The NYT could help them with that

While Russia is busy air-brushing Stalin’s legacy and transforming him into the great dancer so few people knew he was, the NYT editors are protecting the Obama image even as he screws it up.

OBAMA SAYS HE DOESN’T WATCH ENOUGH TV, AND THE NEW YORK TIMES TACITLY ADMITS IT CAN’T GET ENOUGH OF THE MEMORY HOLE. I’m not sure which is more damning, the following passage

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.

…Or the fact that at least at the moment, it’s since been expunged from the Times’ article, even though it was quoted last night by blogger Tom Maguire, the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple, the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto, and CNN’s Brian Stelter. And it was in the Google cache as of last night as well.

At the Federalist, Sean Davis notes that in addition to memory holing the passage that President Chauncey Gardner blew off TV watching during those events, “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.”

And as Davis adds, the Times tried to claim that their deletion of Chauncey Gardner’s lack of TV watching was removed for space requirements, not as a favor to the administration (and Hillary, its would-be successor). “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.”

Exit quote from Ace. “The only question is: What was he watching on TV instead of news about the terrorist attacks? I know he was watching TV, because this is one TV-watchin’ motherf***er.“

 

36 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

36 responses to “The NYT could help them with that

  1. Luke Gardner

    A President Chauncey Gardner would be refreshingly welcome at this point.

  2. Just another example of the mainstream media acting as a reliable Obama ally. The mainstream media helps Obama almost as much as Republican leaders like McConnell and Ryan. Obama is one of the most consequential presidents in American history. In eight years he has transformed America into an administratively regulated welfare state with massive debt and extremely low economic growth.

    So what if he is too busy watching hoops to notice that the rubes are overly upset about a minor problem in San Bernardino? The important thing to remember is that Muslims reliably vote Democratic, and therefore must be added to our population in the largest numbers as quickly as possible.

    Obama understands the big picture, although he occasionally slips on a detail with respect to the clinger remnant with their guns and religion. No big deal. He just appeases the rubes as stops off on his way to Hawaii, and all is well.

    Next up, Hillary and amnesty for all illegals plus free college for all.

    • Libertarian Advocate

      I used to think that you were too much the pessimist and that you privately delighted in being that. Now that democrat penetration agent Paul Ryan has finally revealed himself to all for what HE is, I see you as more of a prescient reluctant realist. That is more than a little depressing.

      • I am a reluctant realist. I wish Ryan and McConnell would act as principled conservatives, but they simply refuse to do so. They are get along, go along co-conspirators with Obama, Reid, and Pelosi (who are contemptuous of their spinelessness.)

  3. Mr. Obama “made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments…”
    He’s going to summon his courage, and his vaunted intellect (Harvard Law, after all), and he’s going to solve this terrorism thing. He’s determined to …..TALK MORE!

    Gee, I feel safer already. Don’t you?

  4. Anonymous

    what about fake news protecting the republican clown ideology?

  5. Anonymous

    President Obama God bless you.

    • Libertarian Advocate

      لا تقصد حقا الله

      • LA, we share your ultimate goal of smaller, more intelligent government.
        But are you really helping when you jump ugly with Paul Ryan? It’s easy for Republicans to make his life miserable, make him unproductive and ultimately hound him from office like Republicans did to Boehner. But when Republicans desert their leadership, Democratic votes become necessary in order to pass anything, which puts big influence in the hands of Pelosi and Harry Reid! Naturally the outcome of that is larger, stupider government. Why is this desirable to you?

        • Walt

          I think you are looking at it backwards. Republican Leadership has deserted it’s base. And when that happens, Pelosi and Reid have all the power they need.

        • Please permit me to jump in here. Paul Ryan is a huge disappointment. The House controls spending, the Republicans control the House, and Ryan (like Boehner before him) puts absolutely no control on spending and gives the minority Democrats literally everything they want — no fence, huge sums to resettle Muslim migrants, Obamacare, etc.

          You point out that “…when Republicans desert their leadership, Democratic votes become necessary in order to pass anything…” Why doesn’t Republican leadership do what the Republican members said they would do when they sought the votes of the people who elected them? Ryan’s refusal to make any attempt to control spending is disgraceful.

          The Republicans have the votes to stop this spending, but Ryan is scared of an Obama veto and a shutdown. The mainstream media and polling blame Republicans for shutdowns, but the voters subsequently rewarded the Republicans with Congressional majorities, But lame duck Obama has all the power because “leaders” like Ryan and McConnell are gutless bureaucrats
          more interested in avoiding criticism by the mainstream media than in honoring campaign pledges. Remember all the talk about regular order?

        • Walt – You said it better in three short sentences than I could in way too many words. Well done.

