An Egregious Example of the NYT Shifting the Collusion Narrative

During the 2016 presidential campaign and beyond, instances of the press hiding the real story beneath the incestuous rhetoric of the intelligence community and the opposition party (whom were still in power at the time) gives force to Trump’s arguments of “fake news”.

Luckily there are tools available that can prove how this is done. In this case, we can use the website NewsDiffs to compare the changes of an article over time.

A New York Times article regarding the leaking of Podesta’s emails offers us a fine example.

As of around midnight of Oct 12 2016, the headline reads “Podesta Says Russia Broke Into Emails to Tilt Race”. This was, and still is, the narrative provided to us by everyone in power at the time.

But only few hours earlier, the headline read “Leaks Link Justice Dept. With Aide to Clinton”.

Using Newsdiffs, we can see exactly what was added and removed from the article within the first few hours of its publication, and I believe it discredits the author.

For instance, the original article stated in the first paragraphs that the hacked correspondence from Hillary Clinton’s campaign suggests a top aide, Brian Fallon, who had once served a role at the Justice Department, was in touch with government officials about the release of her State Department emails, which prompted accusations of collusion from Republicans.

This part was removed:

A newly released batch of hacked correspondence from Hillary Clinton’s campaign suggests a top aide was in touch with government officials about the release of her State Department emails, exchanges that prompted accusations of collusion from Republicans.

The messages, released by WikiLeaks on Tuesday, indicated that Justice Department employees may have communicated information to the campaign about the timing of the release.

The removed information was replaced with this:

In his first remarks since WikiLeaks began releasing thousands of his hacked emails, John D. Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, said Tuesday that Russian intelligence officials intent on swaying the election to Donald J. Trump had been responsible for the illegal breach into his account.

Most of the information regarding collusion between the Hillary campaign and the State department was removed, augmented or otherwise buried beneath the new narrative of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The author of the article was Amy Chozick. A brief search of Podesta’s emails reveals that she was in constant contact with the Clinton campaign during the election. The changes to the article are drastic enough to suggest that the author was convinced, one way or another, to shift gears.

On Newsdiffs, the removed information is highlighted in red while the added information is in green. This is an egregious and suspect shift in narratives. View the drastic changes here:

Newsdiffs NYT Article Changes

Great find.
Thanks.

I don;t think there is much argument that the media is basically a campaign arm of the Democrat party and will shape and time stories according to their wishes.

So much for a free press.

originally posted by: Aphorism
During the 2016 presidential campaign and beyond, instances of the press hiding the real story beneath the incestuous rhetoric of the intelligence community and the opposition party (whom were still in power at the time) gives force to Trump’s arguments of “fake news”.

Luckily there are tools available that can prove how this is done. In this case, we can use the website NewsDiffs to compare the changes of an article over time.

A New York Times article regarding the leaking of Podesta’s emails offers us a fine example.

As of around midnight of Oct 12 2016, the headline reads “Podesta Says Russia Broke Into Emails to Tilt Race”. This was, and still is, the narrative provided to us by everyone in power at the time.

But only few hours earlier, the headline read “Leaks Link Justice Dept. With Aide to Clinton”.

Using Newsdiffs, we can see exactly what was added and removed from the article within the first few hours of its publication, and I believe it discredits the author.

For instance, the original article stated in the first paragraphs that the hacked correspondence from Hillary Clinton’s campaign suggests a top aide, Brian Fallon, who had once served a role at the Justice Department, was in touch with government officials about the release of her State Department emails, which prompted accusations of collusion from Republicans.

This was removed:

A newly released batch of hacked correspondence from Hillary Clinton’s campaign suggests a top aide was in touch with government officials about the release of her State Department emails, exchanges that prompted accusations of collusion from Republicans.

The messages, released by WikiLeaks on Tuesday, indicated that Justice Department employees may have communicated information to the campaign about the timing of the release.

The removed information was replaced with this:

In his first remarks since WikiLeaks began releasing thousands of his hacked emails, John D. Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, said Tuesday that Russian intelligence officials intent on swaying the election to Donald J. Trump had been responsible for the illegal breach into his account.

Most of the information regarding collusion between the Hillary campaign and the State department was removed, augmented or otherwise buried beneath the new narrative of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The author of the article was Amy Chozick. A brief search of Podesta’s emails reveals that she was in constant contact with the Clinton campaign during the election. The changes to the article are drastic enough to suggest that the author was convinced, one way or another, to shift gears.

On Newsdiffs, the removed information is highlighted in red while the added information is in green. This is an egregious and suspect shift in narratives. View the drastic changes here:

Newsdiffs NYT Article Changes

Simple Answer - The NYT and Other Controlled Media Is Lying to the Public in Epic Proportions in Order to Influence Public Opinion in Favor of More Power and Control by Big Government . Those that See the Obvious Manipulation there GET IT , the Rest are Fuccked ........NEXT........

originally posted by: UKTruth
Great find.
Thanks.

I don;t think there is much argument that the media is basically a campaign arm of the Democrat party and will shape and time stories according to their wishes.

So much for a free press.

Instead of speaking truth to power, they let power dictate the truth.

Then they met DJT

a reply to: Aphorism

Long Live The Fighters ! Knives Raised !

a reply to: Aphorism

I didn't know of the NewsDiffs resource. Thank you for that.

Sadly, it only appears to track news sources with a left-leaning and liberal agenda.

For balance, it should include, at least, Fox or Drudge.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Aphorism

I didn't know of the NewsDiffs resource. Thank you for that.

Sadly, it only appears to track news sources with a left-leaning and liberal agenda.

For balance, it should include, at least, Fox or Drudge.

Agreed. It's also missing some of the bigger online publications, such as Yahoo/ABC, NBC, etc.

a reply to: chr0naut

My Prediction - Blood Will Be Shed to Finally Decide this Political Debate Between Personal Freedom Vs Centralized Control of the Masses . It's Inevidentable , Social Darwinism at it's Ugliest ................(