lol. Good grief you are thin skinned.
PATX, I'll agree that someone should have at least known that the NYT had already covered the phone call in another story the same day. I'd like to see the link to the story you quoted to see the context of the statement. Do you have it?
Ok, I finally looked at the link you provided from somewhere that shows the article corrections. What is that? what is the source? how would anyone even have access to that? Ok, let's pretend that it is a legit document shown. If they missed that a phone call had been made, how does that change the substance of the story? What would be the Times' angle? In your twisted mind, would the Times be trying to give the impression that the prez doesn't call China very often? What kind of bad light do you contend that the Times was trying to shine on the prez? I'm not following this at all. If the Times was trying to deceive, wouldn't they leave the article incorrect? This seems like the biggest nothing thing that you could bring to the board even if it's true. I'd guess that journalists make minor errors sometimes, find out about it, then change the on line version but they surely can't change the printed version. Corrections are printed all the time, you linked us to one where someone's name got spelled wrong. Was that person lying? of course not, they just made a mistake. You've got such an agenda that it just colors your whole outlook on the world and keeps you living in some kind of alternate reality, kind of like your one for the ages so called prez.
It turns out there is a simple explanation for why the newspaper in Trump's hand did not reflect his conversation with Xi: The paper was printed before the White House told the media about the phone call. A snowstorm that battered the Northeast Thursday prevented a more up-to-date edition from reaching the president's desk.
Maybe you should have vetted your post better. I found the story from the Washington Post with a couple of clicks.
How about this. Let's say that it takes 4 hours to write that news story and the writer started around 6pm. Let's say they called the White House about any phone calls and were told that the last time the prez spoke w/China was Nov. 14 (true at that time) but by time the article got posted, the prez had spoken with the Chinese. Journalist finds out fairly quickly and makes the correction before midnight, good to go. The version of events that I just made up is every bit as plausible (actually way more) than the conspiracy theory that you're proposing. Don't you have better things to do with your time? apparently not.