DEVASTATING PROOF OF MEDIA BIAS: Without A Trace, “New York Times” Airbrushes Away Democrat’s Embarrassing, False Claim

[Source: Wikimedia Commons]
Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Google+0

Senior Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) recently claimed to have never had communication with a Russian ambassador.

[Source: Twitter/Claire McCaskill]

However, clear evidence (documented and photographed) surfaced, proving otherwise. (…too bad that Tweet couldn’t be airbrushed out of existence. Whoops!) But the New York Times had no reservations about doing that very deed.

Upon reporting it, the publication realized it was incorrect—then it was gone (presto vanishio) Apparently, the piece never saw the light of day—that’s right (never).

It was earlier today that The Times’ reporters (Eric Lichtblau, Michael D. Shear and Charlie Savage) released a piece titled “Democrats Call for Sessions to Recuse Himself From Russia Inquiry.” (It now reads “Jeff Sessions Recuses Himself from Russia Inquiry.”) The day progressed, and so did The Times’ article—same URL (no editorial annotations).

Probably the best edit’s in the bolded paragraph of the following (in the original never-there version):

But Democrats were unassuaged. In a statement, Mr. Franken called Mr. Sessions’s testimony “at best misleading,” noting, “It’s clearer than ever now that the attorney general cannot, in good faith, oversee an investigation at the Department of Justice and the F.B.I. of the Trump-Russia connection, and he must recuse himself immediately.”

Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, cast doubt on Mr. Sessions’s explanation that he had met with the Russian ambassador because of his duties as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying that was beyond the panel’s jurisdiction. “I’ve been on the Armed Services Com for 10 years,” she wrote on Twitter on Thursday. “No call or meeting w/Russian ambassador. Ever. Ambassadors call members of Foreign Rel Com.”

And Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Oversight Committee, went further, calling for Mr. Sessions to resign because he let a “demonstrably false” statement stand for weeks without correcting the public record.

Upon that, the Internet availed evidence to the contrary, proving McCaskill incorrect in her statement. The aforementioned, bold paragraph…gone.

…want to see for yourself? Go to Notice at 4:34 p.m. EST, the article still features the paragraph in question. However, at 5:18 p.m. EST (March 2nd, 2017), New York Times struck the bolded words. The following screengrab of illustrates the edit made at 5:18 p.m.:

It’s definitely worth reporting when a senior senator (McCaskill) professionally attacks an attorney general (Sessions) for saying he didn’t do something she herself actually did but seemingly forgot she had. (Did she forget…?) Additionally, it’s pretty wonky of the New York Times to conveniently erase McCaskill’s claim. Why didn’t they simply report the facts? …no shame in being honest.

And that needs to be emphasized, so again, why didn’t they just report the facts—i.e., leave in McCaskill’s claim and made the clear addendum she was incorrect??

Perhaps that publication’s not into facts; maybe they’ve their own interest(s), which the above didn’t coincide with—so they vaporized it out of existence.

But they weren’t the only ones watching closely— caught it too (as well as The Federalist’s Sean Davis, who was on top of it toot sweet).

The above information is a great example of why US citizens are skeptical (some are even pissed off) of the media. A highly reputable newspaper intentionally hid the facts—for reasons unknown (thus far). As the media continues to deliver stories, remember this instance, people—bookmark if need be. Thank you, and Godspeed.


Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Google+0