The blog Ankle Biting Pundits accuses the NYT of changing the lead of a story on new mortgage reviews http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/content/?p=2822.
"In reading about the new rules passed by the Feds to tighten lending standards, I noticed something very interesting. In the initial New York Times story written by David Stoudt about 1:00 pm (and no longer available on the main NYT site, but still available on the International Herald Tribune (the international paper which is owned by the NYT and shares its correspondents)
The Federal Reserve on Tuesday proposed new rules intended to protect would-be home buyers from unscrupulous lenders and, in a sense, from themselves.
Reacting to the crisis spawned by the proliferation of subprime mortgages to people who could not afford them, the Federal Reserve Board voted, 5 to 0, to endorse several protections for those thinking of getting “higher-priced mortgage loans.”
But at 4:26 p.m. an updated version of the story, this time co-written by Edmund Andrews and David Stoudt that was almost identical to the earlier story, but with this language.
Federal Reserve moved Tuesday to impose new restrictions intended to curb unfair and deceptive home-lending practices and prevent a recurrence of this year’s meltdown in subprime mortgages.
By a 5-to-0 vote, the Fed approved a plan that would tighten provisions meant to protect borrowers and apply them to a far larger share of home loans — whether from banks, mortgage companies or other lenders — than under current regulations."
The Ankle Biter invites readers to spot the difference and goes to suggest some reasons why the changes were made.