angelburst29 said:
Take for incidence, right after President Putin's Military entered into Syria, The Washington Post published an article of the event and within the course of 36 hours, had changed "title" 4 different times - on the same article and altered the first paragraph to reflect the changes (or corrections) how ever you want to deem it. The New York Times often pulls the same stunt. The Forum Members noticed the alterations, due to documentation of the earlier articles.
New York Times quietly edits article to delete embarrassing statements Obama made about terrorism
http://www.naturalnews.com/052408_NYT_Obama_apologist_terrorism.html
In recent days The New York Times covered a rare visit by Obama to the National Counterterrorism Center, in which the paper initially published some very embarrassing comments the selfie-obsessed president made, but then memory-holed them later.
As noted by The Federalist,
the original story, written by reporters Peter Baker and Gardiner Harris and published Dec. 17, contained a stunning admission by the president following the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif. But by the next day – Dec. 18 – the embarrassing passage was removed.
In a Twitter post, CNN's Brian Stelter included the quote:
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 first New York Times version confirmed a version of Obama that his critics have long suspected – that when it comes to issues of national security, this president is an out-of-touch and disinterested bystander.
"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," The Federalist reported.
Pathetic
But then, The Times went into protection mode and removed the offending passage from its online version of the story, and that drew the attention of other journalists and Times watchers, who questioned the deletion.
That wasn't all The Times did to protect Obama, however. In addition to deleting the embarrassing section, as tracked by Newsdiffs.org, Times editors changed the piece's headline on four separate occasions, each time putting Obama in a better light or portraying Republicans in a worse light.
As reported by The Federalist:
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."
What's even more comical – and pathetic – is The Times' reporters "explanation" of what editors did, a sort of "nothing to see here, just move on" response.
Changes made no sense
In a statement to the Washington Examiner's T. Beckett Adams they responded:
Thanks for the question. There's nothing unusual here. That paragraph, near the bottom of the story, was trimmed for space in the print paper by a copy editor in New York late last night. But it was in our story on the web all day and read by many thousands of readers. Web stories without length constraints are routinely edited for print.
Sure. Why all the headline changes, then?
Crickets. Silence. No response.
As noted by Sean Davis of The Federalist, however, the changes made no sense.
"NYT says it 'trimmed' the Obama quote for space. It deleted 66 words and added 116 in that revision," he said in one tweet.
"The NYT's excuse that it was just 'trimming for space' makes no sense. Its revision of that section added 50 words," he said in another.
The Times has been in the tank for Obama since he got the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. To expect the paper to now change the way it has protected him is ludicrous. But every time it does, the paper needs to be exposed for doing so.
Kremlin's Press Spokesman: Western Mainstream Media Is Losing Its Power
http://russia-insider.com/en/putins-spokesperson-theres-great-info-war-going/ri11979
(Originally Appeared at Contra Magazine. Translated from the German by Werner Schrimpf)
From the perspective of the Kremlin, there's a huge information war going on. Spokesperson Dmitri Peskov claimed that
Russia’s opponents and critics lack any kind of objectivity and addressed his accusations primarily to Western mainstream media. According to Mr. Peskov, Russian media on the other hand, would offer a quite sophisticated and balanced level of standards.
During recent days,
Contra Magazin“ had reported several times on the lies and half-truths circulated by Western mainstream media. During an interview given by Russia’s TV station Rossiya 24, Mr. Peskov stated that Western mainstream media would continue to lose its humanity and would also give away its role as a provider of mass media.
The adequate remedy to counter this information war would be to play an active part in the global media game and to inform the international community and people to the best advantage. According to Mr. Peskov, Russia’s public and private run media are in a good position to fulfill this task. Russia’s media would be able to maintain a high level in quality and standards.
The problems with Western and especially German mainstream media are well known. This is true at least to consumers of independent blogs and portals who are pretty much aware of the continuous lying in the self-proclaimed “quality media”.
Hardly a day goes by without private as well as state run mainstream media launching an ugly and impertinent lie about Russia. Western media representatives often claim that Russian journalists would report biased and doubt their journalistic independence.
However the sinister connections and conspiracies between Western media in terms of politics, media, transatlantic think tanks and NGO’s are kept secret. But in contrary to German media, which is just pretending to be “independent”, Russia’s media portals like Russia Today and its branches make no secret of the fact they present facts and news from a Russian point of view.