Liberal NYTimes censors 3 Most Important Words in Obama's Speech!

In today's New York Times printing of the President's speech in Tuscon, the interjected --it did not--, reiterating the point that the tragedy did not occur as a result of political rhetoric or tone, was not included in their version.

These were the three most important words of the entire speech! Amazing!
 
In today's New York Times printing of the President's speech in Tuscon, the interjected --it did not--, reiterating the point that the tragedy did not occur as a result of political rhetoric or tone, was not included in their version.

These were the three most important words of the entire speech! Amazing!


Link?

I'm just going to go ahead and take a stab in the dark and suggest that maybe, perhaps, possibly the NY Times printed a copy of the president's prepared remarks distributed to the press beforehand as opposed to the as delivered speech.
 
From an editorial on Obama’s speech in today’s NY Times:

It was important that Mr. Obama transcend the debate about whose partisanship has been excessive and whose words have sown the most division and dread. This page and many others have identified those voices and called on them to stop demonizing their political opponents. The president’s role in Tucson was to comfort and honor, and instill hope.​

In other words, the Times has pointed out the villains so the President didn’t have to dirty his hands with that last night. That’s how they see it. It’s not that the President disagrees with them, it’s just that last night wasn’t the moment to bring it up. They then highlight this bit of Obama’s speech:

This horrific event, he said, should be a turning point for everyone — “not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation.”​

Notice what’s missing? Here’s what the President actually said:

If, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy–it did not–but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation.​

This came at about 27:30 into this video. Having missed the President’s point completely, the Times goes on to once again attack Sarah Palin:

The president’s words were an important contrast to the ugliness that continues to swirl in some parts of the country. The accusation by Sarah Palin that “journalists and pundits” had committed a “blood libel” when they raised questions about overheated rhetoric was especially disturbing, given the grave meaning of that phrase in the history of the Jewish people.​
:lies:
 
Link?

I'm just going to go ahead and take a stab in the dark and suggest that maybe, perhaps, possibly the NY Times printed a copy of the president's prepared remarks distributed to the press beforehand as opposed to the as delivered speech.

what position in politics did you hold? what kind of operative you were you? did you actually hold elected office, or did you just get the coffee?
 
From the actual editorial dated January 12:

"This horrific event, he said, should be a turning point for everyone — “not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy – it did not – but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/opinion/13thu1.html?_r=2

dixie pwned

edit - never mind, apparently dixie was right at the time
 
Last edited:
From the actual editorial dated January 12:

"This horrific event, he said, should be a turning point for everyone — “not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy – it did not – but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/opinion/13thu1.html?_r=2

Update: So sometime after 11:20 am EST when I published this post, the NY Times got around to correcting the omission. Full credit to Allahpundit for noticing the update. I find it odd that they let half a day go by with the wrong text and then corrected it without noting the change in the footer or anywhere. If you check the site now, you’d think it was there all along. I don’t do that sort of thing here. Shouldn’t the paper of record have higher standards?

The point still stands:
Having missed the President’s point completely, the Times goes on to once again attack Sarah Palin...
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=20565
 
Unless you can link to something that shows the original edited post on the NYT site, I'll have to conclude verumserum is just sh*t-stirring.

Sorry, but the PRINT version of NY Times doesn't have a "LINK!"

I can scan my copy, which is right here in front of me, and I'm looking at right now... would that help you pinheads any? Oh, I am certain they've heard enough complaints to justify editing any online transcripts by now, but that was never my complaint, was it?
 
Sorry, but the PRINT version of NY Times doesn't have a "LINK!"

I can scan my copy, which is right here in front of me, and I'm looking at right now... would that help you pinheads any? Oh, I am certain they've heard enough complaints to justify editing any online transcripts by now, but that was never my complaint, was it?

Scan it in as a jpeg and post it.
 
Yes Apple, I know, the ONLINE version is not edited, for the THIRD time, I am talking about the PRINTED edition of the paper.... You DO understand, the New York Times has a PRINTED edition, right?

Well, since we don't have a copy, it is kind of hard to verify, isn't it.
 
Back
Top