The Age Cut and Pasted

Whether or not one agrees with the Jewish settlements in the West Bank (and their legality has been open to question since the first one was planned), there are legal opinions going both way on the issue. Why then does the Age not only take sides but goes out of its way to express its opinion by adding to the written words of its contributors?

The Age has been caught out by the Australian in today's Cut and Paste:

Britain's The Daily Telegraph on July 5:

NETANYAHU will come under fierce pressure from Obama to extend a 10-month freeze on Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Spot the difference. The Age reprints the story on July 7 with two extra adjectives:
NETANYAHU, was last night expected to come under pressure from Obama to extend a 10-month freeze on the building of illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Bloomberg reports: NETANYAHU, whose Likud party supports Jewish settlement in the West Bank ...

The Age version on July 10:

MR Netanyahu, whose Likud party supports illegal Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank ...

The latter effort on the part of the Age is an outright lie as it suggests that Netanyahu supports illegal settlements. He does not support illegal settlements because he does not consider them to be illegal. Irrespective, I wonder if the authors from elsewhere are happy about an apparent arbitrary change before publishing their work?