The Times was even tougher on Obama than I thought

Steve R. writes:

In your post, “Hubris and Humiliation,” you wrote,

Even the New York Times didn’t attempt to conceal the god-king’s and his advisors’ huge embarrassment over the Danish adventure.

True, but actually they did. Your link is to a version of article that had been majorly revised, as explained at NewsBusters. The original was substantially more critical. Doesn’t change any of your conclusions, but this egregious piece of journalistic prestidigitation ought not go unmentioned. I can just imagine the White House calling the Times, ” Hey, can you tone it down in there?”

LA replies:

The NewsBusters post has several paragraphs of the two versions lined up side by side for comparison. Here is one sentence in the original that was excised entirely from the later version:

Rarely has a president put his credibility on the line on the world stage in such a personal way and been slapped down so sharply in real time.

This is all good. As someone (Charles Krauthammer?) wrote a month or so ago, after a god is reduced to a man, and a terribly foolish and fatuous one at that, what is his second act? Also, more importantly, how will the reduction of Obama play out in the psyches of his supporters who invested so much in him? I think it’s a fair guess that the result will be a chastening and weakening of the leftist impulse throughout the world.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 05, 2009 10:48 PM | Send