As Twitchy reported Friday, The New York Times stealth-edited a story that claimed President Trump and NRA head Wayne LaPierre met and came to a quid pro quo agreement: the NRA would continue to support the president through his impeachment if in return the White House agreed to “stop the games” over gun control legislation. The Times quietly reworded the paragraph to say “it wasn’t clear” if there’d been any such arrangement.

Of course, in the age of social media, fake news doesn’t just harm the people who consume the source; journalists like Jake Tapper, who has more than 2 million followers, certainly found the arrangement a little sketchy and tweeted about it, but deleted his tweet once he found out about the edit.

NYT edited a story after posting it, so i'm deleting my original tweet quoting language no longer in the story and tweeting out the new version. — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) September 28, 2019

This is why you're trusted. Most people wouldn't delete and correct. They would just bitch about The Times. — Robert Caruso (@robertcaruso) September 28, 2019

It’s good that he deleted the original tweet, but now that it’s gone, who knows how many people retweeted it? The New York Times managed to embarrass not only itself but Tapper as well.

Seems like the NYT has been doing that quite a bit lately. — Hank (@Hankersly) September 28, 2019

It's tough isn't it, keeping up with #FakeNews? — Heather Champion (@winningatmylife) September 28, 2019

24/7 job! — Claire Mahoney (@TaggertGirl) September 28, 2019

You mean you circulated a lie? — jrfromdallas (@DallasNYorker) September 28, 2019

The truth just keeps changing, doesn't it, Jake. — Laurie (@StormDanser) September 28, 2019

It’s actually kinda weird that news articles that are supposed to represent the historical record can just be changed — Matt (@MatthewGalanty) September 28, 2019

How does nobody ever get fired at the @nytimes? Its like every week now they invent a "bombshell story" but retract it the next day. — Nadine Pearl Cole (@NpcPearl) September 28, 2019

Too good to check. Journalism has become little more than gossip now. — Adso of Melk (@PalimpsestMan) September 28, 2019

There's a lesson here. Wait 24 to 48 hours on any negative stories about Trump before buying into them hook, line, and sinker. — Suzy (@scout_nj) September 28, 2019

Yeah, that’s not gonna happen.

Presenting the public with inflammatory details that are subsequently walked back isn't the sort of thing journalists offer soft do-overs for when people in other industries do it. — David Hines (@hradzka) September 28, 2019

That's not true. Haven't you seen them cover AOC? — Well Redneck (@WellRedneck) September 28, 2019

All of us trolls thank you. — Bullsh!t (@GOP_WH_News) September 28, 2019

That’s right, he did say Trump had “an army of trolls” defending him against impeachment.

Pro tip. Stop quoting the NYTimes . — ?You Crack Me Up? (@jxroland) September 28, 2019

Getting pretty dangerous to rely on a NYT story or headline as a credible source in the first 48 hours. Journalisming takes time. https://t.co/VjiZcwOIHT — Jeremy Boreing (@JeremyDBoreing) September 28, 2019

My only news source is retractions. — This Platform is Toxic (@this_toxic) September 28, 2019

It's almost like a real journalist would confirm their facts and story first, THEN publish their piece. But maybe it's easier to just be an activist and make up a story, publish it, then delete after everyone calls it out for being fake. — Wes Ganobcik ™ (@ganobleberries) September 28, 2019

They need a waiting period — Fabulous Cramden (@FCramden) September 28, 2019

Reporter: "Ooh! Ooh! You'll never believe what I heard on the bus!"

Editor: "Clear Page 1!" — P.A. Hummers (@PepeDFrog2) September 28, 2019

It’s called propagate a lie, conveniently almost always an anti-Trump lie, allow it to marinate in the minds of the public, then release a quiet correction that few will see or care about.#EnemyOfThePeople — realitybiased (@realitybiased1) September 28, 2019

The does seem to be a reason Trump has pivoted from “fake news media” to “corrupt news media.”

Related: