[lentulusgracchus]

FWIW, I didn't find the word "thugs" in the Daily Mail article... And I looked.

[bunkerhill7]

It appears that "dailymail" changed that headline storyline; I emailed to editor of same to confirm the change as it was copied directly from their website.

viz " [to]editorial@mailonline.co.uk

Dear Daily Mail Editor: Can you please verify that this story headline was changed near or before or after 10‎/‎9‎/‎2015‎ ‎9‎:‎40‎:‎47‎ ‎PM by omitting the original "Hugs and Thugs"?

This story headline was copied directly from your website. Please confirm the headline change.

“Hugs and thugs: Obama met with mixed reception as he touches down in Oregon to meet with families and surviving victims of community college shooting in Roseburg”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3266847/Gun-rights-activists-protest-Obama-visit.html

[bunkerhill7]

Here is info on the Oct 9 2015 article before dailymail changed it:

“Hugs and thugs: Obama met with mixed reception as he ...”

linkis.com/dailymail.co.uk/Hugs_and_thugs_Obama.html

“1 day ago - Hugs and thugs: Obama met with mixed reception as he touches down in ... of community college shooting in Roseburg | Daily Mail Online.”

https://www.google.com/#q=hugs+and+thugs+dailymail
http://linkis.com/dailymail.co.uk/Hugs_and_thugs_Obama.html

if you google “hugs and thugs” it will take you to the changed dailymail article coz apparently the metatag “hugsandthugs” is still there
and it will also take you to a copy of the original headline “Hugs and thugs”