This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The New York Times Just Memory-Holed This Devastating Obama Admission
By Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist
The New York Times Just Memory-Holed This Devastating Obama Admission
"Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino."
A story published by the New York Times late Thursday night caused some major media waves. The story, which was written by reporters Peter Baker and Gardiner Harris, included a remarkable admission by Obama about his response to the recent terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California.
By Friday morning, however, the entire passage containing Obama’s admission had been erased from the story without any explanation from the New York Times. Here’s the passage that was included in the story when it was published Thursday night, courtesy of CNN’s Brian Stelter:
Obama needs more cable news in his media diet? Revealing comment in a private meeting with newspaper columnists... pic.twitter.com/iUHz6Ey38g
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) December 18, 2015
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 version of the New York Times story that was published early Thursday evening indicated that Obama knew he was out of touch with the country on terrorism, and he thought that was due to not watching enough television. 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.
As of Friday morning, however, the passage containing Obama’s admission was gone. Newsdiffs.org, a web site which captures changes made to online news stories, indicates that the major revision to the NYT story happened late on Thursday night, several hours after the story was published (text with a red background and strike-through is text that was eliminated from the story; text with a green background is text that was added to the story since its last revision):
Hey @peterbakernyt @GardinerHarris: Why did you delete the newsworthy part of your story? https://t.co/uc7L9yEhaa pic.twitter.com/ME8WJauXZ5
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) December 18, 2015
NYT: Oh that part embarrassed the boss? So sorry, we'll delete it ASAP.
https://t.co/uc7L9yEhaa pic.twitter.com/ME8WJauXZ5
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) December 18, 2015
The unexplained deletion of that major passage wasn’t the only significant change made to the story since it was first published. New York Times editors also changed the story’s headline four separate times, according to Newsdiffs.org. Each headline revision either put Obama in a better light or put the GOP in a worse one.
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.”
@allahpundit WaPo characterized the exchange the same way, so NYT/WH can't claim off record/out of context. pic.twitter.com/5r47zT8emW
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) December 18, 2015
The addition (116 words) was much longer than the deletion (66 words) of the section that made Obama look bad. https://t.co/CAqgHVDbyN
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) December 18, 2015
Baker and Gardiner, the two reporters who authored the NYT story, have yet to explain why Obama’s admission about being out of touch with the public on terrorism was deleted from their story.
UPDATE: The New York Times claimed in a statement late Friday morning that its deletion of the Obama passage was not “unusual” and that it was merely “trimmed for space in the print paper”:
Statement from NY Times re: deleting that passage about President Obama not recognizing anxiety over terrorism. pic.twitter.com/PwZngc88G2
— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) December 18, 2015
The problem with this explanation is that it doesn’t make any sense when you review the first major online revision, which Newsdiffs.org archived at 10:21 p.m. EST. In that version, only one substantive revision was made: the paragraph about Obama not watching enough cable TV was removed and replaced with two paragraphs about Obama’s plan to combat ISIS.
The section that was removed contained 66 words. The section that was added in its place contained 116 words. If the New York Times was indeed “trimming for space” in that particular revision, it will need to explain why its revision to that section added 50 words.
»
- 180 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
A "judicial system"? I liken it to a 'legal system', there is no real justice for the people, there is only justice for those that can afford it. Corrupt is an understatement, the new government motto should be, 'those who right the laws are above the laws' but that would be honest and I am not expecting that. The entire system is predicated on lies and the threat of violence. It's a train wreck and we are in the observation car at the rear, our time will come.
Agreed, well said.
It could of been better said... I have a bad typo... thanks. My point is clear, my typo is bad, it should read, those who write the laws are above the laws.
The only Americans who make this statement are the ones who either don't do business in other countries and/or never have traveled much. Go to India, Brazil, or South Africa and tell me they are better off in terms of governance and corruption. Either full of shit or just completely staying in a very isolated world. People expect in India to be bribed to get things done. Just part of the culture in gov't and private business among strangers.
In India government workers at lower levels are paid peanuts. They have to get a little bribe here and there to feed their families, This is not so in USA so corruption may not be visible to the avaerage person,
But at the higher levels, corruptuion in the USA is off the charts. Trillions are lost to corruption every year and since the press does not report it, the average person is unaware of it.
