Did White House pressure NYT into changing Dover story?
posted at 10:12 am on October 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Originally, the New York Times reported on President Barack Obama’s visit to Dover AFB and the arrival of fallen serviceman by explaining that the White House wanted Obama to be seen as concerned and aware of the sacrifices made in America’s war policies:
A small contingent of reporters and photographers accompanied Mr. Obama to Dover, where he arrived at 12:34 a.m. aboard Marine One. He returned to the South Lawn of the White House at 4:45 a.m.
<…>
The images and the sentiment of the president’s five-hour trip to Delaware were intended by the White House to convey to the nation that Mr. Obama was not making his Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste.
Following that link now, the second paragraph quoted is nowhere to be seen. The Jeff Zeleny report contains no editorial announcement of changes after its publication, and no indication of any retraction. Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette and Nice Deb both noticed the change, however, and Greyhawk also noticed that the NYT didn’t quite redact that paragraph from everywhere on its servers. The story now reads like this:
The trip was a symbolic one for Mr. Obama, given the gravity of his coming announcement of a new strategy for Afghanistan.
The image of the commander in chief standing on a darkened tarmac, offering a salute to one of the soldiers, highlighted the poignancy of a decision he is facing.
But even after the redaction, this came up in a search on the NYT site:
So who changed the story, and why? The original Zeleny report with that paragraph gave credence to the accusation that Obama made the Dover trip for a photo op, picked up by bloggers to criticize the White House. Its mysterious disappearance post-publication indicates that someone was unhappy with that kind of criticism and removed the paragraph to curtail it — and didn’t do a very good job of it, either.
The editors of the NYT could have removed it on their own without prompting from anyone, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense. The editors approved the piece for publication in the first place, and besides, the NYT isn’t exactly adept at quickly responding to blogospheric criticism, at least not on its news pages (their blogs are a different matter). It would appear that someone other than bloggers brought this to the attention of the Times and pressed for the removal of the offending paragraph. That might also explain why the Times changed the article without acknowledging it, a big red flag in itself.
The NYT should answer for why this change was made, and why they attempted to fly it under the radar. If the paragraph was inaccurate, a retraction should have accompanied it. If it wasn’t inaccurate, then who pressed them to remove it?
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
The Lord knows that I am not siding with the troll but veteran and wounded warrior policy has, in fact, not evolved as fast as the need in a decade where the number of troops returning from combat is the highest and most sustained since Vietnam. The actual position within the administration is pure propaganda but, IMO, we are only now beginning to get some of the issues right (particularly surrounding post-traumatic stress).
highhopes on October 30, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Bleeds Blue here is the memo:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-a-New-Strategy-for-Afghanistan-and-Pakistan/
—————–
———————————–
———————————–
———————————-
Please be careful before you start posting comments without thinking them through. A little reading will help.
antisocial on October 30, 2009 at 11:55 AM
bleedsblue
I quoted a story from the Washington Post yesterday that mentioned that since the Pentagon policy lifting the ban of photographing the returning hero’s at Dover, the Precedent had, sadly, 253 (at the time of publication)opportunities to pay his respects. The fact he waited until he was taking flack in his Afghan policies and he brought the press pool along with him shows his motives. At least he had the courtesy to leave his wife and her cocktail dress at home.
dish on October 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM
They got the idea from Glenn Beck. Beck was engaging in satire, of course, with his Red Phone, but someone (Lord Axelrod, Darth Rahmbo?) saw the possibilities.
Agreed, “pretty obviously a photo op” A photo op that Obama was keeping up his sleeve, a card to throw on the table when he needed to counter criticisms of dithering over political fallout while the country’s security and the lives of our service men and women, as well as the future of the people of Afghanistan, hang in the balance.
Having lived most of my life on the doorstep of Chicago in NW IN, where the one party system in Chicago is parodied by cookie cutter corruptocrats who only wish they had the resources of their Chicago brethren, I will say that one of the things that most people don’t appreciate about the Chicago Way is the all-pervasive nature of the corruption and exploitation. Literally every agency and institution is utilized in of support friends and to attack enemies, every program must have a component of political benefit, every crisis exploited for every ounce of political gain. If no crisis is handy, one will be created.
