Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Mon Apr 19 19:14:45 2021

Utopia Talk / Politics / Fake news caught making up Trump "quotes
Habebe
Member
Tue Mar 16 19:15:06
http://youtu.be/eepUVpmeBhU

So yet again, fake news caught in the act just making shit up against Trump...all claimed they "confirmed" direct quotes...they didn't, all made up BS.
Habebe
Member
Tue Mar 16 19:18:05
Mind you this was used as evidence against him in impeachment.
Habebe
Member
Tue Mar 16 19:22:48
What this is , really is more.evidence for what Ive been saying for a while, when these places claim "un named sources" or " sources close say xyz"

Its very likely nonsense.
Dukhat
Member
Tue Mar 16 20:48:26
Still clearly tried to steal the election through a conspiracy. Misquote that wqs corrected ultimately doesn’t change that.
habebe
Member
Tue Mar 16 20:54:59
The point is more about how untrustworthy the media tends to be.

Also it was corrected MONTHS later.

This also was not just a mis quote, but entirely made up, denied by Trump.

A misquote implies it was a paraphrase or something, the made up quote itself was headline news and entirely fabricated
hood
Member
Tue Mar 16 20:57:21
"Also it was corrected MONTHS later."

Because the evidence wasn't released until months later.
habebe
Member
Tue Mar 16 21:01:22
Hood, But why run a story ad headline news that is not rooted in evidence? they also FABRICATED the story they "confirmed it"

The fake confirmation may be worse than the initial quote. It shows that any random person can say some made up shit and most mainstream media will say it's verified/fact checked if they think it will get more views.
kargen
Member
Tue Mar 16 22:24:03
"Because the evidence wasn't released until months later."

That makes it worse. They only fessed up after getting caught. How many other stories did they pull out their asses and tack a credible anonymous source label on when there was no source or the source was a dishwasher that was never in the same room as anyone involved?
They didn't get caught the first time they pulled this shit.

The really bad part is all the other news agencies that claimed they independently confirmed the report to be true. There was no fucking way they could confirm it.

I see now habebe said the same thing with less cursing. Ah well, you should listen to both of us.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Mar 16 22:31:13
the wrong quote is "find the fraud"... yet the whole intent of the call is 'find the fraud', & instead of saying she'd be a "national hero", he said she'd be "praised"... whatever... the story still accurate

same w/ the call to Sec of State (which was the big one that i recall talked about way more than this one)

Wrath of Orion
Member
Tue Mar 16 22:34:26
Trump fluffers detected.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Mar 16 22:45:25
what's disgusting (as usual) is the way the cult misrepresenting the story pretending Trump never did anything...

as i posted in Dr Seuss thread... a Madison Cawthorn (shithead liar & coincidentally a 'rising star' of the cult) tweet:

"
BREAKING: The Washington Post just RETRACTED their story on Trump’s phone call with Georgia’s Secretary of State.

WaPo admits that they LIED about the whole thing.
"


-that's the wrong call
-they didn't retract the story
-they didn't say they lied
Im better then you
2012 UP Football Champ
Tue Mar 16 23:06:41
I saw the entire video they were outraged by this mistake but they pointed out that it was clear that Trump was trying to influence elected officials.
Habebe
Member
Tue Mar 16 23:07:37
TW, As much as this is about Trump, its not about Trump.

What I mean by this is what is more important is the media's handling about this.

Claiming the story was verified, this counts more doubt on all of their "verified" stories.

Your over looking blatant fabrications because you think Trump is guilty of the overall crime, something which Saagar and Krystal in my source point out.

This is not an in defense of Trump as much as more evidence on how the media not only makes up quotes but much more importantly makes up verifications and fact checks.

Even if this quote turned out to be accurate they still would have been fabricating the verification which is probably not just common practice but the standard as Kargen pointed out, only when they were caught printing falsehoods did they say " Yeah that verification we did, never happened" ( not a quote)
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Mar 16 23:13:38
what is the text of this verification claim they made? i don't have a WaPo account

the story IS accurate, the quotes were not exact
Habebe
Member
Tue Mar 16 23:13:46
Ibty, Absolutley.Their put rage in part stems from the fact that they beleive this weakens an otherwise slam dunk argument against Trump.

Krystal ball is leftwing Democrat who previously ran for office, as a Democrat.

