Obama failed to feel America's pulse because he didn't watch it on cable

American journalism is dying if you believe "the paper of record," aka The New York Times, is any indication.

President Obama met with Times columnists and told them that he didn't watch enough cable TV to fully appreciate the level of anxiety the American public felt after the attacks in Paris and San Bernadino, and he said that he plans to step up his public arguments.

For an American president to say such a thing shows, at best, just how out-of-step he is, and at worst, how blase or uncaring he is about such a serious threat Islamic terrorism poses.

The statement Obama made is highly newsworthy. Unfortunately, it paints him in a bad light and The Times removed it because, they claimed, the paragraph was too long.

"There's nothing unusual here," the Times said in a statement. "That paragraph near the bottom of the story, was trimmed for space in the print paper by a copy editor in New York late last night. But it was in our story on the web all day and read by many thousands of readers. Web stories without length constraints are routinely edited for print."

The original text read:

"In his meeting with the columnists, Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernadino and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments."

So it was edited for length but replaced with two paragraphs that were longer than the original statement that was totally disconnected to what Obama originally was reported to have said:

"Mr. Obama argued that while there were potentially threats that would merit the kind of investment of lives and money equivalent to that made in the Iraq war, the Islamic State does not pose an existential threat to the United States and therefore the response should be measured. The United States needs to take on the group, in part to defend allies in the region, he said, but it should not be an all-out war.

Moreover, he added, part of the group's strategy is to draw the United States into a broader military entanglement in the region. A sustained but limited campaign may be slow and politically unsatisfying, but ultimately will be more successful, he contended." 

If the Times is telling the truth about why they edited the piece it shows that they need to fire their copy editor because the fact that a president gets his information from the media and not from his advisers or his own observations is extremely noteworthy. In fact, it may be just as anxiety provoking to intelligent observers as the terrorist incidents themselves.

This piece of editing showed really bad editorial judgment, at best.

But c'mon, how can anyone believe the Times explanation when it's clear that page space wasn't the real issue?

So now we know that Obama is either out of touch with the American people, or is lying and doesn't give a flying fig what we think. Either way, it's cause for great concern.

And if he really gets his news from television, that tells me all I need to know about him and his administration.

One thing is certain, the New York Times is in the bag for Obama.

Please feel free to comment whether you agree or disagree. 


Tweet