NYT stealth-edits article about John Fetterman after journo-Karen gets offended over accurate term

Earlier today, the New York Times made quite a splash with an extensive article about Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman’s litany of health and cognitive issues following his massive stroke last May. Apparently Fetterman has not been totally healthy and fine and able to serve in the necessary capacity required of a U.S. Senator.

Fetterman’s story doesn’t add up.

Per NYT, he now concedes he did not take “recommended amount of rest” during campaign. That’s at complete odds with the note he released from his doctor (and campaign donor), who said “he has no work restrictions.” https://t.co/VVhtoDbUXa pic.twitter.com/h2WCKuZ5Qe

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) February 10, 2023

It was actually good to see the New York Times’ story, because it was vindicating for those of us who questioned Fetterman’s physical, mental, and cognitive fitness back when he was on the campaign trail and was quite obviously not all right, despite what his team and the mainstream media were telling us.

But before you go giving the New York Times props for finally coming clean about Fetterman’s problems, it’s important that you realize that if they have to choose between casting aspersions on Fetterman and Co. and casting aspersions on Fetterman’s critics, they’ll go for his critics. Recall this passage from Annie Karni’s article:

The attacks during the campaign — Fox News’ Tucker Carlson called him “unapologetically brain damaged” and Republicans accused him of lying about his health — also are never far out of mind. Some of those aspersions continue; the Republican National Committee blasted out a clip earlier this month of Mr. Fetterman tripping over the word “water” at an event announcing $340 million in federal funding for Philadelphia to modernize its water infrastructure. On Thursday night, Mr. Carlson was back to attacking Mr. Fetterman’s health even as he recuperated in the hospital. “Sad, but also, you wonder, what is going on?” Mr. Carlson said.

But even that swipe at Fetterman’s critics wasn’t enough for some New York Times readers, who took issue with a particular phrase in Karni’s article (emphasis ours):

As Mr. Fetterman adjusts to his new life, the Senate and his colleagues are also adjusting to his special needs.

Apparently “special needs” was too offensive a term to use in this particular context. At least according to The 19th’s “caregiving reporter” Sara Luterman:

Wow, I hate this. FYI @nytimes, @JohnFetterman’s needs are not “special.” pic.twitter.com/tqa7wi6KYY

— Sara Luterman (@slooterman) February 10, 2023

Well, let’s see. According to Karni’s article, Fetterman “typically walks around the building with many staffers, in part because he needs assistants to test his technological setup before he enters any room.” And “Mr. Fetterman suffers from auditory processing issues, forcing him to rely primarily on a tablet to transcribe what is being said to him. The hearing issues are inconsistent; they often get worse when he is in a stressful or unfamiliar situation. When it’s bad, Mr. Fetterman has described it as trying to make out the muffled voice of the teacher in the “Peanuts” cartoon, whose words could never be deciphered.” We’d say the guy has some pretty special needs, wouldn’t you?

Kind of think installing caption monitors on the floor of the Senate for one Senator to be able to understand spoken language and debate is a pretty special need.

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) February 10, 2023

What in the world is wrong with the phrase “special needs”? John Fetterman has special needs. How does pretending otherwise help him, or anybody else?

— jimtreacher.substack.com (@jtLOL) February 10, 2023

“Special needs” actually seems like an appropriate and accurate term to use.

Here’s the article, if you want to read the whole thing. The context does not help. Being a disabled reporter and reading how my colleagues think about people like us continues to be a trip. https://t.co/yHHZGR29K2

— Sara Luterman (@slooterman) February 10, 2023

“People like us.” Except Sara can presumably answer people’s questions with words as opposed to blank stares and doesn’t require a pacemaker or defibrillator to stay alive (if we’re wrong about that, we apologize). John Fetterman is not like all disabled reporters. All disabled reporters aren’t even like all disabled reporters.

I use captions every day at work. If somebody called me “special needs” I would go to HR.

— Sara Luterman (@slooterman) February 10, 2023

Sara couldn’t go to HR at the New York Times, but evidently she got through to somebody over there, because the phrase “special needs” no longer appears in the article:

Update: “Special needs” has been removed. Thank you for making the correction, @nytimes. I’m still kind of shocked it made it through in the first place. https://t.co/mM9umZMchu

— Sara Luterman (@slooterman) February 10, 2023

We’re still kind of shocked that Sara Luterman would be more upset about “special needs” than she would be about the fact that Fetterman, his wife, his campaign, and the media lied about his condition for months. Actually we’re not that shocked, because she’s clearly just a liberal busybody.

We’re not shocked that the New York Times tried to pull a fast one with their “special needs” edit, either:

According to an outraged 19th News reporter, NY Times stealth edited out the term “special needs” regarding the fact John Fetterman required special captioning monitors placed throughout the Senate building. pic.twitter.com/PlwqtHfg5I

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) February 10, 2023

Goodbye, “special needs.” Hello, “needs”:

Yep, a Google search still finds it, but it’s gone in the article, no notes about edits. pic.twitter.com/EkhEUJvoFp

— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) February 10, 2023

Original: “Fetterman adjusts to his new life, the Senate and his colleagues are also adjusting to his special needs.”

Now, no editor’s note: “As Mr. Fetterman adjusts to his new life, the Senate and his colleagues are also adjusting to his needs.” https://t.co/vxGToGGBHq pic.twitter.com/HaupbZ0Xjd

— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) February 10, 2023

Seems to us that the New York Times has some special needs of their own: a competent, honest editor, for starters.

***