit because of what the alternative would prove and this whole piece shows where Snopes' loyalties
lie.