If you read The New York Times‘ story on President Barack Obama‘s private meeting with news columnists Friday morning, you may have caught one quote that made the President look particularly bad:

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.

The President of the United States failed to understand that Americans were anxious after two major terrorist attacks in Western cities because he doesn’t watch TV? It’s an admission that opponents are sure to use to make the president seem out-of-touch at best, and unconcerned about a serious threat at worst.

Many politicos and journalists immediately saw the newsworthiness of the statement, especially after CNN’s Brian Stelter drew attention to it.

Obama needs more cable news in his media diet? Revealing comment in a private meeting with newspaper columnists… pic.twitter.com/iUHz6Ey38g — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) December 18, 2015

This is breathtaking https://t.co/1RkjRhbiGk — Ron Fournier (@ron_fournier) December 18, 2015

Oh sweet mother of… come on Obama—>: https://t.co/2W1VEMJvOo — SalenaZito (@SalenaZitoTrib) December 18, 2015

Imagine Bush saying this. https://t.co/Aahlt92QMs — James Taranto (@jamestaranto) December 18, 2015

But just as the quote was beginning to make the rounds, it disappeared entirely from the the Times piece, without a correction or any indication that the piece had been updated.

Instead, the paragraph in question has been replaced with the following, which doesn’t appear to have any connection to the original paraphrase:

“Mr. Obama argued that while there were potentially threats that would merit the kind of investment of lives and money equivalent to that made in the Iraq war, the Islamic State does not pose an existential threat to the United States and therefore the response should be measured. The United States needs to take on the group, in part to defend allies in the region, he said, but it should not be an all-out war. Moreover, he added, part of the group’s strategy is to draw the United States into a broader military entanglement in the region. A sustained but limited campaign may be slow and politically unsatisfying, but ultimately will be more successful, he contended.”

UPDATE (12:34 AM ET): In a statement, The New York Times has offered an explanation for the edit, saying that the paragraph was cut for space reasons.

[Image via screengrab]

——

>>Follow Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) on Twitter

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]