Again: it is not standard practice at the NYT to note rewrites between quick takes and final versions. If you spend even a few minutes on NewsDiffs.org, you're going to see that this happens all the time.
This is important because the "TechRaptor" story doesn't concern itself with the NYT's standard practice --- in fact, it doesn't even seem to be aware of the practice. Instead, it takes a commonplace and uses it as a fig leaf to suggest that the NYT is distinctively bad at covering tech.
Reasonable people can argue that it's bad that the NYT posts quick takes and then substantially rewritten final stories. If they make that argument, they should acknowledge that it happens constantly.
Reasonable people can argue that the NYT sucks at covering tech. If they make that argument, they should not make quick takes the fulcrum of their argument.
> it is not standard practice at the NYT to note rewrites between quick takes and final versions. ... they should acknowledge that it happens constantly.
No, it is not. The article's claim is more specific. In essence, what it says is that the Times does not provide a "git blame" for all their articles, and for that reason, it is bad at covering technology.
hmm, I didn't read it as a piece about nyt covering tech, but about covering news posted on the internet, with the ability to rapidly update and change articles without providing a record. E.g. they gave an example of the AP and spoke of journalism generally. I guess both examples, nyt/reddit, AP/email had an element of tech in them.
Fwiw, this shouldn't be construed as an endorsement of the article.
1. the rewrites weren't noted in the article, thus undermining the authoritativeness of ALL NYT pieces.
2. They added a bunch of opinion to what was a fairly neutral piece.