Love that mainstream media

Unabrewer alerts me to the fact that the Reuters article I mocked the other day has been completely rewritten. I quoted from the article:

"There have been no riots or sackings of Afghan embassies, unlike the violence that marked the uproar in Muslim countries after the Danish cartoons were published, but the shock and mutual incomprehension expressed in both cases are similar.

The difference lies in the issues at stake. In the cartoons row, Muslims stressed the sanctity of Mohammad, whom they say nobody -- even non-Muslims -- can criticize. The subtext was resentment against perceived Western prejudice against Islam.

Now, Western governments and societies are speaking out for religious freedom and against the death penalty. The fact many Western troops now help defend the Afghan government against al Qaeda and Taliban remnants heightened the outrage in the West."

Now the same article, by the same author reads:

Two months ago, political and religious leaders in the Muslim world were rounding on Western European media and governments for printing and defending caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad that they considered blasphemous.

The cases are clearly different. Western leaders from President George W. Bush down have spoken up to save the life of a man whose religious freedom is a universal human right which his judges say is secondary to Islamic law.

In the cartoons case, demonstrators sacked Western embassies in Damascus and Beirut, lives were lost in unrest and Muslim leaders demanded apologies and curbs on Western press freedom.

For all the scoffing at blogging, can you imagine a blogger completely rewriting a post to change its entire meaning and never noting that anywhere on the page? The writer's point was that the cartoon riots and the outrage over the possible death of a Christian are similar. In fact, they could not be more different, a point he acknowledges in the rewrite. How does Reuters get away with this, exactly?