To really understand the Obama team’s goals, it is most useful to listen to what they say, and assume the exact opposite is true. Obama swept into power on a promise to de-politicize the partisan politics of Washington. In fact, Obama and his crew fully intended to show the folks in Washington how to do it the Chicago Way, like the professional exploiters and parasites they are.
novaculus on October 30, 2009 at 12:00 PM
That really isn’t fair, as President he has many important tasks to deal with on a regular basis.
Just look at his busy, recent schedule:
Golf
More golf
Fundraisers
A couple of vacations
Trying to get the Olympics
Secret meetings with friendly media outlets
Monitoring media he doesn’t like and threatening them
Returning a dictator to power in Honduras
Another few games of golf
Telling people to vote for his healthcare plan
Trying to come up with a healthcare plan
Date nights
Concerts
I mean really, how is a President expected to find time to enact a war plan handed to him before he took office with such a busy schedule?
18-1 on October 30, 2009 at 12:00 PM
An envelope, even.
faraway on October 30, 2009 at 12:02 PM
This is just another “czar” position established to put another propagandist on the taxpayer-funded White House payroll to convince dumb voters that this President actually gives a rat’s ass about veterans. We have an entire Cabinet Department of Veterans Affairs as well as Congressional committees devoted to veterans. If they aren’t getting the policies right, whose fault is that? Do you really think one 29-year-old Obama Koolaid drinker in the White House is going to make those changes?
The whole “wounded warrior” shtick is part and parcel of the liberal view that veterans are victims, not heroes. Read some of the stuff that has come out of that office in the White House and it’s all just a rehash of Obama’s campaign rhetoric about veterans as tragic victims of bad policy, who need more government money thrown at them and more paternalistic pity from our national leaders. It’s all about creating another class of government-dependent victims and buying votes with my money. It’s also about assuaging liberal guilt by pretending to support the military.
This is why I object to Obama’s photo-op. The outward propaganda of it is completely the opposite of the actual point of view that we all know he holds.
rockmom on October 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM
another ‘see, we told you so moment’
cmsinaz on October 30, 2009 at 12:09 PM
As a veteran I recognize that the military is used by both the right and the left to make political points. That being said, it is absurd and ridiculous to use coffins or photos of the dead, BY ELECTED OFFICIALS, in my opinion to make a political point. If they want to do something in private, obviously that is their right. But to stage something with those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, and no matter what you say this WAS STAGED, is disgusting and sadly not surprising by this President.
Even the NYT understood that.
JeffinOrlando on October 30, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Again, Bleeds Blue seeks to speak for service men and women with his/her pathetic false admiration and concern yet wouldn’t presume to talk directly to us. BB, you guys are just way too late to the game and we simply do not believe you.
And to all the Hot Air folks who always take it on the chin from the trolls like BB when you point out this administrations obvious inability to lead us, take heart. We know who has our best interest at heart and we know who is sincere in their words. We know who’s hung with us and believed in us when the war in Iraq was being reported as going so badly by the press. We know who believed in us during Fallujah and Haditha and during the scandal at Abu Ghraib. Liberals who come here now and talk about “brave troops” and then don’t even have the temerity to acknowledge the comments we make when speaking directly to us are the ones using us as props to bolster the image of this man they’ve put in charge of us. Ironic. I suppose we’re worthy of mention, but not of being addressed directly by them.
Hot Air commenters, never let them make you think your comments aren’t supportive of us because those words are in opposition to the president. Never let them hold us hostage to curb your words or opinion. Never let them make you think that you are chickenhawks for supporting us in this war and never stop the fight. We are winning, both here and back home. We will make these people eat both their vile words of contempt they’ve shown for us and their platitudes they use when they try to make political points.
hawkdriver on October 30, 2009 at 12:14 PM
hawkdriver on October 30, 2009 at 12:14 PM
No, my brother. It is you who lift us up. It takes no bravery to anonymously post. We are honored to be able to support the bravest aseembly of men and women the world has ever known, America’s Armed Forces. Keep your head up and your tail down and make it home again soon. May God bless our Armed Forces and their families. We’ve got your six.
kingsjester on October 30, 2009 at 12:21 PM
I have a family member that was a doc at Walter Reed for many years. She lost count of the number of times that then President Bush made visits to recovering troops with no cameras, no fanfare, no publicity. Even in times when he could use a boost in the polls by showing how much he cared for our troops, he never did so. THAT is leadership.
