When Version 2.0 of the story is an actual refutation of Version 1.0

An interesting denouement but also a light going on. Two or three days ago I saw this story in the New York Times, Texas Hospital Says Man, 30, Died After Attending a ‘Covid Party’ by Bryan Pietsch.

A 30-year-old man who believed the coronavirus was a hoax and attended a “Covid party” died after being infected with the virus, according to the chief medical officer at a Texas hospital.

The official, Dr. Jane Appleby of Methodist Hospital in San Antonio, said the man died after deliberately attending a gathering with an infected person to test whether the coronavirus was real.

In her statements to news organizations, Dr. Appleby said the man had told his nurse that he attended a Covid party. Just before he died, she said the patient told his nurse: “I think I made a mistake. I thought this was a hoax, but it’s not.”

It was one of those stories which immediately make you think - too pat to be true. The quote looked manufactured and not how someone would express such a thought.

The mainstream media has been pushing the line that there is a nationwide phenomenon of foolish young people from the great unwashed attending Covid parties instead of masking themselves and staying in lockdown.

Is such a phenomenon possible? Its humans - sure. We do foolish things all the time.

Was it probable? That seems less likely. Are people partying and avoiding social distancing? Again, absolutely. Some few of them at least have likely read the health reports and know that if you are under 50, your probability of dying from Covid-19 is very small, dropping to vanishingly small, the younger you are.

The original story looked like a ham fisted propaganda story - "Don't be stupid like this young man. Obey. Wear masks. Stay home."

The alternative interpretation was that the pathologically ideological mainstream media needed a mirror story to the fact that the MSM and Mandarin Class were clearly cheering on mass protests where social distancing was not being observed because it couldn't be observed.

They needed the basket of deplorables to be doing something equally stupid and they came up with the plausible Covid 19 parties storyline. It sounds cynical, but we have learned to be far less trusting than we would wish to be when it comes to the MSM.

I read the original article. Thought to myself, seems extremely unlikely. Moved on in search of real reporting. With the trailing thought that I would treat this as unlikely but subject to further reporting. Let's wait and see if it proves to be true.

And here it comes around. From the National Review, Did the Times Print an Urban Legend? by Michael Brendan Dougherty.

The original sub-headline was: “I thought this was a hoax,” the man told his nurse, a hospital official said.

It’s a morality tale, really. Don’t believe it’s a hoax! Or that you aren’t at risk because you are young! Maybe don’t live in a bad red state where they aren’t taking COVID seriously, or go to these parties. The only thing missing was a MAGA hat and a rueful dying admission, “I shouldn’t have trusted Trump or my Republican governor!”

But, as I read the story originally earlier this week, I realized the details didn’t quite add up.

[snip]

A closer look showed that not only were there no names named, but there was no date or location of the party and no other sources about where and whether it happened. And then there was the curious fact that a dying man’s self-incriminating final words were relayed to the press. Who gave permission for that?

But if you click on the article link now, as I write this, you will find a few paragraphs of hedging added in:

The Times could not independently verify Dr. Appleby’s account. On Monday, the San Antonio health department said its contact tracers did not have any information “that would confirm (or deny)” that such an event had happened there.

In recent days, the hospital distributed video of Dr. Appleby describing the case , along with a press statement. She did not say when or where the party took place, how many people attended or how long afterward the man was hospitalized with Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. She said she was sharing the story to warn others, especially in Texas, where cases are surging.

These paragraphs were added long after publication. They also indicate where the story originated. The young junior reporter who wrote it isn’t in Texas but sitting at a desk, presumably at home. There is also another additional paragraph saying that the Times tried several times, through the hospital, to contact the dead man’s family.

New material, corrections, changed wording - usually you would flag that with an "UPDATE" or "CORRECTIONS" section at the end of the article pointing out the changes.

The New York Times did not do that. Apparently, with the new information, it now becomes clear that this is one more instance where the NYT has published a gotcha ideological piece which was so wrong that they really needed to retract it. Instead, they stealthily incorporate the changes.

Their only acknowledgement is in the subheading of the article which has changed to:

Texas Hospital Says Man, 30, Died After Attending a ‘Covid Party’

Health experts have been skeptical that such parties occur, and details of this case could not be independently confirmed.

Which seems an odd formulation if you are reading the article for the first time. It is an epistemic nightmare devolving to - People are dying from Covid Parties. Experts say these aren't occurring. We can't prove that this one did either.

They really need to rehire their downsized editors.

But all of that is par for the course.

What struck me was more meta. I was not surprised that the original pat article had now been necessarily debunked on the QT by the NYT itself.

What surprised me was just how often I now find myself parking news reports in a cognitive "Wait and See" bucket. Things that don't ring true on the initial reporting and you expect that there will be either a later reveal of new information which reverses the interpretation or simply a revelation that the information existed at the beginning and was misreported or misunderstood.

That is of course in part the nature of the news. It is always the notorious first draft of history, subject to revision and correction.

I guess what has changed is the simple percentage of questionable stories. Things that seem obviously suspect. Things that would not have gotten through the editorial process even five or ten years ago. They used to be rare. Now they are the norm.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse has a good observation.

Ironically, readers are invited to think of themselves as superior to this Southern man who believed the virus was a hoax, but the material used to give them that feeling of superiority may itself be a hoax. You know, it's more ignorant to rush to believe things that may not be true than it is to be skeptical of things that may be true. The latter is critical thinking. The former is credulousness.