Which just shows you can think Trump was in the wrong and still admit our current media in general just makes up random shit at will for profit and or bias.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Mar 16 23:15:43

and semi-related, & just cause no one seems to talk about it and it annoys me... some Trump/Georgia history:

when they announced the audit / full hand recount but noted it would -not- include rechecking of envelope signatures (probably as no reason, as no way to match to ballots at that point... also, they were already checked twice by then)... as soon as that was in the news, Trump (a ridiculously obvious fraud) immediately was tweeting the recount was a sham. Even though he alleged -every- type of fraud imaginable, he somehow knew this recount would find nothing at all. Instead he said the fraud was -all- in the signatures, the only thing not being checked (kinda like a ridiculously obvious fraud would do). And even though pointless, Georgia DID eventually recheck signatures of one big Atlanta county that team Trump was requesting and found nothing. (which obviously Trump never acknowledged... and team Trump said, 'well what about the other county'...)


and remember the mysterious 3-5 million fraud voters claim (-all- for Hillary & based on nothing) when he coincidentally lost by just under 3 million?

why is there anyone who can't see it... a ridiculously obvious fraud

it is SOO FUCKING OBVIOUS that he just makes all this shit up... i can't stress that enough :p

Habebe
Member
Tue Mar 16 23:16:57
TW, I'll go check, but it wasn't just wapo, numerous outlets claimed a verified account.

I feel like you didn't actually watch the entire clip, you probably would have liked it.
Habebe
Member
Tue Mar 16 23:23:39
The one upside really is a competing outlet is who called them out (wallstreet Journal) which shows sometimes media outlets actually put in the work.

Bear with me, I don't have a Wapo subscription either, but I think I can still copy and paste the article.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Mar 16 23:25:51
i didn't watch the clip at all... i saw the WaPo correction & how it was being misrepresented a lot already


both calls he's clearly pressuring people to 'find' problems & change the results... using both with carrots & sticks in saying they'd be praised or saying they were breaking the law by not finding what he said was there

behavior Cohen noted a long time ago, that he doesn't flat out tell you to commit crimes, but it's clear what he's asking

we saw that from him other times too, like with the McGahn testimony that is still in the courts for impeachment #1 :p (yeah, just take literally everything to court, no big deal... why should public servants have to tell the public anything about what they're up to)
Im better then you
2012 UP Football Champ
Tue Mar 16 23:27:32
habebe, This is more of a case of playing telephone. The press didn't make up quotes and Trump is still facing "significant" legal trouble.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Mar 16 23:32:55

(oh... and more from my mini rant... somewhere in those calls the adults were rejecting his completely made-up claim of hundreds of thousands of fraud signatures & he says they need to go back several years, not just compare to recent signatures... like... 'just keep going back til you find one that doesn't look like it' which is bound to happen)


if he doesn't end up in prison before he dies, justice was not served
Habebe
Member
Tue Mar 16 23:54:46
Ibty, But what it did do is post unverified stories as news. Its as if I called up wapo and said Biden said "ABC xyz".

This " unnamed source" or "from someone close to the situation" is the sort of nonsense Ive been frustratednwith for a while.

I think we can all agree that many times, a source must be concealed for numerous reasons.

But once again, numerous maimstream media outlets in a sense pulled a Trump. He has said a bunch of times that " he has heard things, from very smart and important people" (paraphrased)

Exact cases I dont recall, but on more than one occasion I can recall TW saying something to the effect that when Trump says those sorts of things, he has not heard it from such sources and he either made it up or heard it from an obviously untrustworthy source.

This isnt much different. He will say I'm seeing false equivelancies again.

But it really isn't. They are taking stories from sources and attributing direct quotes from sources that not only turned out to be false, but apparently is just from some pissed of beurocrat.

It goes to show that un named sources from these companies cant be trusted.And thats a shame
Habebe
Member
Tue Mar 16 23:58:13
tw, I wasnt able to DL thebpage before the pay for a subscription ad popped up ( works for Bloomberg, just quickly DL the page for free articles)

Regardless of the verification quote, at the very least this means they dont use reliable sources.

