Reading the News So You Know "How To Respond?"
Sean Davis, Co-founder of "The Federalist" (@ thefederalist.com) has a thorough report on how the New York Times has edited "a mistake" made by the Obama administration. According to Davis the action by the NYT had "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..."
Davis quotes CNN's Brian Stelter, who reported: "...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 way Davis calls it is this:
"... 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..."
Davis continued in his column that the passage containing Obama's admission was gone as of Friday morning, and then displayed the passages as they went through several revisions, including several changes in the headlines of that article, and included the following:
"...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 action by the New York Times is as just as absurd, if not more, than the Original statement by Obama. THAT is what IS the news. Deliberately or "unconsciously" the media, the "conservative" camp, as well as the socialist shills for Obama, are overlooking what is disappointingly obvious to many Americans, and that is, not the attempt to hide Obama's failings via the editing of the reporting of his actions, but the actions (or statements) themselves.
Specifically THIS: What sort of person has to rely on cable news, or any reports for that matter in order to feel a certain way about a particular incident. Obama is described as being "out of touch," but I submit that there is much more there to ponder than a mere lack of information.
WHO needs to be told by someone or something else how to act? 14 Americans were brutally slaughtered by psycopathic terrorist killers. Who even measures the amount of anxiety needed as a response?
THIS person is your President Today. We have heard constantly how Hillary Clinton's campaign operatives have been working overtime to make her seem more real, more appealing to her audiences. Is it because she too, like the President lacks the social empathy that is natural to other human beings?
Do both of these personalities lack a particular trait that makes everyone else "normal?"
Would you care to mention what trait that is, and what psychological disorder this points to?