Posted on 05/06/2009 5:05:01 PM PDT by Starman417
Yesterday I clicked on a news link about the ever ongoing Taliban encroachment in Pakistan. Leaving aside any commentary about that at the moment, I'm going to instead address Reuters and their politically correct reporting... or perhaps fear to tell the truth.
Lemme 'splain.
The article original was titled ""Residents flee Pakistan's Swat as truce collapses" by Junaid Khan, and was appearing via a Lucianne link thru the Yahoo news site time-stamped May 5th, 8:17AM eastern time.
About halfway in was a subtitle labled "Civilian Shield", and the opening two paragraphs following:
"CIVILIAN SHIELD"The military said in a statement security forces had beaten back an attack on the camp but a senior military official in the region said an operation might be launched to rescue 46 paramilitary soldiers besieged there.
"We're acting with restraint because they're using civilians as a shield but we'll go after them if the situation gets worse," said the military official, who declined to be identified.
Pakistani stocks ended up but off the day's highs as investors remained cautious amid mounting expectation the military would step up its operations against the militants.
.... snip....
Since Yahoo and Google news sites have a tendency to result in broken links in a short period of time, I went for an alternative site that was apt to keep it longer.
So I went to the Reuter's site and retrieved their version, time-stamped May 5th, 5:26PM EDT.
Lo... behold. Not only was the headline changed to "Residents flee Pakistan's Swat as clashes loom", dimishing the news of a collapsed truce, but the first two paragraphs about the civilian shields following the subheading were completely removed.
What makes it more bizarre, and certainly poor editing, is that whomever took the PC red pencil to the article failed to remove the subheading of "Civilian shield"... leaving it dangling there with no explanation. The ensuing paragraphs do not even address the reasoning for the subheading's presence.
Yup... I expect a future edit when they figure that out, and remove all references to civilian shields entirely. Had they not left that subheading in there, I many not have noticed it as quickly.
Below is the screenshot of the original Yahoo publication (in case the link above disappears). The second is beginning of the article with the Yahoo time stamp. (click on picture to see it enlarged)
(Excerpt) Read more at Flopping Aces ...
‘Roid-ers....a real pain in the @$$.
There, fixed it for you.
When the press the press becomes so slovenely, uneducated, uncurious and shameless as to be just another form of entertainment, when the press refuses to print the truth, refuses to investigate, shows bias and favor to political parties and stands mute either afraid or unwilling to ask about the elephant in the room, the press should, no, the press must lose the rights that are afforded the press.
The rights of a free press, like liberty, are worthy of more than what has been allowed.
When will this pandering to Muslims end? It seems like we are so eager to accomodate Muslims, even though many of them reat woman like dogs. The left is so invested in “winning” against conservatives that they cheer on anyone whom they know we despise, even if they treat women like 3rd class citizens.
I wonder how log it will be before Obama simply gives away GITMO completely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.