It would be like if I heard from Kaleigh mCanany that Biden kicks orphans and just say its from an in named source close to the WH.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Mar 17 00:44:48
"This isnt much different. He will say I'm seeing false equivelancies again. "

it's extremely much different, you are seeing false equivalences again

the source existed & did give that account... Trump just MAKES SHIT UP... so completely different

----------------

"at the very least this means they dont use reliable sources. It would be like if I heard from Kaleigh mCanany..."

no it doesn't mean that, as there'd be corrections constantly & their reputation ruined... obviously every now & then a source will give them wrong info, that's not preventable... trusting Kayleigh McEnany is preventable
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Mar 17 00:49:36
& for what it's worth, the source was Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state, not unreasonable to trust... whereas Trump would retweet any random person/bot (as well as just MAKING SHIT UP... REGULARLY)
habebe
Member
Wed Mar 17 01:00:59
Perhaps I have a rationalizing mind.

"the source existed & did give that account"

And, its standard practice to make headlines with a single uncorroberated source?

This is bigger than Trump. How many stories about Cuomo are based on such standards?

How about the Russian bounty stories?

What editors looked at this anf said, yeah run with it?

Especially in such a polarized state we cant take the word of some individual disgruntled employee.

It erodes trust.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Mar 17 01:02:26
also feel free to explain how him not saying the words "find the fraud" in that order changes anything... it's -clearly- the entire point of that call & the other one... that's ALL he talks about 'here's all the fraud i made up happened, you go find it'... what other point even is there to the calls?

meanwhile, the kargens out there probably think no calls or no pressure ever happened as that's what's being put out by the cult propaganda wing of 'media'
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Mar 17 01:05:17
"And, its standard practice to make headlines with a single uncorroberated source? "

no, it isn't... and they are certainly taking a big hit for this even though it seems like a lot of nothing to me

i suspect they did try to corroborate w/ at least one other person or maybe they skimped as the bigger call (w/ the Georgia Sec of State) had just come out recently so added credibility (i don't think original story exists anymore so hard to see how it's worded unless someone has a copy)
Habebe
Member
Wed Mar 17 02:24:46
"no, it isn't... and they are certainly taking a big hit for this even though it seems like a lot of nothing to me"

It's more about their method of sourcing than about what Trump did or did not say.

"i suspect they did try to corroborate w/ at least one other person"

I would hope so, but I doubt it.And thats the point, they were lazy, and because it sounds like something Trump would have said numerous other outlets ran with it citing Wapo as their source who just took the word of one person who heard it in the background.

One of the left's big arguments ( see Bari Weiss) formajor news outlets like Wapo and NYTs over youtubers is the level of scrutiny. See her Joe Rogan interview for a good clip discussing this.

This was used in his impeachment trial, thats the sort of thing that you want to make sure is accurate.

kargen
Member
Wed Mar 17 02:37:32
"what's disgusting (as usual) is the way the cult misrepresenting the story pretending Trump never did anything..."

No the fucked up thing is you thinking a quote is the same thing as a generalization. The Washington Post got caught lying and only a person as delusional as you would find a way to blame Trump for the paper lying.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Mar 17 02:53:15
"I would hope so, but I doubt it"

why? reputation is very important, obviously they don't want these fuck ups to be regular and they aren't

--------------

"The Washington Post got caught lying"

what was the lie? & how did they 'get caught'? it's their own correction (when audio that wasn't available at the time came out) that made this a story

they didn't guess at what Trump said & they said it was according to a source (unnamed at time, as is common in any news org, & probably as he would've gotten death threats as usual)
Habebe
Member
Wed Mar 17 03:09:47
"why? reputation is very important, obviously they don't want these fuck ups to be regular and they aren't"

This was only found out when the recordings were released.They knew ahead of time this was a story obtained on fragile means and only admitted such after getting caught.

Reputation has been trumped by clicks long ago.Only CSPAN remains integrity intact, yet boring.

Wapo is the history channel of news.
Habebe
Member
Wed Mar 17 03:22:52
http://youtu.be/WCTQGBrrv4Y

Here is the JR clip.

Now she goes on to to talk about thenimportance of correcting.But listen, shoeonhead corrects herself, Jimmy Dore, Kim Iverson

What is supposed to seperate youtubers and established large media outlets is standards, codes of conduct, and editors***

The difference IMO is that now youtubers often have more integrity than these media outlets that are about as corrupt as Gothams police department.
asdasdfasdfasdfasdfa
Member
Wed Mar 17 04:18:44
After years you find that the WP made one mistake.

