Nobody looking at the blockquote of the memo prominently displayed in the referenced thinkprogress post would assume that those headlines were not part of the original memo (unless they were “professionally-trained hair-splitters” looking for a way to excuse thinkprogress’s deliberate misrepresentation ); this is probably why the memo – phony headlines included – was widely quoted, not only on prominent liberal blogs, but by “professional journalists” and government officials, who really should have been at least as thorough as you in looking at original sources and thinking for themselves (but then, why think for yourself when you can just “think progress” instead?).

You also appear to be content to ignore the multitude of other factual errors and misrepresentations in thinkprogress’s characterizations of the memo, its author, its origins, and its intent, and it is those very errors and misrepresentations that set the stage for the doctored document and lend it credence.

However, Think Progress has a link with which to upload a copy of the actual memo, and once you go to the memo it is obvious that the “headlines” are not in the original, and also that the words in quotations marks are there. Thus I assert that the Weekly Standard has misrepresented the situation to its advantage.

But many will disagree. And most of their readership will just accept that the Weekly Standard got it right without checking what is actually posted at Think Progress. Hmm. I think that’s how these arguments get drawn out. But again, I’m professionally trained to split hairs. And to always go to the original sources.

When I said “heavily doctored”, I was referring to the fact that headlines were inserted into the memo that didn’t exist in the original, in an attempt to portray it as some sort of radical, extremist playbook, rather than what it actually was (quoting from the Weekly Standard article):

The bolded headlines below do not appear in the memo…:

– Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: “Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up…

– Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”

– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down…

I’d say that adding those headlines counts as doctoring, rather than quoting out of context; they are clearly meant to mislead the reader as to the actual intent and tone of the original memo.