Posted on 08/03/2016 3:12:59 AM PDT by bryan999
In a breaking story posted late Tuesday afternoon by our friends at the Washington Free Beacon, staff writer and former CNS News staff writer Elizabeth Harrington revealed that NBC News has stealth edited a May 19 video of Clinton campaign correspondent Andrea Mitchell on Today denouncing Juanita Broaddrick’s sexual allegations against Bill Clinton as “a discredited and long-denied accusation” to merely being a “long-denied accusation.”
Mitchell’s original phrasing was flagged the day that it aired live on NBC by the MRC’s Kyle Drennen and he chronicled the network’s history concerning Broaddrick and Clinton.
Since Harrington published her story at 4:48 p.m. Eastern, NBC News added the following caption to the video on it’s website: “Editor's Note: In the original version of this report, we referred to Ms. Broaddrick's allegations as "discredited." While questions have been raised about her account, upon review, on May 19, we removed that word.”
In the NBC News video embedded below, here’s what the longtime liberal journalist’s report was altered to say: “Donald Trump using that word unprompted during an interview last night with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, bringing up long-denied accusation against former President Bill Clinton dating back to 1978 when he was Arkansas Attorney General.”
IIt is unclear when NBC News deleted the line. The network did not provide an update to the story or acknowledge that the segment was edited since its original release. A request for comment from NBC News was not immediately returned,” Harrington added.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
(btw, Free Beacon is one of my faves!)
She needs to sue them. They will probably settle.
It's not crystal clear to me.
The word furthers their propaganda. Why would they delete it? Are they trying to be less deceiving?
I have to agree, I don’t understand why that word is so important. Please explain.
I don't think she has much of a case. "discredited" is a subjective term. I am sure that her story has been "discredited" is some people's mind. Andrea Mitchell probably "discredits" it, although she knows it is true. In Andrea Mitchell's Orwellian universe, a thing can be both "discredited" (not discussed by the right people) and factually true.
I am pretty sure they deleted it because of a lawyer that demanded they do so who was representing the victim. The fact that they did it means they feel there might be some culpability.
They’re covering their butts over at NBC because it is NOT discredited.
It is, in fact, very credited. And credible.
If Hillary gets called on it, and has to answer to it, and, indeed, has to lie about it, NBC looks stupid.
But beyond that, I went to Breitbart and apparently it’s also because Broaddrick’s lawyer threatened to sue:
“After receiving the legal letter, penned by Broaddrick’s attorney and son, Kevin L. Hickey, NBC removed the word “discredited” from the network’s Internet version of Mitchell’s video report, Broaddrick and Hickey told this reporter. However, NBC did not make any indication of the edit in the video or on the webpage that hosts it.”
More form the Breitbart article I linked above (that site is always so slow to load!):
It is incredibly disappointing that NBC and Andrea Mitchell will not publicly apologize for this egregious error, especially considering that NBC has retroactively edited the online version of the story and taken out the word ‘discredited,’” Hickey told Breitbart News.
“Why not now go the extra step, the morally right step, and publicly acknowledge the mistake and publicly apologize?” he said.
“My mom’s credibility was just fine for Lisa Myers and NBC when the story was initially aired. Nothing has changed. Yet NBC apparently thinks it is okay to disparage a victim like this and then do nothing to rectify the situation.”
A spokesperson for NBC News did not return a Breitbart News request for comment.
Like George Orwell, you’ve figured out how they think!
The press also quickly dismisses as "discredited" any suggestion that the Hawaii BC Obama offered was not authentic.
They may have believed Broaderick didn't have a case, but my point isn't to argue whether the case has merit or not, rather to raise an additional consideration. The press does not want Broaderick's story to become a news item, and a lawsuit increases the risk of press coverage. Win or lose, they do not want this case to appear in the news.
Really a sad situation when the MSM willingly protects a rapist
Sure is. It says all one needs to know about the decency, scruples and morals of the press. It is an enabler.
They’re protecting his enabler as much as they’re protecting him, perhaps more.
NBC was caught spewing propaganda and was called to task on it.
This needs to happen more often. The MSM should be held responsible for the lies they propagate.
I'm glad people can hit back, and hard, with law suits.
The other MSM channels need to broadcast the news about NBC's deception, exposure, and culpability far and wide. (Something tells me they won't. They'll rally together to protect their own.)
I’m posting this on Disgracebook.
Needs to be on Drudge too.
Libs need this shoved in their faces... in the nicest way possible, of course.
“If’n yer don’t like the news, wait an hour, and they’ll change it!”
Kind of like the weather here. “If you don’t like the weather in Colorado, wait an hour or walk a mile.”
Did Clinton ever deny it? Or did he simply refuse to comment on it?
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.