Networks Censor NYT Deleting Obama Quote Saying He Didn’t ‘Appreciate The Anxiety’ Post-Terror Attacks

Posted on Sat 12/19/2015 by

1


Curtis Houck picture-358-1409253645By Curtis Houck ~

The major broadcast networks on Friday morning and evening showed no interest in reporting to viewers that The New York Times had scrubbed from an article on its website that contained a quote from President Obama telling columnists that he did not watch enough news coverage of the Paris and San Bernardino terror attacks to truly grasp the anxiety of the American people.

While the liberal newspaper tried to claim that they merely altered the article and removed the line so as to create more space, numerous journalists disputed that claim with the simple fact that the sentence was replaced with two paragraphs that combined for more words than the original sentence.

ABC, CBS, and NBC chose to cover for The Times, but FNC’s Special Report did not as anchor Bret Baier offered a sharply-worded news brief on the matter with the on-screen headline: “Sin of Omission?”

2015-12-18-FNC-SR-NYTDeletingObamaQuote

Baier noted that the paper “says it was just trying to save space, when it edited from an earlier story, a stunning admission by President Obama, that he essentially underestimated the public’s reaction to recent ISIS terror attacks.”

He then read the quote that was originally in the article by reporters Peter Baker and Gardiner Harris: “Mr. Obama indicated he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino.” 

Taking that into consideration, Baier frankly observed that the decision to remove it in favor of “two paragraphs that had more words than the original sentence” has “call[ed] into question the Times’ explanation about saving space.”

Commenting on the issue during the panel segment, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer observed that while he thinks the President was talking “saracstic[ly],” it nonetheless “show[ed] condescension to the rabble out there” and further paraphrased what the President was probably trying to state: “This is Obama essentially saying, well, you know, the reason people are upset about this, is because it’s been hyped on television and they are not as cool, intelligent, and far-seeing as I am. This is his usual professorial condescension.”

The transcript of the brief from FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier on December 18 can be found below.

FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier
December 18, 2015
6:07 p.m. Eastern

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE CAPTION: The New York Times; Sin of Omission?]

BRET BAIER: The New York Times says it was just trying to save space, when it edited from an earlier story, a stunning admission by President Obama, that he essentially underestimated the public’s reaction to recent ISIS terror attacks. This quote was in the original version of last night’s Times story, quote in his meeting with the columnist, “Mr. Obama indicated he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino.” That section was eliminated and replaced by two paragraphs that had more words than the original sentence, calling into question the Times’ explanation about saving space.

(….)

6:39 p.m. Eastern

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Well, look, on this story about the meeting with journalists and him saying that this is all hyped up, you know, he didn’t see it on cable. I think I wasn’t there and I think — of course I wasn’t there, but I, to me, he was being sarcastic. He was, this is a sort of way of dissing, showing condescension to the rabble out there. After all this is an interview he gave January 23rd of this year, asked: As do you think if the media sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism? Barack Obama: Absolutely and I don’t even blame the media for that. What’s the saying? If it bleeds, it leads? You show crime stories and local newscasts right, because that’s what the folks watch.” This is Obama essentially saying, well, you know, the reason people are upset about this, is because it’s been hyped on television and they are not as cool, intelligent, and far-seeing as I am. This is his usual professorial condescension. The fact that The Times took it out, I’m not quite sure if they saw it as straight or sarcasm.

Curtis Houck is a news analyst for the Media Research Center’s News Analysis Division.

Read more Great Articles at . http://newsbusters.org