Replies

Yes it’s Snopes, but their explanation holds water, as I knew the two vs. four dots meant something:

http://www.snopes.com/wsj-different-trump-headlines/

Still, your point is valid in that we are being played, even if these images aren’t the best examples. Just look at anything from the AP or WaPo if you want to see manipulation of the news to suit the publisher’s political agenda.

How the mediots manipulate what Trump does and says to meet their agendas!
The following is from Snopes about the above. Draw your own conclusions to why the difference in WSJ’s headlines:
This image was passed around on the Internet accompanied by the claim that the Wall Street Journal had deliberately published one headline, "Trump Softens His Tone," in a pro-Trump market area in an attempt to sway readers away from the the GOP nominee, and the other headline, "Trump Talks Tough on Wall," in a non-Trump market area to bolster support for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
However, these opposing headline editions were not distributed to different political or geographic markets, nor were they intended to influence voters.

This picture shows two editions of the Wall Street Journal published at different times of the day. The paper on the left came off the press early in the day, while the paper on the right was produced later in the day. Print newspapers sometimes undergo revisions throughout their daily runs and typically employ marks to distinguish the various editions — in this case the differing WSJ editions are distinguishable by the number of stars displayed in the masthead:

“The Wall Street Journal says”.

So Snopes “debunks” the supposed false story about 2 different headlines for different markets. Based on a denial by they paper that printed it? Uh huh.

Based on the headlines wouldn’t you think the story below would have to be changed? How could you print two completely opposite headlines and not change the story?

Hey, maybe the papers didn’t go to different markets. But maybe they did? You would think someone would actually investigate that and not take the word of the DAMN PAPER THAT PRINTED IT!!