Via Hot Air
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.”
The headline about Obama’s “muted” response suggests that even Times editors recognized the detail about cable news was important; it was O’s own explanation, however surreal, for why his response was muted. It explained, for instance, why he thought it’d be smart after mass murder in Paris to go out there and lecture Americans about their intolerance of Syrian refugees. That’s what happens when you miss a few episodes of “Hardball,” I guess. So then: Give me a theory of why that detail would have been dropped that doesn’t boil down to some variation of “The White House called up the Times and threatened to limit access if they left it in there.” What I’d like to know is when, precisely, the detail disappeared relative to when people like Stelter were making it go viral on Twitter. Did the Times publish it initially not realizing just how embarrassing it was for O, only to spring into action and send it down the memory hole once their readers pointed it out? Or did Team Obama recognize the damage once the first draft of the story went live and then take aggressive action to have it torn down? Give me a scenario where this info wasn’t removed for political reasons. Was the bit about Obama and cable news factually wrong? If so, who was the NYT’s source? Why don’t they burn him/her as punishment? Was it just that the story was eating up too much space in the print edition? If so, how do you explain this?
Read the rest here...