Trump makes such "mistakes" every day.

Rugian
Member
Wed Mar 17 07:12:42
asdasdfasdfasdfasdfa
Member Wed Mar 17 04:18:44
"After years you find that the WP made one mistake."

‘It was getting ugly’: Native American drummer speaks on his encounter with MAGA-hat-wearing teens

http://www...ring-teens-who-surrounded-him/
asdasdfasdfasdfasdfa
Member
Wed Mar 17 07:18:27
That makes 2 in 3 years.

Trump makes 3 in 2 days (at least).
Wrath of Orion
Member
Wed Mar 17 08:50:46
Retard Rod 2.0 gets his information from Youtube. Somehow I'm not surprised.
Habebe
Member
Wed Mar 17 08:59:10
Established media outlets are to youtubers


What Wikipedia is encyclopedia Britannica. The end result is about as accurate.

This is just another case pointing out how unreliable old media often is.

We have seen the DNC pulls the strings with many outlets, others take kiss Trumps ads

And most if not all cede integrity over to click bait, case in point.
Habebe
Member
Wed Mar 17 09:16:33
http://www...c0-4901-9069-e26b21c283a9.html

According to This poll the majority of Americans say They don't trust established media

By the numbers: For the first time ever, fewer than half of all Americans have trust in traditional media, according to data from Edelman's annual trust barometer shared exclusively with Axios. Trust in social media has hit an all-time low of 27%.

56% of Americans agree with the statement that "Journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations."
58% think that "most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public."
When Edelman re-polled Americans after the election, the figures had deteriorated even further, with 57% of Democrats trusting the media and only 18% of Republicans.
KreeL
Special Member
Wed Mar 17 11:15:39
The damage done by having a serial LIAR as potus will take two terms by Biden and two more with Pete to get this country back to a semblance of normalcy. If I were a repubnocant I would rue the day that trumpolini stole our democracy. Although trump's attempt at a fourth reich failed. He should still be held accountable for allowing idiocy in the White House.
Allahuakbar
Member
Wed Mar 17 11:37:47


Kreel!


Wrath of Orion
Member
Wed Mar 17 13:07:36
Retard Rod 2.0, you can waffle and babble all you want, but you've now admitted to getting your information from Youtube. Can't take that one back and get out of it.
kargen
Member
Wed Mar 17 18:08:06
"they didn't guess at what Trump said & they said it was according to a source"

What they will not admit is the source is some editors ass.

A real journalist would have asked for a transcript or copy of the conversation before running the story or at the very least a collaborating 2nd source.
Habebe
Member
Wed Mar 17 18:34:35
"Retard Rod 2.0, you can waffle and babble all you want, but you've now admitted to getting your information from Youtube. Can't take that one back and get out of it."

Technically I did not.

But I will here and now say that I get my news from many sources, including YouTube*.As a matter of Fact most of my tv is either downloaded or watched on YouTube (android tv)

You feel better now? Where do you het yours? CNN?Wapo? NYTs?

Hahahahahaha

FYI, the majority of news channels. On YT are actually by established media*

Choose wisely.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Mar 17 19:09:27
"What they will not admit is the source is some editors ass"

that's ridiculous... and they DID now release the name, Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state as i already stated, yet you are terminally misinformed


"A real journalist would have asked for a transcript or copy of the conversation before running the story or at the very least a collaborating 2nd source"

obviously they asked for a transcript or copy of the tape... why the fuck wouldn't they? the other call tape was already out, plus this story was already competing w/ the insurrection news, they'd have wanted any flash they could get
kargen
Member
Wed Mar 17 20:13:55
"he other call tape was already out, plus this story was already competing w/ the insurrection news,"

So basically rush to publish first and to hell with whether there is any truth to the story. So long as we get our ad revenue who gives a shit if the story is accurate.

And Jordan Fuchs has said a summary of the call was provided. There should have been no quotes. So yeah right out their own ass does apply.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Mar 17 21:19:27
“So basically rush to publish first...”
I was speculating, I never saw the article, I don’t know what it said or who did what... I am 100% certain they aren’t just making shit up


“And Jordan Fuchs has said a summary of the call was provided. There should have been no quotes.”
so now you’re trusting single source Fuchs?

maybe it was a misunderstanding then... yet you start off claiming they lied and made things up which is nonsense
kargen
Member
Wed Mar 17 23:18:03
yes you were speculating just like the paper did. The paper put its speculations in quotes though and that is the problem.

