Both of the media-centered programs on CNN and the Fox News Channel covered on Sunday the move by the New York Times from Friday to delete a line from an article about President Obama not fully realizing “the anxiety” of Americans following terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino due to his lack of exposure to cable news.
Other than NPR TV critic Eric Geggans rushing to Obama’s defense on CNN’s Reliable Sources, the other panelists both there and on FNC’s MediaBuzz strongly denounced The Times for what they described as “outrageous,” “perplexing,” and “potentially damning.”
On MediaBuzz, GOP strategist Mercedes Schlapp predicted that the real reason the paper removed the quote and “added even more verbiage” in its place despite claiming the removal was done for “space reasons” was “that the White House called New York Times, said take this out, this is not true.”
While admitting that it’s not fair to speculate on what happened, Daily Beast writer Betsy Woodruff opined that the liberal paper “probably should have appended an comment explaining what happened” whether it was “an update or a correction or clarification or whatever.” By not doing so, she added: “The fact they disappeared it undermines the story.”
Fellow panelist Molly Ball of The Atlantic was even more pointed in blasting The Times for the “perplexing” decision:
I think it is perplexing that they have not explained this, either the headline or the editing. There needs to be a correction if it wasn’t a correction and there needs to be a clarification if there was a reason behind it and that’s true – and I think that's more true for the editing. Headlines get changed all the time and I think you can read too much into that and there's space considerations in print, but the taking out that paragraph is perplexing and potential damning.
Meanwhile, Geggans was given the first crack at the Obama quote’s removal on CNN’s Reliable Sources and declared that while they should explain why they did what they did, he admitted that “I guess we have to take them at their word” and also tried to defend the President from his claim that he did not fully understand the “anxiety” of Americans concerning terrorism:
I do want to say what we know about Obama is that, A, he has often talked about how he doesn't watch cable news and what we also know about Obama is that he tends to try to be the cool head in the room when things — when emergencies happen and people are getting very emotional on television. So, I don't think it's surprising that his initial response to these attacks was to try to take a step back and try to be the cool head in the room.
While plugging the fact that she’s writing about the Swift Boats/John Kerry controversy from the 2004 presidential election, American University’s Jane Hall owned up to the reality that “it's well past time for President Obama to know about the anxiety that is on cable news, whether they are amplifying it or whether they are repeating it or whether it is for real, he should know that.”
As was the case on FNC, the last of the panelists to speak in The Baltimore Sun’s David Zurawik offered the most thorough takedown. First, he told host Brian Stelter that he “counted 18 paragraphs in that story and there's 15 — at least 15 of them that I would have cut before that one.”
“[Y]ou know, when we talk about systematic editing issues, The Times has to look at that. How could a copy editor cut that and nobody — the chief of the copy desk, nobody up the line,” exclaimed Zurawik.
Speaking of his own experience in the newspaper business concerning the editing process, Zurawik added: “Listen, when they edited my column at The Baltimore Sun on Sunday, the editor will come over and say, hey, Zurawik, you're long, we got to cut some graphs and then my editor will get involved.”
He concluded the segment by slamming how “outrageous” this whole situation has been: “This is outrageous that The New York Times — oh, somebody cut it on the desk. We don't know how that happened. You know, that's not an explanation.”
As this writer chronicled, the mistake came down on Friday and yet none of the major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) showed any interest in covering the story.
The relevant portions of the transcript from FNC’s MediaBuzz on December 20 can be found below.
FNC’s MediaBuzz
December 20, 2015
11:45 a.m. Eastern
MERCEDES SCHLAPP: It really does, especially when you read The New York Times last and the other story that they had was a puff piece about him doing a puff piece about the President doing a reality show with a Bear, and talking about climate. Yes, I mean, it was really strange that the most interesting part of the story was edited out and then they said they did it because of space reasons but then they added even more verbiage. My guess is that the White House called New York Times, said take this out, this is not true.
HOWARD KURTZ: We don't know that.
