Hot Air » Blog Archive » NRO/WSJ immigration slapfight: Who punked out first?

NRO/WSJ immigration slapfight: Who punked out first?

posted at 7:24 pm on June 2, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

NRO’s been throwing down gang signs for days, but this afternoon the New York Times came back with this:

Reflecting the division between the business wing and the rest of the party, the editorial board of The National Review, which opposes the legislation, has issued a debate challenge to The Journal’s business-minded editorial board, which is more supportive. (The Journal editorial page editor, Paul Gigot, dismissed the challenge, saying National Review writers had not accepted offers to appear on The Journal’s program on Fox to discuss the matter.)

The link goes to Junkyard Blog, where See-Dubya captured the blockquote for posterity. I saw it myself when I read the Times article this afternoon. But now, lo and behold, the parenthetical has mysteriously disappeared from the article. Click and scroll down about halfway. The paragraph begins the same way but ends after the first sentence. No explanation, no correction, no nothing.

Theories? Maybe Gigot was uncomfortable when he saw it and asked the Times to remove it? Or was the parenthetical simply inaccurate, another one of those journalistic mistakes that somehow slipped through the multiple layers of painstaking fact-checking that make our big media elders so superior to blogs? Can’t wait to find out.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Awwwwww! » Freedom Folks

Comments

Comment pages:

They needed to meet at a semi-neutral place. Seems like it the WSJ was trying to set up NRO.

Tim Burton on June 2, 2007 at 7:36 PM

After watching that WSJ video here on Hot Air, I’m through with Paul Gigot too.

Zorro on June 2, 2007 at 8:01 PM

Why does the thought of the editorial staff at the National Review flashing gang signs make me laugh so hard? All of a sudden I see Paul Gigot dressed up like a ‘banger on The Shield.

Number 2 on June 2, 2007 at 8:11 PM

On Laura Ingraham’s show, she said the debate was set up for the TV show and the NR guys failed to appear for the debate. It is all confusing. It was supposed to be a 12 minute segment- no doubt to be heavily edited in favor of the WSJ before airing.

Valiant on June 2, 2007 at 8:38 PM

Oh man The Editors ain’t nobody to mess wit. They be gettin all Garfukwalian on Gigot and his crew, man thats like callin them biotches. Yeah they’ll be holdin court in the street with that firing line format. C’mon Gignot bring it on! *crickets*

sonnyspats1 on June 2, 2007 at 8:43 PM

Why does the thought of the editorial staff at the National Review flashing gang signs make me laugh so hard?

Perhaps it’s the mental image of the rather innocuous-looking bunch at NRO flashing these indications.

Perhaps a person more skilled with Photoshop could do something with that photo and, say, an image of Jonah Goldberg’s face.

Know anyone like that, AP? :-)

baldilocks on June 2, 2007 at 8:54 PM

good one…. locks

sonnyspats1 on June 2, 2007 at 9:12 PM

They needed to meet at a semi-neutral place.

Tim Burton on June 2, 2007 at 7:36 PM

The O.K. Corral comes to mind.

infidel4life on June 2, 2007 at 9:33 PM

I hope the NRO guys didn’t puss out, that’ll look real bad. If they refused because they thought the WSJ guys were gonna be shady, they need to say it up front.

Bad Candy on June 2, 2007 at 9:37 PM

[Number 2 on June 2, 2007 at 8:11 PM]

Derbyshire, maybe. After all, he once got his butt kicked by Bruce Lee. But Ramesh, Byron, Mark or JPod leaning on a chain link fence, cleaning their nails with a blade? Nah. Besides, no one wears a tie with a t-shirt unless invited on SNL.

Love you guys, but it is funny.

Dusty on June 2, 2007 at 10:05 PM

[Valiant on June 2, 2007 at 8:38 PM]

WSJ’s offer was a 12 minute segment? That’s not an offer, that’s a farce. What a bunch of mommy boys.

Dusty on June 2, 2007 at 10:14 PM

I didn’t realize you’d started a thread on this after I asked my question earlier tonight.

I doubt if it was NRO. I’ve been following this in the Corner to find out what was going to happen. They had an editorial up yesterday: The Sound of Silence:

Again, what we’re proposing is a Firing Line-style debate, two or three of us versus two or three of them in a public forum in Washington where both sides get to engage on the substance in an extended fashion. This would be a more substantive exchange than you can get on radio or TV.

My guess is that Gigot saw it, wanted to backtrack and asked the NYT to remove it.

You can find a reference to it if you Google this:
Bush’s Push on Immigration Tests Base Paul Gigot

you will get Gigot’s name and a portion of the missing phrase:

Bush’s Push on Immigration Tests His Base – New York Times
Bush’s Push on Immigration Tests His Base … (The Journal editorial page editor, Paul Gigot, dismissed the challenge, saying National Review writers had …
http://www.nytimes.com/…/washington/03immig.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1180804757-suK1RlsWt5Cxr41JECVEZg – Jun 2, 2007 – Similar pages – Note this – Filter

INC on June 2, 2007 at 11:20 PM

I think it’s kinda funny that almost since the beginning of this kerfluffle the Prez candidates (except, of course, McCain) have ghosted out. Almost as if they smell political death on this bill and don’t want to be seen in the same room with it.

Lehosh on June 3, 2007 at 8:06 AM

Watching the WSJ and NRO fight is like… I’m sure there’s a good simile to use here, but I just can’t figure it out.

Nonfactor on June 3, 2007 at 1:33 PM

Curiouser and curiouser…

Noticing a link at Real Clear Politics to this same NYT story, I clicked on it out of idle curiosity. The paragraph now reads thusly:

Reflecting the division between the business wing, Congressional moderates and the rest of the party, the editorial board of National Review, which opposes the legislation, has issued a debate challenge to The Journal’s business-minded editorial board, which is more supportive. (The Journal editorial page editor, Paul Gigot, dismissed the challenge, saying National Review writers had not accepted offers to appear on The Journal’s program on Fox to discuss the matter.)

Congressional moderates, added in the first revision is still there.

The magically disappearing parentheses is back in again.

Revisionist news stories a specialty of the NYT.

INC on June 3, 2007 at 4:47 PM

As interesting and entertaining as I think such a debate between NR and WSJ might be, I suspect that the results will not lead to a sea change on this issue. Both parties want an open door policy at the borders to foster votes for their candidates on Election Day (by aliens who are not authorized to vote, but whom will find their way to the polls, where they still won’t be required to produce evidence of citizenship). Bush’s phony position on U.S. Border policy, combined with the declining rate of financial contributions to the RNC, and the continued decline in Congress’ voter popularity – is all the evidence anyone needs to put 2+2 together.