Hacker News Reader

The title seems to suggest something nefarious, but it instead it ultimately amounts to a non-issue.

I run into this formula once a day it seems. Yesterday it was a pink tap water article.

It will depend from which sources you get your information. Maybe the legwork will be done by someone sufficiently motivated to definitively prove one way or another, but I wouldn't really consider this a closed case. I'm shocked if anyone alive in 2017 really thinks this is something the media would never do.

http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.nytimes.com/2017/01...

That's useful. It shows minor changes being made during the first 9 hours after the article appeared on line. The title changed from "Inquiry on Aides To Trump Studies Wiretapped Data" to "Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry Of Trump Aides" two hours after the first posting. That's an editor at work.

Yea, I never knew these news diffing sites existed. Looks like "Wiretapped" was indeed removed at some point in time, which seems to contradict the description given in the redaction/apology article. But this tool doesn't give any insight as to when that change occurred since its final snapshot was only a day after the original article was posted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com