And what you speculated is they wanted to profit from the story.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Mar 18 01:13:28
yep... they claimed according to a source that Trump said the words "find the fraud" in his call asking a Georgia investigator to find the fraud but he didn't actually say the words "find the fraud"... it really misled people

unlike all the outlets you obviously heard the story from claiming WaPo 'lied' & 'got caught', or from total shitheads like Cawthorn who got every aspect of the correction wrong & other shitheads claiming it vindicates Trump (like Trump)

that's much better reporting
Habebe
Member
Thu Mar 18 01:27:04
It does not vindicate Trump in the sense that the people who fpund the phone call innapropriate, found the entire thing innapropriate.

It does shed light in how papers like the wapo , make news stories from single sources (uncorroberated sources) who may just have an axe to grind.

The reason that is frowned upon is that means your newa stories passed scrutiny of editors with just a single person who overheard something in the background.

How many disgruntled employees would be willing to to anonymously talk shit on their boss/co worker/polarizing figure etc.

Then they only come out once the WSJ caught them, begging the question, how many times has this been the case where it's taken as news when similar standards were applies and they didn't get caught.
Habebe
Member
Thu Mar 18 01:29:36
Or more importantly, they didn't get caught and it changed the actual story to a much greater degree.

Again, what about the Russian bounties on US soldiers? Perhaps they also heard this story from a spurce with similar standards.

Even if not, this case now begs the question and erodes trust even further.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Mar 18 01:32:55
stories usually give an indication how many sources there are & it's not usually one... & again... it's very much not in their interest to risk it thus i have no doubt they don't on any regular basis (i don't even know if they did here)

this was same reporter who had the other call tape, -maybe- that seemed like supporting evidence i have no idea what this reporter's defense is as i don't give a shit about this story (the deception about the correction -way- worse, as cultists now think Trump didn't do shit)... i don't even know why saying "find the fraud" would make it any worse
Habebe
Member
Thu Mar 18 01:35:44
On these boards a long long time ago, in regards to criminal prosecution I was accused of placing importance of procedure over the truth of the case.

I Absolutley did and still do. Its a matter of ethics and ethical standards.

This is unethical "journalism". They should have had a disclaimer that the source was an uncorroberated story from a single individual who wished to remain anonymous ( at the time)

They wouldn't, because no one would trust the story, and wapo would have lost credibility for running news prices with flimsy evidence.
Habebe
Member
Thu Mar 18 01:39:23
TW , How about the editor(s)? Thats literally their job to weed out the BS by applying standards befitting "Journalistic integrity"

I'd be very interested to see what is the "standard" practice for such peices in the industry.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Mar 18 01:50:21
i am not in a position to judge any of that stuff as i've never seen the original story so i don't know what sourcing they claimed (nor what they brought to the editor)

i have read absolutely nothing about this reporter & any explanation they've given, but it may very well be out there

using a single source would definitely be risky & doubt it is allowed often (& don't know if even done here)... they certainly wouldn't just take any random dipshits word for anything (like the fake 'president' did... thus proving for the nth time he was unfit)
Habebe
Member
Thu Mar 18 01:51:50
http://gaw...0rumors%20had,Pretty%20simple.

An article from 2008 complaining about lack of sourcing standards from bloggers.

Apparently the gold standard is roughly two seperate sources , vetted for bias/sanity, especially in political and polarizing climates.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Mar 18 02:34:29
it seems to me the point of the story was Trump was making additional calls in search of anyone to back his claims, and not about the specific quotes

so maybe they verified the call and general content but trusted a single source on the quotes part as had no choice

again, just speculating :p, and it’s entirely possible there’s full explanations out already
kargen
Member
Thu Mar 18 02:34:50
"i have read absolutely nothing about this reporter & any explanation they've given, but it may very well be out there"

Of course you didn't. You don't need to in your world. You just assume the worst scenario related to Trump must be the true one and run with it. Facts don't matter when you are delusional.
habebe
Member
Thu Mar 18 04:16:42
TW, I think its more likley that the reporter/editors beleived the story partially for the same reason most people did, it sounds plausible like something Trump would say.