Meh. Every country is corrupt. The difference is most other countries know it...in America we're thinking we're better than those other shitholes, so we often let things become much worse while we hang on to appearances. Hey we like to be number one....when will we figure out we're number one in all the bad categories?
Animal Farm, did the pigs just change the words on the barn wall again?
If you say something bad about Obama the terrorists win.
Is this even news? Really? I can't believe anyone of any political persuasion at all thinks this bit of silliness qualifies as news.
I think Obama has a good point actually - the frenzy around these Made-For-TV Terror events is created by cable news, so it's hard to understand the disproportional emotional response to the event without seeing the way it is sensationalized by the media. It's hard to understand why a bunch of meatheads talking "tough" about implementing exactly the same strategy already theoretically in place are winning the public opinion battle unless you're waking up and watching Morning Joe.
"The New York Times Just Memory-Holed This Devastating Obama Admission"
Again with the stupid unreal headline. This one should read:
"The Lying Scumbag Rag called Sucmbag Times Just Memory-Holed the Fake Scumbag president oscamba's horsecarp and bullshite admission, and replaced it with moar Evil horsecarp and baloney-bilge scumm dis/mis-information."
Who gives a cark?
The reason the chief scumbag does not see the bs fear mongering on the phoney-baloney scumbag tv drug thingy box is (a), they are not wasting the air time for only the fake scumbag pres to see and (b), that is because no one else watches the scumbag news on the tv drug box thingy any moar.
Well, only the stupid and ignorant do, so ware the klown suits accordingly.
PS: YO SCUMBAG OSCAMBA...WHEN THE NEXT FALSE FLAG EVENT HAPPENS, EVERYBODY WILL KNOW IT WAS YOU, THE VERY WORST FAKE PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA'S FAULT FOR ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN WHILE YOU SIT IN YOUR HAWAII RETREAT SURROUNDED BY, SCUMBAGS!
Someone from the corporate boob tube propaganda side of the fourth estate, apparently complained to the corporate liberal rag propaganda side......
Hillary is the anionted Queen, and the shills need to be on the same talking points page.....
Quite frankly he's a disgrace to his own.He's hasnt done a goddamn thing to help black people in the States.They voted this con artist into office and has turned out to be nothing but a fuckin' idiot on foreign policy.The infrastructure of the country is getting even more run down.This shart is nothing short of a bloody clown and the only thing he's missing besides common sense is a fin on his slippery back.
(The New York Post)
Who needs a White House press secretary when The New York Times will cover for the president, no questions asked?
That’s what the Times did Thursday, deleting from a story one of the most atrocious things President Obama has ever said.
As part of his effort to turn things around after his recent pathetic speeches on fighting terrorism, the president met with columnists from multiple outlets.
The ground rules said no one could quote him directly — but one of his claims is appalling even when paraphrased.
http://nypost.com/2015/12/18/the-ny-times-papers-over-obamas-pathetic-re...
Obama is very compitent at being incompitent.
Obama is very transparent at being opaque.
Obama is very open about being clandestine.
Obama is very presidential about being a puppet.
"Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino."
So he's not watching reports on false flag attacks by lame stream media lies? How is that a bad thing?
So what the hell is it? Obama should give into the NSA/Homeland Security creeps who have been out in force on the media airwaves saying they need access to all enryption even if the types of attacks committed by the people in San Bernandino are difficult to find and prevent unless you have a massive domestic security police state with large numbers of personnnel? Obama should escalate the US military presence in Syria and Iraq including putting US military boots on the ground in Syria?
Part of the biggest problem the US has that it responds to almost everything since 9-11 with excessive military force, blows shit up in some area that doesn't have a military capable of standing up to US airpower, breaks shit there creating a power vacuum, and then wonders why things go to bloody hell.
Free speech and no censorship. Independent press. Perfect example.
Real news would be Obama admits
"I've had semen in my mouth and I'm a proud Muslim working to undermine Western Society".
Gee, the NYT covering up Obama's idiocy. What a shock. At this point they must feel like a one armed paper hanger.
Like stalin he orders killing of ppl every day
& watches them die on drone cam
before going to bed
with a sense of celebration
& entertainment
no time for mundane activities