And to Hawkdriver & all you other service men & women (AND their families): may God keep his hand on you always. Your service and sacrifice is truly appreciated.
mctowler on October 30, 2009 at 12:33 PM
First of all, Obama should be forbidden to render his sappy “bird-watcher” hand salute. The greenest private could do better. Secondly, if he is concerned, he could attend the funerals and sell his BS to the families. I don’t know how these young troopers feel but I can tell you that most of that served in Viet Nam as grunts and grunt-like troops did not want a bunch of whining about our fates. Some of the respect present now would have been sufficient. Mr. Hopenchange should concentrate his political activities on the meth epidemic which destroys more people than any military activity. Thank you.
LarryG on October 30, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Things is, there were 17 other dead soldiers on the same plane. And all the news stories said he was there to “pay trinute to” all 18 of them.
Del Dolemonte on October 30, 2009 at 12:45 PM
That made my year!
Press on. To Victory.
Subsunk
Subsunk on October 30, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Wait, Obama using the death of our troops as a big photo-op? Never…..
Its hard to believe that this wasn’t one big photo-op so Obama could look like he cares, he lifted the ban on photos of coffins for this one reason (I wonder if he got permission from those soldier/ DEA Agent’s families before taking those pics) This guy will do anything to manipulate the media, exploiting the death of people who are trying to protect us is so not above him.
Rbastid on October 30, 2009 at 1:03 PM
He only got permission from 1 of the 18 families.
Del Dolemonte on October 30, 2009 at 1:07 PM
I guess the most transparent administration evah! is back. Because this was a mighty transparent attempt to make up for Obama’s dithering on Afghanistan by making him look more concerned about the soldiers.
tom on October 30, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Ed, you sparkling doofus – don’t you know that the state propaganda agency reserves the right to “reshape” stories post-production in order to more effectively manage public opinion?
I’ll tell you this – if I had been a dad watching my son or daughter come home in one of those coffins and Obama came in with his press Army …
They would get the STORY OF THEIR LIVES.
I cannot believe that Obama did this. If he wants to visit one of these planeloads of coffins returning from the war (and he should) … he should do it with dignity and without reporters. When you show up with reporters for an event like that – it says one thing …
“I’m using these dead heros for political gain”.
This outrages me to the core.
HondaV65 on October 30, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Never mind that the relatives/parents/families of these fallen service personnel (all but one) objected to photographers, actually expressed wishes to not have photographs taken.
I guess to Obama they’re meaningless, what they want, how they feel — it’s all about how Obama feels about himself, even when he has to use the deaths of U.S. military to make a point to himself.
He is a disgusting, thoroughly disgusting indivdual. I do.not.care at this point that he’s in the Presidency — he is thoroughly and abjectly disgusting.
Lourdes on October 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM
I think this’s more likely the Rahm Emanuel fave set:
Lourdes on October 30, 2009 at 1:41 PM
I don’t know a more appropriate word to call Obama: DISGUSTING is about as appropriate as I can write it.
Lourdes on October 30, 2009 at 1:42 PM
And again, OBAMA IS DISGUSTING.
Lourdes on October 30, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Did the Marxists pressure the NYT? Thats like asking a hooker whether the submarine sailor seduced her.
Don L on October 30, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Absolutely- if this was about the troops, and not HIM, there would be no need to lift the reporting ban or to bring along a bunch of reporters to cover the story.
Disgusting sums it up- using fallen troops as a crutch for his dithering over making a policy decision.
Jay Mac on October 30, 2009 at 1:58 PM
from the NYSlimes story
“A small contingent of reporters and photographers was quietly called to follow him to Dover,”
why the adverb? “quietly?” this is just another example of the NYSlimes unsubtle way of paying tribute to their Dear Leader … mmm mmmm mmmmm
max1 on October 30, 2009 at 2:02 PM
At least the Pres had a better salute than the person standing next to him… Kudos for that, anyway…
Khun Joe on October 30, 2009 at 2:36 PM
If the President of the United States pretends to stand for my sincere causes, he’s a phony.
