New York Times quietly edits article to delete embarassing statements Obama made about terrorism

Wednesday, December 23, 2015 by: J. D. Heyes
Tags: NYT, Obama apologist, terrorism

---

(NaturalNews) Once again the corporate-owned, Left-wing mainstream media is serving as a Praetorian guard for President Barack Hussein Obama.

In recent days The New York Times covered a rare visit by Obama to the National Counterterrorism Center, in which the paper initially published some very embarrassing comments the selfie-obsessed president made, but then memory-holed them later.

As noted by The Federalist, the original story, written by reporters Peter Baker and Gardiner Harris and published Dec. 17, contained a stunning admission by the president following the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif. But by the next day – Dec. 18 – the embarrassing passage was removed.

In a Twitter post, CNN's Brian Stelter included the quote:

In his meeting with the columnists, Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments. Republicans were telling Americans that he is not doing anything when he is doing a lot, he said.

The first New York Times version confirmed a version of Obama that his critics have long suspected – that when it comes to issues of national security, this president is an out-of-touch and disinterested bystander.

"Obama critics immediately pounced on the stunning admission from the president, expressing shock that he would claim that a lack of TV time was the real reason for him not understanding Americans' anxiety about terrorism," The Federalist reported.

Pathetic

But then, The Times went into protection mode and removed the offending passage from its online version of the story, and that drew the attention of other journalists and Times watchers, who questioned the deletion.

That wasn't all The Times did to protect Obama, however. In addition to deleting the embarrassing section, as tracked by Newsdiffs.org, Times editors changed the piece's headline on four separate occasions, each time putting Obama in a better light or portraying Republicans in a worse light.

As reported by The Federalist:

The original headline when the story was first published was "Obama Visiting National Counterterrorism Center." Less than two hours later, the headline was "Obama, at Counterterrorism Center, Offers Assurances On Safety." Then the headline was changed to "Frustrated by Republican Critics, Obama Defends Muted Response to Attacks." Two hours later, the headline was once again revised to "Under Fire From G.O.P., Obama Defends Response to Terror Attacks." The most recent headline revision, which accompanied the deletion of the passage where Obama admitted he didn't understand the American public's anxiety about terrorism, now reads, "Assailed by G.O.P., Obama Defends His Response To Terror Attacks."

What's even more comical – and pathetic – is The Times' reporters "explanation" of what editors did, a sort of "nothing to see here, just move on" response.

Changes made no sense

In a statement to the Washington Examiner's T. Beckett Adams they responded:

Thanks for the question. There's nothing unusual here. That paragraph, near the bottom of the story, was trimmed for space in the print paper by a copy editor in New York late last night. But it was in our story on the web all day and read by many thousands of readers. Web stories without length constraints are routinely edited for print.

Sure. Why all the headline changes, then?

Crickets. Silence. No response.

As noted by Sean Davis of The Federalist, however, the changes made no sense.

"NYT says it 'trimmed' the Obama quote for space. It deleted 66 words and added 116 in that revision," he said in one tweet.

"The NYT's excuse that it was just 'trimming for space' makes no sense. Its revision of that section added 50 words," he said in another.

The Times has been in the tank for Obama since he got the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. To expect the paper to now change the way it has protected him is ludicrous. But every time it does, the paper needs to be exposed for doing so.

Sources:

NYTimes.com

TheFederalist.com

NewsDiffs.org

TheBlaze.com