In an astounding example of blatant government control of portions of the U.S. media, a recent article in the New York Times exemplifies the lengths the Hell Stream Media will go to in order to protect Barack Obama from his own mistakes, but an underlying storyline should be even more concerning to those that think the media is in any way trying to really "inform" them of the truth.
NYT DISAPPEARS THE LEAD BECAUSE IT MAKES OBAMA LOOK BAD
The New York Times admitted that in a private meeting with jounalists Barack Obama admitted he didn't quite understand the level of anxiety Americans were feeling after the ISIS terror attacks in Paris which killed 130 people, then the subsequent San Bernardino attack in California which killed 14, because he didn't watch enough cable news.
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.
Others pounced on that remark which clearly shows Obama is disconnected from the people he was "selected" to represent as well as his complete total disregard of the dangers we face from terrorists on U.S. soil.
Among the 100 voters casting ballots, first-place votes were spread among 17 different stories. The Islamic State entry received 37 first-place votes and same-sex marriage 13. The No. 3 story — the deadly attacks in Paris in January and November — received 14 first-place votes.
Between the ISIS 37 first place votes and the Number 3 story of the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino with 14 first place votes, both having been associated with ISIS, that means over 50 percent can be attributed to ISIS in one form or another...... Obama must have missed all that as well to have made the remarks he made.
The New York Times then proceeded to disappear the whole reference to Obama's cable comments, changing their article without any explanation.... until they were called out on removing what many reported as the lead, then they claimed "There's nothing unusual here. That paragraph, near the bottom of the story, was trimmed for space in the print paper by the copy editor in New York late last night." They continued on to say that web stories are "routinely" edited for print.
That might have been plausable if the changes they had made didn't, in fact, make the article longer by 50 words in the end, as proven over at The Federalist:
The problem with this explanation is that it doesn’t make any sense when you review the first major online revision, which Newsdiffs.org archived at 10:21 p.m. EST. In that version, only one substantive revision was made: the paragraph about Obama not watching enough cable TV was removed and replaced with two paragraphs about Obama’s plan to combat ISIS.
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.
The Federalist also points out another set of significant changes:
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.
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 Federalists end their excellently presented piece by stating "The internet never forgets."
This type of behavior has been typical of what Steve Quayle has dubbed the "Hell Stream Media" aka MSM throughout Obama's presidency, where Obama and his mouth pieces often claimed they didn't find out about major events until they say them with everyone else on the news. Examples of this claim were highlighted by The Daily Mail back in 2014 with an article titled "White House says Obama only learned of VA wait-list scandal on TV (just like the IRS, Fast and Furious and reporter snooping scandals)"
One would be forgiven for assuming the so-called "leader of the free world", the President of the United States of America, doesn't have any sources (like intelligence agencies!) other than the news media, who just happens to have regular "private meetings" with the president and the White House, to which they are not allowed to directly quote Obama or adminsitration officials, which brings us to the most egregious portion... the true "lead."
COLLUSION, COLLABORATION AND CONSPIRACY BETWEEN NEWS OUTLETS AND THE WHITE HOUSE
We see a glaring admission by the MSM, via CNN on how they conspire and collude with the White House routinely on how to "spin" the news in a manner the Obama administration wants, providing their veiwers and readers with nothing more that government propaganda.
The meeting, which took place in the White House Roosevelt Room, included journalists, columnists and editors from the Times, The Washington Post and The Atlantic, as well as digital outlets like Yahoo, Slate, Vox and Mic. Per the ground rules, attendees were not allowed to discuss the meeting or attribute any remarks to the president.
Yet the purpose of these off-the-record meetings, which have been a feature of Obama's tenure, is to influence the national dialogue. The White House achieved that goal on Wednesday when the Post's David Ignatius, who was at the meeting, penned a column based almost entirely on Obama's remarks without any mention of the meeting.
This is even more disturbing than the NYT simply changing headlines to demonize Republicans and shine a rose-colored light on Obama as well as attempting to disappear a statement to which showed how out of touch with reality Barack Obama is..... this is outright collusion, collaboration and conspiracy between the White House and major media outlets, to frame the debate and drive the message.
We often see criticism of other countries for having state run media with the U.S. up on their high horse claiming they have a "free media," yet these routine "private meetings" between the White House and major news outlets makes a mockery of that claim.
This type of behavior is also reason why year after year distrust of the media has been on the rise.
Alternative Media aka Independent Journalism is not perfect, many of us were never officially trained, did not go journalism school and often address our opinions, but we do provide sources, documents, screen shots, and videos which shows what influenced our opinions, making all the information we can available to the reader, so that they can click the links, research and determine for themselves whether they agree with our conclusions or have come to different ones.
The MSM has sold out in a major way and can no longer be considered "free," but instead are nothing more than Obama puppets and cheerleaders all reading off the same script as the multiple examples below conclusively prove.