I mentioned in a previous post that Fox news was carrying a story in which a guy was arrested for standing outside the Capitol building with two bags. CNN a few moments later carried the same story, with not extra information, though they didn't praise the police's actions the way Fox did. The Globe and Mail has now ran a story, providing more detail, but contains some contradictions.

The additional info in the G&M says that the man was from China (whether that means he was born in China or he is a citizen of China, I'm not sure) and that when they actually searched the two bags, they didn't find anything threatening.

"He only would say at first that he wanted to speak to the President," the chief said.

[...]

"He said that if we wanted to know what was in the suitcase, we would have to open it ourselves," Chief Gainer said.

The man was charged with disobeying a police officer, though the G&M doesn't say what exactly it was that the police officer asked the man to do. From the article, it sounds like the guy asked to see the president, the police asked him what's in the bag, and he didn't want to say, but was willing to let the officers open the bag and see for themselves. It's a possibility that language barriers were involved here (perhaps he didn't know how to say the names of the objects in the bag in English), since the way Chief Gainer phrased his statement, it sounds like he's paraphrasing the Chinese man rather than quoting him.

I went to check the Fox article to see if they mentioned anything about the officers asking the Chinese man to do something (thus justifying the "Disobeying a police officer" charge), but I discovered that Fox has changed the contents of their article to match that of the G&M. They removed the not-very-sublte "Hooray for police brutality" undertones, and added the fact that he was Chinese and that he asked for the president, and pretty much everything else the G&M said.

That's bad web etiquette in my opinion, because now I sound like an idiot in the previous posting. They can make editorial changes without bringing attention to it, but when they pretty much rewrite the document from scratch, it's traditional to put a little "update" followed by what exactly has changed.