Golly. That's actually a plausible explanation.
I personally didn't say that there was an outright attempt to manipulate with the different editions, although such is always possible, and I'd seen it occur with the local multi-edition rag. The different headlines of different editions would certainly raise a suspicion, even so. In fact, the biggest most effective manipulators are less likely found in the general media, but you can discover pockets of distortion and bias. You don't need to own the media or even edit the media to manipulate the media. You just have to drop a stone in the water, or skip it across the pond with a certain cover-story or spin. Put out the right bait, the piranha will feed in a frenzy.
The problem with propaganda and psy-war arises from the fact that one needs to prove the suspected distortion was deliberate and calculated. There is a category of "black" propaganda, which proliferates utter falsehood. This bears the risk that the Lie will be uncovered for what it is. If the source of the black propaganda is in some inaccessible country or place where the facts can't be uncovered, the risk is lower to the propagandist.
Otherwise, you need the propagandist to admit to what he does. It's probably more difficult just because you can't easily get a propagandist into an interrogation room for questioning, because it's not a crime. You'd hope it could be a crime, but then the problem is similar to the bias in the legal system. You can tell all the lies you want, as long as you're not under oath.
In that respect, spreading misinformation and distortion has a social cost, forcing people either read and research double and triple time, or leading others toward unfortunate decisions.
Even so, it begs the question as to who was managing the news-room and editing at WSJ. If they didn't want the suspicion, they'd be more consistent. If they thought nobody would suspect, they could do it anyway, and then tell people "Gee. It's just a different edition that goes through editorial changes."
Like Denzel in "Training Day:" It's not what you know; it's what you can prove. If you only suspect something, are you simply going to jettison your suspicions under the challenge of "Prove it!"?
Facebook
Twitter