My support for the causes won’t stop me from calling him a phony.
That’s not derangement, that’s respect for sincerity. Putting virtue over kowtowing to a politician.
Chris_Balsz on October 30, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Sounds like somebody wasn’t too ENCHANTED with Zeleny, eh?
Jim Treacher on October 30, 2009 at 2:57 PM
And remember, this wasn’t a photo op either:
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/04/14/staged-military-photo-ops-suddenly-awesome/
Jim Treacher on October 30, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Since these brave service men and women had already paid the ultimate price for our freedom, perhaps the President could of spent the time better doing his deep pondering that he keeps telling us that needs doing before he decides what to do about the request for more troops, that’d help those soldiers still alive. He has a lifetime to honor the fallen. His time is valuable between golfing and dates with his wife, and of course, vacation and prime time speeches.
Jeff from WI on October 30, 2009 at 3:14 PM
If that’s the case, why did the NYT edit out that part of the story after publication?
Jim Treacher on October 30, 2009 at 3:17 PM
American Power tracked-back with, “BUSTED! – New York Times Doctors Piece on Obama Dover Photo Op: More White House/Obamedia Collusion?”:
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/busted-new-york-times-doctors-piece-on.html
Donald Douglas on October 30, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Did he wear his Old Glory lapel pin?
Jeff from WI on October 30, 2009 at 3:30 PM
DISGUSTING!
HornetSting on October 30, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Did Bush bring along the press everytime he met with families of the fallen? Did he make a point of all the letters and phone calls he made? Did he take an entourage with him to Bethesda? Did he need photo ops with coffins?
Obama disgusts me. Everything is a photo-op to him. Everything is a game. Nothing he does is natural. He gets criticized for his support of the war and he makes a much advertised appearance at Dover.
What an jerk.
James on October 30, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Yeah, I mentioned the Turkey earlier in the thread.
Don’t even try and reason with these getalifes. After all, they had absolutely no problem with a draft-dodging pResident staging 5 aircraft carrier photo-ops, but when the guy who he left the 9/11 attacks to made 1 such aircraft carrier appearance, it was “shameful”.
Del Dolemonte on October 30, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Obama is to Dover as… Dukakis is to a tank
ya2daup on October 30, 2009 at 4:36 PM
No, the WH didn’t pressure to get the article changed.
The NY Times simply has an OCD compulsive editor on its staff who wouldn’t rest until the language flowed better.
Daggett on October 30, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Rahm strikes again. The editor-in-chief of the NYT obviously woke up with a dead fish on his pillow!
Griz on October 30, 2009 at 4:59 PM
elduende on October 30, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Instead of quick photo ops, Obama should think about giving our soldiers their air cover back. October was a new record of American losses.
Chuck Schick on October 30, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Goebbels is fucking red with envy…get it red..not green.
jukin on October 30, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Did you get that pic from Bawney Fwank’s office?
Monica on October 30, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Dittos to Hawkdriver from a fellow service member here in Baghdad. The President does not need the press present to pay his respects to our fellow warriors! Disgusting is right. Just so you know…many troops know where the real support comes from back home…it is YOU the American people that are not afraid to fly the country’s flag in their yard or wear that lapel pin or to admit that we are and were founded on Judeo-Christian principles. THANK YOU AMERICA for your continued support as it buoys us up overseas here in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other hot spots that do not get the attention!
g2825m on October 30, 2009 at 5:30 PM
18-1, don’t forget
fundraising
perpetual campaign
stumping for other lame Dem’s
reshas1 on October 30, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Isn’t it pretentious for a civilian to salute? I thought that out of respect for the service that saluting was for Military and retired military only?
Out of respect I would have put my hand on my heart and not salute — he has no business saluting. But then again he can’t remember to put his hand on his heart for the national anthem so….
David
LifeTrek on October 30, 2009 at 5:33 PM
And unicorns might fly out of my butt.
