I have compared through the three spins of the RPK article on his column and noticed that the three variations different in the more content that is revealed there.
To be sure of that, I had reread the SD that he wrote in 2008. If you look at the paragraph that starts with "The purpose of this declaration...", read it as many times to get it drilling in the head, you can get the picture.
Now on to the spin:
On comparison, the Bernama and Malay Mail adapted Bernama is very identical, except on the words of the interview on TV3's Buletin Utama.
The interview was aired through TV3's primetime news, Buletin Utama, Wednesday night. (Bernama)
The interview was aired through TV3's primetime news, Buletin Utama, tonight. (Malay Mail variation)
Wednesday and tonight meaning that Wednesday was in event if this was published in newspapers the next day. While 'tonight' was used since it written today itself.
However, look at the Star's variation. The first few paragraphs was manipulated far more than the original adaptation, hence giving the wrong meaning.
Look at the Star's adaptation:
Malaysia Today founder and editor Raja Petra Kamaruddin says he was not responsible for accusations linking Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and his wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor to the murder of Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu.
He said he himself doubted the accusations when he made a statutory declaration (SD) on June 18, 2008, in which he had stated that he received information from several individuals claiming Rosmah was at the scene where Altantuya was murdered.
He claimed that several politicians close to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had put pressure on him to do what he did to prevent Najib from becoming Prime Minister.
In a sensational interview aired over TV3 Wednesday night, he said he no longer believed the story of these individuals.
"And I've mentioned the names of these people. I mentioned their names during the police investigation," he said, claiming the three were Nik Azmi Nik Daud, John Pang and blogger Din Merican.
1. On first paragraph - "he was not responsible" can give meaning that he accused but not responsible", whereas the actual words were "he never accused"
2. The second paragraph never existed at all from the original text.
3. The third paragraph was pointed wrongly. Here it says "several politicians", whereas it actually says "several individuals related to politicians" (this is the biggest mislead)
4. The phrase claiming the three were is actually identifying the individuals.
5. Paragraphs 12-17 in the original text was never mentioned at all - starting from "meeting with Nik Azmi"
6. The words "claim" was used instead of "said"
Arguably, the Star was the one found to manipulate the entire story. Since it's one of the biggest English dailies in Malaysia, this has already been considered as manipulating the original agency text with their own and passed off as the agency's. What does it mean?
So who in the Star really turned it the other way round?