WaPo is already a bias organization against Trump.Something you may argue isn't a bad thing, but it's real.

They were itching for clicks like an addict to a fix.The questions become then

How much does this tarnish their reputation?

How many other times has something similar happened?

it would be extremely odd IMO for the one time they got caught to be the only time.

At this point does anyone care? most people only trust the news sites that pander to them anyway, independant news has more credibility for several reasons.

1. A scandal like this will ruin their reputation/subscribers quicker, more competition to take their place when they do.

2. Less baggage, Joe Rogan doesn't have investors to please, bosses arent on them to push narratives, just a reporter and their work, no office politics.

3. The less credible ones have an audience that knows they are bias pundits.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Mar 18 10:13:59
Except you made a very clear distinction between established media and Youtubers, Retard Rod 2.0. As I said, you can babble all you want, but it's now on record, lol.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Mar 18 10:14:35
Is that better or worse than "bowl weavils"?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Mar 19 02:18:03
"Of course you didn't. You don't need to in your world. You just assume the worst scenario related to Trump must be the true one and run with it."

projecting much, you psycho?

you came into this thread totally misinformed (& have remained so, you know jack shit about this story) spouting the faux news talking points of 'lied' & 'got caught' & claiming there was no source (when the source already noted in thread) & making crazy accusations like the editor just made up the quotes

also i didn't assume the worst related to Trump as that has no relevance here, i never read the original story to begin with so how could i be assuming anything about Trump?... plus i know for a fact Trump pressured these people as i've heard the audio of him doing it

==============

"it would be extremely odd IMO for the one time they got caught to be the only time "

to what does "got caught" refer to? they reported what someone said he said, & noted it was what someone said he said... it later being determined to be wrong does not make it a lie or is it them 'getting caught'... plus the story is still true
kargen
Member
Fri Mar 19 02:41:12
Let's sum up shall we. Washington Post ran a story using quotes that were from one source. At least six other news agencies ran a similar story with the exact same quotes. Washington Post names their source after getting busted. Source says his information was a summary of the call and not quotes.
You come in guns a blazing without a fucking clue (your own admission) and decide because you don't like Trump quotes and the truth doesn't matter. So long as the story fits your delusions there can be no wrong.
Cherub Cow
Member
Fri Mar 19 06:58:18
[Habebe]: "What this is , really is more.evidence for what Ive been saying for a while, when these places claim "un named sources" or " sources close say xyz" [/] Its very likely nonsense."

I've mentioned it before, but..
The Atlantic's story quoting Trump as calling military persons "'Suckers' and 'Losers'" comes to mind. They used anonymous sources. The White House Press Secretary then produced on-the-record sources (even Trump detractors) who were confirmed present, and those on-the-record sources denied the quotations. After that, DNC-media simply called the Press Secretary a liar, supported their point by saying that "[Trump *would* say something like that]" ( http://gre...reasons-why-we-know-the-losers ), produced no additional evidence to support the anonymous sources, and quickly forgot the story (DNC articles dried up within a day or two of the Press Secretary's sourced claims).

One might presume those anonymous sources would come forward now that Trump has left office, but perhaps they still think they could have access to Trump or the GOP in the future and want to save their jobs/access. Perhaps they don't care because it's a forgotten story that already did its work — so why risk anything at all? Perhaps they don't exist, were misquoted, or themselves misquoted.

Regardless, the Atlantic article hit September 3rd, 2020. The article's title ("Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’") was sensational, and its purpose was likely to erode military and veteran voters, who tend to vote GOP in large numbers. A "Vets against Trump" reaction was launched a little too quickly afterwards, Washington Post and others published accompaniment articles on the supposed reversal of opinion by veterans to get those "outrage" clicks which would hopefully further affect public opinion (September 4th, 2020; http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/04/trump-veterans-atlantic-military-losers/ ), and "Suckers and losers" became a meme to traffic for the months leading into the election — still periodically quoted. All on the backs of anonymous sources who were contradicted on the record.
Habebe
Member
Fri Mar 19 07:31:05
"to what does "got caught" refer to? they reported what someone said he said, & noted it was what someone said he said... it later being determined to be wrong does not make it a lie or is it them 'getting caught'... plus the story is still true"

They got caught using sub par standards of journalism.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Mar 19 12:09:21
"You come in guns a blazing without a fucking clue (your own admission)... So long as the story fits your delusions there can be no wrong."

i came in 'guns blazing' as your side of liars totally misrepresenting the correction... if the story was false they would've retracted it which they DID NOT (as Cawthorn said... & about a different story...). And everyone claiming they "got caught lying" seems to cite their own correction. Please give a description of the call that ISN'T Trump asking the investigator to 'find the fraud'.

the part i know nothing about is what the reporters sourcing was or what she claimed... yet the audio is out, the story is true.