RedNewEnglander on October 30, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Dukakis actually was an Army officer and tank driver- which makes that picture all the more ironic.
Obama showing up at Dover is akin to John Kerry’s foray into hunting. These people shouldn’t do which is in their nature and supporting or caring about the troops is definitely not part of the filthy lying coward’s DNA.
highhopes on October 30, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Come on, no one has to tell us that:
1. It was a photo-op and only a photo-op. We knew that all along.
2. The New York Times would of course change a story at the behest of the White House, their masters.
Dhuka on October 30, 2009 at 6:43 PM
Why would the headline say something about Obama pressuring the NYT regarding a story.They’re our official Pravda newspaper.No pressure needed, they simply write what the W.H. tells them to write.
Jeff from WI on October 30, 2009 at 7:23 PM
To those of you on this thread currently serving our country wherever you are and to those of you who have served and are retired, may I take this opportunity to thank you for your service and your sacrifice. You are heroes to me. May God keep you in his care!
silvernana on October 30, 2009 at 7:28 PM
Was it wrapped in an NYT issue?
onlineanalyst on October 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Can you provide some cites that Dukakis was an army officer and tank driver? I’ve been Google searching for almost a half an hour now and find no cites of either.
All I can find is that he served in the Army in Korea for 2 years. I’ve never heard of an officer doing a 2 year hitch.
Besides, the US “tank warfare” in the Korean War was a disaster.
Del Dolemonte on October 30, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Maybe we should imitate the “creative” Michael Moore and make a montage of the faces of all of the fallen in Afghanistan since March when the Ditherer-in-Chief announced his plans and further frame in black those heroes who have died since McChrystal gave his assessment to ObaMAO. Superimposed on each photo should be the words Victim of the New ROE.
onlineanalyst on October 30, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Laura Ingraham is doing her Friday night fill-in for O’Really and this appears to be her top story.
Del Dolemonte on October 30, 2009 at 8:01 PM
But not her Talking Points commentary
Del Dolemonte on October 30, 2009 at 8:02 PM
An unprecedented level of transparency that might seem confusing.
jdkchem on October 30, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Obamaganda once more! Diss-custing to all the honorable who served and died for the country. Not an Obama photo-op.
chickasaw42 on October 30, 2009 at 8:54 PM
The New York Times… all the propoganda fit to wrap fish.
SilverStar830 on October 30, 2009 at 9:12 PM
NYTimes – All the news that’s fit for lining the bottom of the bird cage.
Wildcatter1980 on October 30, 2009 at 10:18 PM
How often has Obama visited troops in the Hospital? Bush was nearly legendary for his efforts to speak with the young men and women who paid a physical price for his decisions (whatever you think of those decisions).
hawksruleva on October 30, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Does the article mention that only 1 family agreed to have photographs taken?
hawksruleva on October 30, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Can we start calling the paper “The Blue Lady” now?
Axeman on October 31, 2009 at 12:12 AM
It’s all propaganda to these folks. Did we need to know that he went to Dover? Of course not.
Weren’t we told, after his presidency, that Bush had made late night visits to Walter Reed without having the media on hand?
Obama is no leader!
jack herman on October 31, 2009 at 12:16 AM
gave credence to the accusation that Obama made the Dover trip for a photo op
Everything that involves the Obamas is about them
You don’t need to know anything else.
J_Crater on October 31, 2009 at 1:38 AM
Rham couldn’t get the wounded troops to sing “Barrack Husein Obama,,,mmmm, mmmm, mmm”
Jeff from WI on October 31, 2009 at 6:16 AM
How would you like to be in a foxhole with Barackie Boy? You’d suffer a better fate by shooting yourself, first chance.
Cybergeezer on October 31, 2009 at 9:40 AM
I read Obama’s photo op to signal that he intends to deny McChrystal his request for 40,000 troops.
petefrt on October 31, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Yes, but that red hue comes from the roaring fires burning in the lowest pit of Hell. A pit which is deep enough, wide enough, and hot enough to accommodate not just Paul Joseph Goebbels, but all of his friends. His friends in EVERY generation.
oldleprechaun on November 1, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2