On Thursday afternoon (even before the world learned of "PRISM") the New York Times published a blistering editorial on the developing government surveillance scandal that declared, "The administration has now lost all credibility."

The phrase was soon all over Twitter and appeared prominently on websites ranging from Politico to Drudge — everywhere but the New York Times. As cataloged by NewsDiffs, by the evening the phrase had been modified to read, "The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue."

Conservative outlets like Newsmax.com and Hannity suggested the paper wanted to tone down its criticism of President Obama, but Eileen Murphy, the vice-president of corporate communications at The Times, tells Daily Intelligencer that wasn't the case.

"The change was indeed for clarity's sake," she says. "It was clear from the context of the editorial that the issue of credibility related to this issue, but the final edit of the piece strengthened that point."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...or-clarity.html

Hmmm....cold feet? Remorse for telling the truth? Woried about an audit?

I wouldn't be surprised if there were a phone call or two!

The truth slips out of their mouths over there at the NYT and they look at it. It doesn't fit their sensibilities so they change it. Nothing new going on other than the truth made it out of their editorial room. Imagine their embarrassment at having Drudge pick up their criticism of Obama like that?

"Clarity" was needed.

The news world is so different now thanks to Matt Drudge. Can you name any one individual who has shaped the way news is delivered more? I can't.

I remember Drudge was the first to break the OJ as a suspect story way back then. Getting the scoop first became his trademark back when these media outlets were waiting for the right set of circumstances to occur before they'd release stories. It is so different now. Polarized and defensive.

"Clarity" was needed? yeah, my arse it was clarity!!! and to top it off they say "the final edit of the piece strengthened that point."

"The administration has now lost all credibility." That was the point. It was VERY clear.

Who cares what sort of lame BS this rag did. Does anyone think that anyone at the Times wouldn't still walk over broken glass to vote for this stooge again? This is all meaningless fluff.