        • Walt

          Thanks Inagua. Brevity is my strong suite.

  6. LA – Further to being a reluctant realist. I am a reasonably substantial citizen who has had most of his net worth in Berkshire Hathaway stock for many years. I recently sold everything and am now entirely in cash for the first time in my life, which has been long and has been conducted exclusively as a professional trader/investor. I do not fear a crash; I fear continued slow growth with an accompanying decrease in asset values. Government economic policy is hopeless, and absent significant technological advances to spur productivity, I do not see how asset values can remain unaffected by economic reality.

  7. Peg

    “Huge disappointment” is a major underbid.

    • “Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

      President-to-be Hillary Rodham Clinton

      • Do you intend to watch President Elect Clinton “debate” tonight as ABC tosses softballs her way?

        • Well no, no I don’t. Perhaps I’ll read some pre-WW 1 history, just to cheer me up.

          • Well, no, I don’t either and no one I know is planning on watching. Bernie had the best line last week, blasting the DNC for choosing tonight, the Saturday before Christmas. He said “I guess Christmas Eve was booked.” The man has only himself to blame if he thinks the DNC is not playing fair. HE and HE alone gave Hillary the golden ticket to the Inaugural Ball by excusing her email fiasco.

  8. weakleyhollow

    They want us to believe that they trim for space in the digital edition?

  9. We Republicans presently have a bit of a lock on the House and Senate (thank heaven). But I have to disagree with: “The Republicans have the votes to stop this spending…” Sorry, there’s one more vote we need. It comes from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We must must win the Presidency.

    You’re right, the media will blame a shutdown on us. And yes the media is biased and retarded. But these are realities for now. We must deal with these realities, and carry out a winning strategy for November 2016. The two stupidest things we could do now are: shut down the gov’t, and nominate Trump. Either one brings us President Hillary, and we’ll all be frustrated for another 4 years or more.

    • Walt

      Unless we return to an honest society, where integrity matter, and politicians abide by their oath to honor and protect the Constitution, in THE NEXT SIX MONTHS, Hillary is the next President. And what are the odds of that happening?

      • steubing

        I think you all are not paying enough attention to the anger in flyover country. They hate Hillary and they want the Donald. The more he disparages the Muslims the better his ratings get. The folks know they have been lied to and they will show up to vote this year. Trump is our only hope!

      • Libertarian Advocate

        Walt: I’ll assume you ain’t holding your breath for THAT miracle.

    • “..the media will blame a shutdown on us”…[therefore] “The…stupidest thing we could do now: shut down the gov’t…”

      Your premise is correct, but I disagree with your conclusion. Despite the media blame, the October 2013 shutdown led to a very good 2014 election: a net gain of nine seats in the Senate and thirteen seats in the House seats.

      The mainstream media is the de facto PR arm of the Democratic Party. It is an adversary to be confronted, not an impartial referee that must be obeyed.

      What “winning strategy” do you recommend for 2016?

      • I personally don’t think “more of the same” will do it, but I’d be far more comfortable with Cruz in the White House than the Dinald, if only for the quality of his picks for the Supreme Court.

        • anonymous

          My personal preference is for Mr. Cruz but I do not think a white male (other than the Donald) could get elected. The Donald is the only person that can take on the MSM (which is the de facto PR arm of the Democratic Party) and the only person that angry middle-America can identify with. I think he is crass and a buffoon but I do not think he hates America or could do a worse job than the current white house occupier. The market is toast regardless. We might as well have someone who has dealt with bankruptcy before.

  10. sunbeam43

    Great piece Chris! You are spot on. The NYT is the shining example of what happens to a once respectable newspaper that is very close to being destroyed by pandering to the far left!

  11. Anonymous, your comment is spectacular and hilarious: “We might as well have someone who has dealt with bankruptcy before.”
    Yes, Obama has created so much debt that only an expert in bankruptcy like the Donald can manage thru it! By repudiating it!
    That assumes that the American people want to live in a bankrupt-and-restructured Trump casino…….

    The winning strategy is ….to act like adults, and stop shooting at other Republicans. Any of Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Fiorina, Christie, Kasich will serve as a candidate for adults. Trump not so much. Hasn’t a prayer.

    • anonymous

      Institutional Suicide also includes the current GOP. The Donald is the ONLY chance the GOP has of winning. Most of the USA is already living in a bankrupt casino which is why the Donald has a chance. Clearly, you are not able to see that.

  12. “The winning strategy is ….to act like adults…”

    Were Dole, McCain, Bush and Romney acting like adults when they lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections?

    Does acting like adults include funding everything Obama, Reid, and Pelosi want?

    Do you think it possible that the refusal of the Republican congress to stick to it’s campaign promises might depress Republican voter turn out next fall?