I do not at all mind or think it was inappropriate for them to criticize that. It was sloppy and arguably unprofessional.
Here's the thing: there was no need to "get out in front" of it because it was corrected by the reporter who said it literally minutes afterward. It was corrected and retracted by his organization. So I think it was fine for them to highlight it, but it was done in a disingenuous way, as part of a disingenuous narrative.
I hope to be able to accept legit media criticism from Trump fans, but, honestly, I find it a challenge, because both the man and the campaign have so often acted in poor faith and treated the truth with such disregard.
anyone else remember 2001 reports that the Clinton's made off with lamps etc and removed the W's from computer keyboards.
those kind of reports are not particular to Trump.
Question for the board, when did Trump and his acolytes become sensitive to Political Correctness ?
and or, just so sensitive ?
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
How many times was it retweeted? How many blogs ran with the original tweet? Facebook statuses' updated? Hatreds reaffirmed?
Do you honestly believe that everyone understands the exact context/timeline of what happened as completely as you and I do?
I mean, this was a tweet - not a retraction in a print publication. You can't scrub away virality.
By the same token, how many people do you think fully understand that the Trump prostitute piss story has been completely discredited? The damage has been done.
So, again, I understand why the White House felt it appropriate to push back hard against slanderous reporting.
Hawk (01-22-2017)
goldfly (01-22-2017)
goldfly (01-22-2017), Julio3000 (01-22-2017), The Chosen One (01-22-2017)
Alternative reality would more accurate. We can file it on a shelf with the Clinton/Epstein pedophilia video.
In the spirit of equality and all that.
It does make me wince a bit that the same category of people who have willingly allowed themselves to be duped into believing that Russia 'delegitimized' our electoral process wouldn't recognize the same tactic at play here, by different hands, in the realm of the office of the President.
That's the casual observer of American politics for you.
I agree wholeheartedly that the lie is halfway around the world before the truth has laced up its boots, but I also think it's worth noting that it was quickly corrected, and that the speed of the correction MAY have indicated that it was a mistake.
I do agree that a certain amount of damage is done regardless of the correction, and I hate that it happened because it gave a tremendous amount of cover to what is (IMO) an extremely mendacious operation.
I honestly don't have a real handle on the ethics of the Russian dossier story, nor what damage it did to Trump. I think it actually tends to mitigate the damage of the Russia issue in general, since the obvious silliness of the golden showers part of it tends to discredit the whole thing, which—in my opinion—might well contain some true and ultimately damaging stuff. It's a gift to him, because he can holler about fake news and use the whole incident to discredit media outlets who actually had the documents for months and made an ethical call to sit on them.
I know that you're younger and I can't hold it against you, but to someone who lived through the Clinton years (as an adult or close enough to it) it's some combination of funny and depressing to hear this one little nugget described as the worst thing in the history of EVAR. **** like this happened on a daily/weekly basis for eight years. Some single- and/or anonymously-sourced story would pop up in a right-wing media outlet and soon the mainstream press would be uncritically covering it because "hey, it's out there." This went on for years.
I fear that the pace of the flow of information has only increased and with that the opportunities for lax journalism and actual maliciously intended misinformation have only increased. But Trump knows that perfectly well, as he's a practitioner of it. Hell, Kellyanne Conway's husband was one of the "elves" who leaked erroneous information about the Paula Jones case to the media. So let's be clear-eyed about the players and about the game and not jump straight to hyperbole.
Raw Story Verified account
@RawStory
Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer doesn’t want you to call him a Nazi: It’s ‘a historical term’ http://ow.ly/OhR4308fm4g
Graham Linehan @Glinner 34m34 minutes ago
Graham Linehan Retweeted Raw Story
If you don't want to be called a Nazi, don't be a ****ing Nazi
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Well, there's more to these laws than voter ID. The drafting process for the NC law studied what mechanisms allowed for likely D voters to vote and specifically targeted those mechanisms. Do you think that's a violation of civil rights? Is that something that you're willing to defend?
57Brave (01-23-2017)
Jason Isbell tweeted, I paraphrase that he " once cheered on when an asshole at a pool hall got the **** kicked out of him.
That was over a pool game --- this is/was over supporting an ethos that perpetrated genocide "
Trump invited these people to his inaugriation -- wondering aloud, had Obama invited the New Black Panthers
or Reverend Wright for that matter
Last edited by 57Brave; 01-23-2017 at 10:59 AM.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.