Proof of NY Times lying to support Obama, example 34,967

Last Thursday the NY Times showed us proof of how utterly corrupt it is.

Most of you probably couldn't care less, of course, but for those who are remotely interest in truth it's an eye-opener.

The Times published a story on-line about a meeting between Obama and a group of left-wing reporters--including those from CNN.  Here's how CNN described the meeting:

The meeting...in the White House Roosevelt Room, included journalists, columnists and editors from the Times, The Washington Post and The Atlantic,...Yahoo, Slate, Vox and Mic. Per the ground rules, attendees were not allowed to discuss the meeting or attribute any remarks to the president (emphasis added).

So...the whole group consisted of strong Obama supporters.  Check.

Now here's what the Times published--at least the first version:

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. 

Wait, did Obama actually indicate he wasn't able to "fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino--because he didn't watch enough cable TV?

Wow, that would show a stunning lack of awareness, empathy, common sense and so on.  Hey, can't have that for a Democrat pol!  So someone at the White Hut apparently picked up the phone and called the Times.  And the result was...the Times deleted the above passage from their on-line story and substituted a new 'graf far more favorable to Obozo.

This is hardly a shock--the Times has supported Democrat candidates and officeholders for decades.  But what happened next was even more revealing:  When questioned about the reason for the deletion and substitution, the Times replied

"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....Web stories without length constraints are routinely edited for print."

But the revised version--while deleting 66 words--added another 116 words.  So the line about 'Oh, this was just done by a copy editor in order to trim for space in the print version" was complete, utter bullshit.  And the chilling part is how brazenly they lied about the reason, hoping no one would bother to check the actual facts.

The deletion of the major passage and the substitution of text more favorable to Obozo wasn’t the only significant change made to the story:  Times editors also changed the story’s headline four times, according to Newsdiffs.org.  Each change either put Obama in a better light or put the GOP in a worse one.

When the story was first published the headline was “Obama visiting National Counterterrorism Center.”  Two hours later the headline was changed to “Obama, at Counterterrorism Center, offers assurances on safety.”  So now the Times is showing a more active president, taking...action.

Then the headline was changed to “Frustrated by Republican critics, Obama defends muted response to attacks.”  So now the story's lede, according to the Times editors, is "Republican critics."

Two hours later the headline was revised yet again: “Under fire from G.O.P., Obama defends response to terror attacks.”  Apparently, simply putting the blame on "Republican critics" wasn't a strong enough fellation, so the Times had those critics metaphorically shooting at their champion.

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.”  Apparently just showing their hero as being "under fire" from Republicans wasn't strong enough; Times editors apparently thought "assailed" was better, showing their champion being assaulted by the GOP.

Hey Times editors, would you like to claim the four changes to the headline were also made to save space?  Do go ahead--we'd expect no less from ya.