BETSY WOODRUFF: We don’t what happened, but The New York Times probably should have appended an comment explaining what happened. Look, it's possible that the reporting was inaccurate or that the President didn’t actually say, oh, I’m deciding my emotions based on cable news,’ but when you change story like that, you add an update or a correction or clarification or whatever. The fact they disappeared it undermines the story.
KURTZ: The New York Times didn’t say we took it out because it was untrue, they portrayed it as a routine editing thing done on deadline, but then also the headline was softened, Molly. The original headline was, as Mediaite noted, “Frustrated by Republican Critics, Obama Defends Muted Response to Attacks.” The paper comes out, and we have it right here: “Assailed by GOP, Obama Defends His Response to Terror Attacks.” What's your take?
MOLLY BALL: Well, I think as Betsy said, I think it is perplexing that they have not explained this, either the headline or the editing. There needs to be a correction if it wasn’t a correction and there needs to be a clarification if there was a reason behind it and that’s true – and I think that's more true for the editing. Headlines get changed all the time and I think you can read too much into that and there's space considerations in print, but the taking out that paragraph is perplexing and potential damning.
The relevant portions of the transcript from CNN’s Reliable Sources on December 20 can be found below.
CNN’s Reliable Sources
December 20, 2015
11:09 a.m. Eastern
NPR TV CRITIC ERIC DEGGANS: But if they're willing to admit that they cut something that important out of a story for space, if they're willing to admit to that kind of journalistic error, I guess we have to take them at their word. I will say —
BRIAN STELTER: That's the thing. It deserves its own story.
DEGGANS: I do want to say what we know about Obama is that, A, he has often talked about how he doesn't watch cable news and what we also know about Obama is that he tends to try to be the cool head in the room when things — when emergencies happen and people are getting very emotional on television. So, I don't think it's surprising that his initial response to these attacks was to try to take a step back and try to be the cool head in the room. He, I think, has often had a hard time doing the hand holding part of the presidency which is when emergencies happen, you have to help people deal with them emotionally. You have to tell us all that things are going to be OK. That's part of the job of being president and it's something that I think he's never been particularly as good at as he may be at other things and so, I think that's one reason why we saw this and I wonder if too much is being made of this admission anyway.
STELTER: Well, the bottom line I think about the journalism here, Jane, I think they're going to change the story in print was actually longer but they trimmed out the cable news paragraph. You're going to make that change, you got to be transparent about it, it can't happen stealthily, and there should have been a follow-up story about this specific issue. CNN's Dylan Byers confirmed the same information. It is true the President said this in this private meeting. I think it's worthy of its own story.
JANE HALL: Well, you know, when I read it, I thought — it reminded me, because I've been writing about the Swift Boats of 2004, how the Kerry campaign didn't thing it was a big deal because they were watching only the broadcast TV news. You know, I think there are two issues here. I think it's well past time for President Obama to know about the anxiety that is on cable news, whether they are amplifying it or whether they are repeating it or whether it is for real, he should know that and he clearly likes to talk to columnists and have a forum and get his ideas out there anonymously. The irony of this is that to take it out and then have David Ignatius of The Washington Post who was there apparently write the same piece, then it really looks like what happened? Did the White House complain and ask The Times to take it out? Then as Eric said, we don't know and not knowing leads to a lot of conspiracy media theories that they were afraid they were embarrassing him or perhaps the White House said, hey, this was off the record when, in fact, it's not off the record if it was in The Washington Post.
(....)
THE BALTIMORE SUN’s DAVID ZURAWIK: I think I counted 18 paragraphs in that story and there's 15 — at least 15 of them that I would have cut before that one. I think you wrote that it was the most important paragraph in the story and I think you're right. That — you know, when we talk about systematic editing issues, The Times has to look at that. How could a copy editor cut that and nobody — the chief of the copy desk, nobody up the line. Listen, when they edited my column at The Baltimore Sun on Sunday, the editor will come over and say, hey, Zurawik, you're long, we got to cut some graphs and then my editor will get involved. This is outrageous that The New York Times — oh, somebody cut it on the desk. We don't know how that happened. You know, that's not an explanation.
