Tangentially, reading the indictment this witness seems to be neither. More to the point, OP felt the need to change the wording. That was a conscious act, not an accident.
What does indispensable mean to you? Do you think something that is indispensable can be dispensed?
A keystone is that. Keystones are key, take the keystone out of an arch and the arch collapses. Doesn't that make a keystone "important, salient"? I think it does. Both of those definitions support these words being synonyms. I quoted both definitions because I believe both support my point. (And I quoted both for 'keystone' because if I didn't, I figured you'd disingenuously attribute that omission to malfeasance.)
> As another poster has asked, why would you choose to change a shorter, more common word for a longer, less common one if they mean exactly the same?
My response to him applies to you as well. You would not be nitpicking such word choices if you were not looking for a crack to gain leverage in the conversation.
You would not be defending title manipulation if you were not trying to defend your own perceived leverage.
Multiple people are telling you that it means something different in their experience. Personally, I have 3 keys to my house, but my house has only 1 keystone.
Why would you replace a 3-letter word with an 8-letter word that means the same thing? Especially when you have to type the entire word "key" to get to "keystone".
I'm not looking for a crack here and the "nitpicking" was a convenient example of how both sides are skewing reality to suit their ends.
Anyway, I notice that the title has now been changed to reflect the original headline so I guess somebody else thought they were different enough words to warrant changing it back again.
Or dang thought to cut this fruitless tangent off at the knees. I am perfectly happy with the new headline, because it means the same thing as the old. If I were dang I'd change it too, for that reason. The new headline is still a damning indictment of US media.
It might be if it actually mentioned the US... or is that bit implied?
I'm not the OP, but you're assuming this was copied and pasted and the word changed deliberately. I can think of a number of reasons why the different word was used, that has nothing to do with an attempt to mislead: e.g. autocorrect if typing it on mobile, genuine error (thinking it was actually 'keystone' in the original).
A current example grabbed from google news:
"Two dams in Inner Mongolia collapse after heavy rain"
"Two dams in China's Inner Mongolia collapse after torrential rain"
"Heavy rain" and "torrential rain" mean basically the same thing. Why does one headline use one phrase, and the other another? Is this some sort of malicious attempt to propagandize at us? Or is it just an editor/writer who fancies the word 'torrential'? I think it's the second.
Arguing against Assange in 2018: Vaguely refer to the allegations against him while making sure to avoid linking any detailed articles or starting a facts-based discussion.
Arguing against Assange in 2021: Okay, I know the US government is trying to arrange a show trial, but is key the same word as keystone?
Sorry you got tangled up with the details.
There is plenty of distortion in the emotional affect created by phrasing, and plenty of ignorance in the abstract theory-of-policy level comment thread discourse, but fortunately there's nothing restraining us to operate on those once-removed levels.
Wikileaks never did that btw.
That I am not justifying anything and that the US is not my state. Apart from that I think you're up to speed.