What happened to journalistic integrity?

As consumers of the news, we have become accustomed to certain biases in reporting from sources such as FOX News, Huffington Post, The New York Times and MSNBC; and we make our own choices on which of these we rely on for our news.  However, when there is such a clear deletion of previously reported facts; I find myself forced to say something.

The Binghamton, New York mayoral race heated up yesterday with the candidates facing each other in two debates.  The first debate was held in front of the members of the Rotary Club.  Though closed to the public, the press was allowed to attend and report on it.  Our local paper filed a report shortly after; which appeared on their website and was accessible online to its readership. Unfortunately, this image is all that remains of the original report.  

Apparently, the editorial staff removed the original story when it posted its report on the evening's public debate.  All links to the first report bring the reader to this updated version. (Candidates focus on crime, economy in two debates, Press & Sun Bulletin, 10/29/13).

I have no problem consolidating the story into one report.  I do have a problem with the overt deletion of a statement made by one of the candidates regarding the stop and frisk policy deployed by the NYC police force which has since been ruled unconstitutional.  At the Rotary debate, the candidate suggested that the city needs to implement NYC's "stop and frisk" policies. These policies have been ruled unconstitutional, are racist and can actually make things worse. (see http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/justice/new-york-stop-frisk/; see http://bklynr.com/all-the-stops/; see http://healthland.time.com/2013/07/26/stop-and-frisk-stirs-up-rather-than-deters-youth-crime/) 

As the newspaper's subscribers read the paper this morning over their morning coffee, they will have no idea what truly happened or was said at the first of the two debates.  If they do not have Internet access, they will not be able to watch the video of the evening's debate where the candidate acknowledges and addresses his previous statement.  The readers deserve as much transparency from their news sources as they do from anywhere else.  Changing the slant of its reporting to make someone look better in the eyes of the public is no longer journalism in its truest form.  

The voters will make their own decisions on November 5th at the polls.  It is up to the candidates to convince them who is the right person for the job; it is not a journalist's place to try to sway the vote toward one candidate or another.  That is what editorial board endorsements are for; which are normally filed in the opinion section not as the top story of the day.