Rpruett said:
JWeinCom said:
Except that he didn't say any of those things.
Kellyanne Conway said there was a massacre in Bowling Green. Not a bomb plot, which absolutely was reported on. Her comment was untrue.
Drumpf said there was a specific incident on Friday. Not that there were a lot of rapes caused by migrants. His comment was untrue.
As far as I know nothing happened in Atlanta. Spicer's comment was untrue.
Are you ok with the media saying things that are untrue? Can the media use completely untrue statements to "start a conversation"?
Are you ok with Drumpf and his administration saying things that are untrue? Can the Drumpf campaign use completely untrue statements to "start a conversation"?
Basically, do you hold the media and Drumpf to an equal standard of accountability?
|
You completely missed the point. Read Art of the Deal and you may come away with some insight of his thought process because you still don't recognize it.
Drumpf and the media have two distinctly roles in this discussion. The media CONSTANTLY will construe statements literally or figuratively as the discussion fits their bias, constantly performing literary sleight of hand. You will constantly see "Sources state : " on untrue topics. You will see inferences of a statement when no actual quote exists. You'll see intentional mis-interpretations or exaggerations on a statement. You'll see framing of discussions with an assumption pre built in. When the media is so utterly biased towards one candidate or side, it's failing it's job in the most fundamental way possible. But in 2017 -- it's a lot less profitable to simply report what's there and leave interpretation of facts up to the reader or viewer. It's much more profitable to control the narrative and manufacture drama.
As for Drumpf? The media is out of control and has been largely for many years. The clear bias against him existed from day one. He will never win in the eyes of this media, so he needs to reach out to the public in unique ways while highlighting the problematic media. This threatens the media and causes them to cover him more unfairly and with more clear bias, which will continue to downfall of todays media.
|
Drumpf didn't write the art of the deal, although he repeatedly claims he did. It was written by a ghost writer. The ghost writer has since said that he thinks Donald Drumpf is a sociopath. So, not a great source to use.
I agree that the media is often biased. However, there is a difference between biased reporting and fake news.
You completely avoided my question, so I'll ask it again.
Drumpf and his administration have said things that are objectively false. Not biased. Proven to be false. Are you ok with this? Simple question.
And as a separate question, if Donald Trump wanted to talk about rape in Sweeden, shouldn't he have actually talked about that instead of an imaginary attack on Friday? Then maybe we'd be talking about Sweeden instead of Trump making shit up.
ArnoldRimmer said:
JWeinCom said:
You have a problem with disseminating propoganda... yes? So, how do you feel about the three terror attacks (Bowling Green, Sweeden, and Atlanta) that were completely made up Drumpf and two members of his staff?
|
Except that Drumpf never claimed that there was a "terror attack" in Sweden, it was the Drumpf-haters and the MSM who completely made that up by (intentionally?) misinterpreting Drumpf's words, reading things into it that have never actually been said.
From what I've heard, the incident in Sweden that Drumpf was referring to did not actually happen the previous night; so it seems that he was indeed mistaken, wrongly believing an incident he heard about the previous night to also have happened the previous night. But what he actually said was strictly speaking not untrue, because he only vaguely talked about "what happened in Sweden last night", which could refer to just about anything.
What you wrote, on the other hand, is strictly speaking indeed false information, because you wrongly claim that Drumpf and members of his staff made up a terror attack in Sweden. So in a way, when it comes to "what happened in sweden", you, Sir, are in a way actually worse than Drumpf, spreading untrue information - or, as some would call it, "fake news".
|
He specifically mentioned Nice, Brussels, and Paris (sites where there have been terrorist attacks) and talked about safety. So, he had to be talking about something violent happening, involving immigrants, on a specific day, that is comparable to something similar that happened in Brussels, Nice, and Paris. What kind of event could meet these descriptions that would not be considered an act of terrorism?
Your part about Drumpf is puzzlingly biased. You're looking for any excuse to make him right. He could have been talking about anything? No he couldn't have. Again, he had to be talking about a violent event, involving immigrants, in Sweeden, on Friday, that has a corrolary in Nice, Brussels, and Paris. There is no event that meets this criteria. If you disagree with anything I said, please show me something that would fit this description. It doesn't seem like you actually heard what he said.
As for me being as bad as Drumpf, that's impossible and ridiculous. You know why? Cause I'm a guy posting on a video game message board. He's a president addressing the nation and the international community and trying to justify policy decisions he's made. Unfortunately, his words carry a lot more weight than mine do. You should be holding him to a much higher standard of accuracy than me. The fact that you have to defend him by comparing him to "random asshole with a keyboard" is sad.
It's like if you gave your friend some obviously bad medical advice. Probably not a big deal. If you were a doctor though, that would be malpractice, and you should lose your license.