================

"White House Press Secretary then produced on-the-record sources (even Trump detractors) who were confirmed present"

i don't believe this is accurate, the WH gave sources who were simply on the trip, the "suckers" comment could have been to anyone at any time. and the Atlantic claimed multiple sources (i do NOT believe they make it up, & trust anyone)... we've seen already how reluctant military leaders have been to criticize Trump even though they know he was totally unfit & a moron... a couple cracking at times but even still not going all out.



but people can be skeptical of unnamed sources all they want... but it's -going- to continue by every outlet & the only way you'd ever hear about lots of things. the outlets that don't want their reputation ruined will be doing their best to confirm before publishing.

meanwhile, on shitty outlets, Don Jr & MyPillow Guy will still be guests for some reason
TJ
Member
Fri Mar 19 12:29:47
"your side of liars"

:D
kargen
Member
Fri Mar 19 12:37:15
"the part i know nothing about is what the reporters sourcing was or what she claimed... yet the audio is out, the story is true."

If the story were true the quotes would be accurate. Had they run the story with the same phrases but without the quotes then they would be good to go. It is the false quotes that are they lying part.

And again the person who leaked the info stated his information was meant as a summary not a quote so the paper made that jump on their own. They lied and they got caught.
Gist doesn't matter when you claim quotes.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Mar 19 13:52:42
"If the story were true the quotes would be accurate"

if the story was false they would've retracted it,
since -they- are the ones posting the correction that 'got them caught'

-----

"It is the false quotes that are they lying part."

that's not "lying", absolutely nothing suggests the editor wrote the quotes as -you- suggested (& as you are confirming by saying Fuchs supplied a summary)

-----

"And again the person who leaked the info stated his information was meant as a summary not a quote so the paper made that jump on their own."

can you post your source on his claim that it was only a summary as you definitely are not a reliable source... & if he did say 'meant as a summary' then sounds like he didn't make it clear... (plus that's you accepting the word of a single source)

----

"They lied and they got caught. "
nonsense

-------

"Gist doesn't matter when you claim quotes."

actually it does, it matters more than the quotes in fact

see the "fight tonight" nonsense out there that obaminated picked up on in his idiotic "Biden preparing war with NK" titled thread... plenty out there like obaminated seeing it that way & comparing it to Trump's behavior... yet the context of the quote had NOTHING to do w/ saber rattling or threats

so Fox News / New York Post got the quote right, but people completely getting the wrong idea (as they intended, obvious clickbait)... whereas WaPo got the quotes wrong (which is bad), but the story accurate... again please describe that call in a way where it wasn't about asking the person to find the fraud

which is worse?
kargen
Member
Fri Mar 19 14:38:02
"if the story was false they would've retracted it"

Why? There is no incentive to do so. And no they posted the correction after getting caught. Their correction is not what got them caught.

If you falsely quote someone it is lying. Remember when you told us President Bush was lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and your stance was even if he didn't know he was lying it was still a lie?
Of course you do. You will never admit it now though.

"actually it does, it matters more than the quotes in fact"

bullshit. When you quote someone you are stating the person said these exact words in this exact order. When you paraphrase, summarize or suggest a distinct gist you have more leeway.

"see the "fight tonight" nonsense out there that obaminated picked up on in his idiotic "Biden preparing war with NK""

That is wrong for a different reason. That is cherry picking a quote to make it represent something it is not. Both are wrong and piss poor journalism. Only one is an outright lie that being the fabricated quotes.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Mar 19 14:53:09
"your stance was even if he didn't know he was lying it was still a lie? "

that doesn't sound like what i would say... i accused Bush admin of cherry-picking intel... this seems like it was a really fucking long time ago so i dunno what i said. i do know i said the word 'lie' is tricky with -Trump-, as he's such a fucking mentally-ill moron that it can be hard to tell if he knows he's lying, which is why i try to use 'bullshit' most of the time, he has zero connection to truth, he couldn't care less, he doesn't even consider truth ever

================

"Why [retract story]? There is no incentive to do so"

yes there is... real news outlets don't let proven false stories sit out there (& even though some of you will claim every Russia story has been proven false, nope, no they haven't, post links - & not opinion stories)

-------------

"If you falsely quote someone it is lying"

if it's 100% clear in Fuch's story that he was not quoting then maybe (although i see you didn't provide your source on his claims yet...)

