Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The parent comment to the subject of my response established the scope of this discussion as including legacy media in general, one comment invoked the NYT, and I can bring up another publication as well. I suppose you can, but your comment needed a better transition to make it clear what you were doing. The original comment brought CNN's coverage of a topic (in an unverifiable way) to make a general claim that "ma…
> What else would you have them do? The video was public well before Grosskreutz admitted to drawing his weapon at Rittenhouse as he approached him, the Facebook post after the incident was known about. They should’ve informed their audience of these facts more so than they were informed of Grosskreutz’s fear of his life, however the latter was the most broadly disseminated piece of info by being a headline item. “Vi…
> It’s very simple. A WP reader is more likely to find out from being their audience that Grosskreutz feared for his life than the other facts that I’ve mention that are much more interesting and critical to the case, and it’s by design.
I'm obviously not following this story as closely as you. However, I think the issue here may be that you wished you read a different story than the Washington Post was actually writing. What it looks like they were writing was an account of this Grosskreutz's testimony, and his accounting of his mental state at the time may have been the most newsworthy part of that. It seems like you want something more like a Wikipedia article offering a definitive account of the event based all known sources (e.g. "the video", "the Facebook post"), which is not what the article you linked actually was. If I want a hammer, but have a screwdriver, it's not the screwdriver's fault for not being a hammer.
Furthermore, you're almost exclusively focused on a headline, which can never tell the full story. Usually there are multiple legitimate possibilities for a headline, and there's no perfect one that will satisfy everyone.
>> That's obviously false, since the claim is incoherent when applied to your example. If it were true, why would they have bothered to correct the headline?
> But no, your response completely missed my main point, they don’t have to not update it, dissemination of a certain piece of information in terms of its reach can be diminished without it reaching zero. Statements can be used push a false narrative without being outright untrue. There are more tactful ways to mislead than simply lying, obviously. Edit: To answer your question, to enable the defense that you’ve just made
That's getting into paranoid conspiracy territory. It's pretty unbelievable that the Washington Post would be trying to mislead, but then fix it to "enable the defense that [I've] just made." The actual evidence here is pointing to a different theory that better fits the evidence than that one (i.e. the Washington Post headline writer is trying to get it right, but it's an iterative process).
Now, don't get me wrong. It's totally believable that they have good intentions to report the truth, but, being human, also have biases and other constraints that subvert those intentions to a degree (and may be particularly irksome to those with different biases), but it's going way too far to attribute malicious intent to them.