“–so those exit polls were off by as much as 6 percent.  Is that an unusually large discrepancy?”

For an exit poll? No.

Exit polls have a large number of issues that are harder to account for (cannot easily estimate early voting, tend to cluster results and therefore harder to randomly sample, &c.) than traditional polling methods such as telephone polling. For those reasons, among others, their margins of error are frequently much higher — frequently even double — than those found in a comparable telephone poll.

Stick your x free articles a month where the sun don’t shine, NYT. There are plenty more news sources out there. On my phone the NPR app replaced the NYT very effectively.

If you look at the videos, you’ll see the police line blocking off access to the traffic lanes was effective. None of the protesters were passing the line; they were all passing down the pedestrian walkway.

It’s only when the police pulled back their line, after first blocking vehicle traffic on the bridge, that protesters advanced onto the bridge.

In other words, the crowd only blocked the bridge because the police decided to let them block it so they could arrest the crowd.

It strikes me as an attempt to manufacture a reason to arrest the protesters. And that doesn’t sit well with me.

…when you’re liveblogging a fast-moving event, you alter and clarify as new facts come in.

True. But I think an explicit correction (“Previous versions of this article stated that…”) would have been more appropriate than silently rewriting history.

It’s not like Wall Street bankers are going to be out there in riot gear – they send their proxy, the NYPD.

“[to me from my friend, in response to my prior email, below]-
 
“The NYTimes must have deleted the line referred to in the text below that you sent yesterday.  You can still access the article, but the line is gone.  Did you actually go to the story and see the line?
 
“The rug is being vacuumed at the Times I’m afraid.
 
“[from my friend]
 
“—–Original Message—–
“From: [me]
“Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 8:22 PM
“To: [my friend]
“Subject: Re: —
 
“So glad to get your message.  As always, so sensible.  I can’t blame the Dems for conceding, but I can’t help wanting to know more about the mechanics of the election. 

“Per the New York Times,  “surveys of voters leaving the polls .. . . showed Mr. Kerry leading Mr. Bush by as much as 3 percentage points nationally.”  Nonetheless, “[w]ith 98 percent of the national vote reported as of 8 a.m. Eastern time [Nov. 3], Mr. Bush was leading Mr. Kerry by a margin of 51 percent to 48 percent . . .”(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/politics/campaign/04electcnd.html?hp&ex=1099544400&en=ba992171a995deaf&ei=5094&partner=homepage)).

“–so those exit polls were off by as much as 6 percent.  Is that an unusually large discrepancy?”

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/police-gave-warnings-at-bridge-videos-show/

So as Xeni says, this looks like basic fact checking and editing on the fly while posting on a fast-moving story. Every blogger is familiar with this. 

–Details on the investment firms that have interest in the NYT?

–Unusual that a 6.7% stake is owned by the wealthiest man in the world?

–Forbes rankings of the directors who sit on the board?

–What’s the similarity between the NYT ownership, and the target of the OWS protests?

Anything else like this paper?: Measuring Ownership Control at the New York Times.