President Obama constantly complains about the press. Usually, he focuses that ire on Fox News and talk radio, but occasionally he broadens his critiques to all the members of the press who just don’t get him.

This strategy bears fruit: the leftist press kowtow to him at every available opportunity.

Friday’s New York Times was no exception. On Thursday night, the online edition of The New York Times carried this story about President Obama’s pathological inability to understand Americans’ fears about Islamic terrorism. According to the newspaper of record, Obama met with a group of news columnists. Here’s what happened next:

In his meeting with the columnists, Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments. Republicans were telling Americans that he is not doing anything when he is doing a lot, he said.

That’s a damning indictment of President Obama’s disconnect. How out of touch must you be to ignore the fact that Americans were on edge after Paris and more on edge after San Bernardino? Why is President Obama’s solution to all of his problems to talk more?

The New York Times must have realized just how damning this indictment was…because by Friday morning, the line was simply gone. Instead, The New York Times inserted a couple of paragraphs about how Obama told columnists that ISIS “does not pose an existential threat to the United States and therefore the response should be measured.”

The headline to the story also changed four times according to NewsDiffs. It began as, “Obama Visiting National Counterterrorism Center.” That transformed to, “Obama, at Counterterrorism Center, Offers Assurances On Safety.” Then, “Frustrated by Republican Critics, Obama Defends Muted Response to Attacks.” Then, as The New York Times attempted to defend Obama, the headline changed to, “Under Fire From GOP, Obama Defends Response to Terror Attacks.” It is currently, “Assailed by GOP, Obama Defends His Response to Terror Attacks.”

The Times has not explained its revision.

That makes perfect sense, given that The New York Times must protect The Precious. President Obama, without the media, would be seen for the Worse-Than-Carter failure he is. With the press, he magically becomes a victim of Republican intransigence and radicalism.

How convenient for everyone involved.

UPDATE: The New York Times has said that it cut the line for space. One problem: