[1] http://newsdiffs.org/diff/934591/934616/www.nytimes.com/2015...
http://newsdiffs.org/diff/934092/934104/www.nytimes.com/2015...
You can browse NewsDiffs for all sorts of NYT stories. This story was heavily edited, but it isn't the only heavily edited NYT piece, and there doesn't seem to be an agenda connecting which pieces are heavily edited and which aren't.
The more likely cause is that pieces that have to be written in a hurry will tend to get changed the most before their final version hits print.
It's not to say the NYT has an agenda here, but rather that there is division, at least between authors and editors. If the paper wants that division to be opaque, and hierarchical internally, than such real-time edits do it a disservice as they bring into the public those debates. If real-time edits are required to break a fast story, then either 1) they should not break stories quickly and wait to publish until their internal debates have settled - penning only 'news of record', or 2) they really should make those debates part of the public record, and not feign historical steadfastness - a timestamped 'record of news'. But to be a news of record where the record is changed is dishonest.
I can go find other examples of this happening --- of a concern raised in a quick-take being fleshed out, and thus changing the emphasis of the narrative in the story. In fact: I bet I can find a bunch of them, all in the NYT, just by taking a bit of time with NewsDiffs.org.
Do you doubt that, or can we just stipulate that this happens all the time?
If you doubt it, I'll do the legwork, but I'm going to ask that you stake a $20 bet to charity on it (if I'm right, you donate; if you're right, I do).
(Or you can do the legwork yourself!)
>The Pao NYT piece never changes the directionality of the concerns it raises.
With respect to this particular piece, I was pointing out later revisions that do change the directionality of a particular concept, namely its description of silicon valley.
"Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief" becomes "Silicon Valley 2, Ellen Pao 0".
"the entrenched sexist culture of Silicon Valley" becomes
"the entrenched male-dominated culture of Silicon Valley" becomes
"the entrenched sexist culture of Silicon Valley" becomes
"the entrenched male-dominated culture of Silicon Valley".
That is not just a fleshing out of a narrative, but an editorial flip-flop. Sexist is a particular and egregious charge to lay on an entire culture - an editorial statement. Male-dominated is a fact, separable from the concept of sexist. One can be proven, one cannot. Subjective vs objective. Opinion vs journalism.
I don't find that argument credible.
That doesn't mean I'm right, but it does mean that this is not a profitable line of argument for us. I'll go ahead and assert that both of those constructions mean the same thing.