As Twitchy told you, The New York Times tried — and failed — to stealth-delete a less-than-flattering passage about President Obama:
Obama needs more cable news in his media diet? Revealing comment in a private meeting with newspaper columnists… pic.twitter.com/iUHz6Ey38g
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) December 18, 2015
CNN’s Brian Stelter didn’t seem to think it was all that big a deal … and neither does the Times:
https://twitter.com/BecketAdams/status/677887503873871872
Peter Baker, who cowrote the piece in question, just doesn’t get what all the fuss is about:
Hi guys. Thanks for all the interest. This paragraph was online all day. Web stories are edited for print all the time. No conspiracy here.
— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) December 18, 2015
Got that, rubes? It’s all much ado about nothing.
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/677936016540508160
Why did every single iteration of your story become more favorable to Obama and more hostile to "assailing" Republicans? @peterbakernyt
— Ursus, Director of Weather and Banana Programming (@AceofSpadesHQ) December 18, 2015
@peterbakernyt conspiracy is least embarrassing theory, tho, no?
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) December 18, 2015
Seriously.
@AceofSpadesHQ @peterbakernyt e.g. ‘we’re so biased we had not clue what a blockbuster this detail was’? (Conspiracy would be preferable!)
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) December 18, 2015
Maybe Peter can elaborate:
We add things to stories as day progresses, then trim other elements to offset for print. That happens all the time. https://t.co/9mYjC5Hrce
— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) December 18, 2015
No biggie. Just routine surgery.
https://twitter.com/RobProvince/status/677937082770280449
Recommended
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/677942427911634952
@peterbakernyt …not believable? Space constraints? When edit was longer than removed paragraph?
— Max (@MHB2012) December 18, 2015
Longer piece after removing the slight to Obama. Happens all the time. Seems legit. @peterbakernyt
— Blame Big Government (@BlameBigGovt) December 18, 2015
@peterbakernyt How often do you "edit" and "trim for space" by making things larger while inserting bias? All the time?
— Bert Difig (@BertDifig1) December 18, 2015
D’oh!
@peterbakernyt So you had no idea that the "cable news" line would be so newsworthy/revealing? Your political instincts can't be that wrong.
— Dan Sager (@dsager45) December 18, 2015
Actually I did think it was interesting. That's why I reported it and you know about it in the first place. https://t.co/LlBjmNLzen
— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) December 18, 2015
But it wasn’t interesting enough to keep in the article, huh?
then let's talk about your news judgment: how did you decide this obviously newsworthy admission wasn't worth the space? @peterbakernyt
— Ursus, Director of Weather and Banana Programming (@AceofSpadesHQ) December 18, 2015
@peterbakernyt So you edited out the newsworthy part of the story?
— Amerigo Chattin (@AmerigoChattin) December 18, 2015
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/677936401309126656
https://twitter.com/Me_In_Jersey/status/677898006499368960
None of it makes any sense. That is, unless, Baker is completely full of crap.
Guys, keep in mind, we were the ones who broke the secret meeting the White House wanted off the record. That’s the opposite of coverup.
— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) December 18, 2015
Nice try, pal.
@peterbakernyt COME. ON.
— Lynn Pounian (@Panger2019) December 18, 2015
— Dan Crispen (@dcrspn) December 18, 2015
https://twitter.com/MustDeportTrump/status/677895876996657152
@peterbakernyt now we know you're really lying.
— (((Val Washington)))??❤ (@ValeriaPugliesi) December 18, 2015
https://twitter.com/Erik_Boielle/status/677897138269982720
Real mystery, that.
***
Related:
Report: President didn’t see enough cable TV to fully appreciate effect of terrorist attacks
CNN’s Brian Stelter doesn’t see NYT deleting Obama’s ‘revealing’ comment as a big deal
Ace of Spades trips up journos’ rush to defend NYT over deletion of Obama admission
Join the conversation as a VIP Member