NYT edits article from Russians to Republicans

A number of people I know keep tabs on these kids of activities. Word got out today, and it looks like even Tim Pool picked it up

On October 18, Maggie Astor wrote an article about Hillary's comments. It stated that Hillary accused Gabbard of being a Russian Patsy.

This morning, it appears the article was edited to say it was Republicans.

NYT edited article

archive.is original

As of the time I'm posting this, there was NO notice that they had edited their article.

Also, I've been told that people on Twitter are basically saying "See! She never said Russians!" I can't find those tweets though. It might be false.

Decide for yourself why they might do this.



The change is seen in the first paragraph, not the headline.

a reply to: LedermanStudio

If this proves to be true, I think it's high time for there to be a narional discussion for what consequences there should be for this kind of fraud.

Despicable.

I'm sick of this banana republic #.

a reply to: LedermanStudio

to be blunt - i has read ATS posts [ and off sight ] gloating that ms gabbard running as a 3rd party POTUS candidate would [ to parphrase :

leech votes from the DNC candidate

who owns the NYT again??

this is why the media is the enemy of the USA

I wonder who else may have seen this..

Seriously...they expect most people to buy that?? After almost a week??

I know the Clinton water-carriers will back that edit to the hilt. Even though the fraudulent nature of it is only blindingly obvious.

What the heck ever.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

It undoubtedly would were she to run as an independent. I don't think she will, but it's early days on that as yet...

a reply to: LedermanStudio

Wish I could see it, unfortunately the paywall is there.

a reply to: seagull

well she sure as heck wont run third party now


that would prove Clinton was correct...


which was the damn point in the first place.........


the NYT should be closed.

l

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: LedermanStudio

Wish I could see it, unfortunately the paywall is there.

even with the paywall you can read the first paragraph

which has the change

or were you just trolling???

a reply to: thedigirati

I think you're right, but the "I want to be President bug" is pretty darn powerful, and she's developing a base--due in no small part to Clinton's stupid remarks.

a reply to: seagull

I think she and most of the Democrats already know they have no shot this time around..

that is why we have this "crop" from the left

in 2024 the DNC can put up a "real" candidate and tell these folks

"shut up and toe the line, you all lost to Trump in 2020"

they seem more to be detris than honest candidates

Nvm, misread

There is audio somewhere, I heard it with
my own ears, so how is that going to work?

Found it -
Here on MSNBC is a audio recording of Hillary
saying this very thing.


www.nbcnews.com...

The NYT is FAKE NEWS.

a reply to: burntheships

be gone with your facts and truth, they aren't welcome here. Soon a gaggle of idiots will be along to explain how wrong you are.

originally posted by: thedigirati
who owns the NYT again??

this is why the media is the enemy of the USA

I wonder who else may have seen this..

The media is nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the fascist agenda advanced by corporate and government masters.

a reply to: LedermanStudio

To the NYT and their subscriber/reader base, Russians & Republicans are indistinguishable. To the rest of us, its further proof that these propaganda outlets are our true enemy.

I'm sure I speak for most when I say that: as soon as the word "russian" was mentioned by them in the article, everybody stopped reading and automatically assumed the story/narrative was complete and utter fabricated BS.

originally posted by: LedermanStudio
A number of people I know keep tabs on these kids of activities. Word got out today, and it looks like even Tim Pool picked it up

On October 18, Maggie Astor wrote an article about Hillary's comments. It stated that Hillary accused Gabbard of being a Russian Patsy.

This morning, it appears the article was edited to say it was Republicans.

NYT edited article

archive.is original

As of the time I'm posting this, there was NO notice that they had edited their article.

Also, I've been told that people on Twitter are basically saying "See! She never said Russians!" I can't find those tweets though. It might be false.

Decide for yourself why they might do this.

The change is seen in the first paragraph, not the headline.

This has to be one of the most egregious and obvious acts of pure propaganda I've ever seen in this country.

With this in hand, we (ATS) should start a class-action lawsuit against them for violating the public trust and intentionally broadcasting false information.

Broadcasting false content during news programming
The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge. For more information, please see our consumer guide, Complaints About Broadcast Journalism.

FCC Link

This has got to stop. I don't care what news outlet it is, it just has to stop.

This is all thanks to Obama signing into law (proposed by both parties!) in 2013 to lift the propaganda ban in this country:

Though its ostensible purpose is to fund the U.S. military over a one year period, the National Defense Authorization Act, better known as the NDAA, has had numerous provisions tucked into it over the years that have targeted American civil liberties. The most well-known of these include allowing the government to wiretap American citizens without a warrant and, even more disturbingly, indefinitely imprison an American citizen without charge in the name of “national security.”

One of the lesser-known provisions that have snuck their way into the NDAA over the years was a small piece of legislation tacked onto the NDAA for fiscal year 2013, signed into law in that same year by then-President Barack Obama. Named “The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012,” it completely lifted the long-existing ban on the domestic dissemination of U.S. government-produced propaganda.

Source

The FCC still rules over the broadcasting of this type of information, and I believe we have concrete evidence (thank you OP!) where legal action could be taken against the NYT.

This is why I get my news from alternative sources like ATS.

I shared the pictures with someone that has no political affiliation and her response - "that is gross".

I didn't put it as lightly.

~Namaste

originally posted by: thedigirati
l

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: LedermanStudio

Wish I could see it, unfortunately the paywall is there.

even with the paywall you can read the first paragraph

which has the change

or were you just trolling???

I opened it 4-5 times and the paywall appeared before I could read even one sentence, every time.