Who needs a White House press secretary when The New York Times will cover for the president, no questions asked?

That’s what the Times did Thursday, deleting from a story one of the most atrocious things President Obama has ever said.

As part of his effort to turn things around after his recent pathetic speeches on fighting terrorism, the president met with columnists from multiple outlets.

The ground rules said no one could quote him directly — but one of his claims is appalling even when paraphrased.

Obama, the Times reported online, “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.”

What? The president of the United States of America didn’t realize how people felt in the wake of two terror attacks because he doesn’t watch enough news?

Pathetic as that excuse is, far worse is that the Times soon removed the passage from its online story, and kept it out of Friday’s print version.

It’s not that it was wrong: The Washington Post’s David Ignatius reported the remarks.

Clearly, someone at the Times stepped in to say, This just makes him look too bad — find something else. Replacing the embarrassing passage was another account of Obama’s familiar arguments against sending in more US troops, or having US ground forces engage ISIS directly.

Exactly what does the Times mean these days by “all the news that’s fit to print”?