-------------

"When you quote someone you are stating the person said these exact words in this exact order"

except they noted it was based on a source (& i assumed you meant gist of the story, not the quotes) the story was accurate, the quotes were not, when able to they corrected the quotes... is there any indication of people involved saying 'no no no' you got those quotes wrong? (& i don't mean by Trump)

------------

"Only one is an outright lie that being the fabricated quotes"

no indication of lie/fabricated quotes, your own claim is that Fuchs provided it but just didn't mean it as exact quotes
kargen
Member
Fri Mar 19 15:35:01
"real news outlets don't let proven false stories"

Have you not been paying attention? That has mostly been the point. A real news organization would have fact checked first. If they can't be bothered with the truth before they print it why would they be bothered afterwards. Not like lying about Trump is going to cost them subscribers.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Mar 19 16:00:40
it wasn't proven false at any point in time until they corrected the quotes... & -only- corrected the quotes, did not retract story, as Trump did make the call & that was the point of the call as there is no other possible point of the call & we had an hour long audio tape of him doing the same thing & to an even higher up person already & we have the audio of the new call too for that matter
kargen
Member
Fri Mar 19 18:38:47
We all agree Trump made the call.

Do you know why they corrected the story? Could it be because the conversation was released and the Wall Street Journal outed them?

This isn't about the context of the call. It is about the paper and other news outlets misquoting the president. You shouldn't quote somebody if you can't authenticate the quote. Especially so if you are trying to pass yourself off as journalists.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Mar 19 18:50:11
can you show me the Wall Street Journal article outing them? (ie. it can't be -after- they corrected it themselves)

afaik, they corrected it as the audio was found & released


"You shouldn't quote somebody if you can't authenticate the quote"

and you shouldn't completely misrepresent a correction as invalidating the story (or even OTHER stories as shitbag Cawthorn did)... i'm CERTAIN heaps of cult members now think Trump never pressured anyone (& Cawthorn's tweet is still up by the way... 'never correct' is the way of the GQP/cult, with 10,000 retweets & 15,000 likes & he's far from the only one misrepresenting... see you, for example, in your earlier posts)

kargen
Member
Fri Mar 19 18:58:53
"afaik, they corrected it as the audio was found & released"

Either way they were caught then retracted. Ya proved my point for me.

I'm not invalidating the story. I don't think Habebe is either. We are saying at the very best this is sloppy journalism and shouldn't happen in a respected news organization. You don't quote people without verifying the quotes.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Mar 19 19:04:29
"Either way they were caught then retracted."

so you made it up that WSJ 'caught them'?... but don't worry, you already had zero credibility w/ me

they weren't 'caught', new info became available & they corrected the errors

you keep saying "lie"/"caught" & said "the source is some editors ass" w/ zero indication of that (actually it was disproven before you even said it)
Habebe
Member
Fri Mar 19 19:53:39
They were caught using direct quotes which were not direct quotes.

If they bothered to not be lazy and corroborated the story they would have saidngist and not direct quotes.

Again, the different wording, not super important.

But what is super important is that it shows their process for un named sources.Which is weak.

Now you could argue thisnwas a one time deal, but that's sort of a crap shoot, at the very least sometimes they do.

How many stories have they broke where they used such flimsy sourcing?
kargen
Member
Fri Mar 19 20:13:17
"so you made it up that WSJ 'caught them'?"

This shows perfectly why you don't think quotes matter. You read something and comprehend something entirely different. I at no time said the Wall Street Journal "caught them".

"On March 11, the Wall Street Journal revealed audio of the conversation, which showed Trump did not say those things."

The Washington Post admitted they misquoted Trump and changed their story on the 15th.

The source said there should have been no quotes as he was summarizing the call. That didn't stop several news agencies from using the same quotes.

The Post lied when they claimed they were quoting the president. They got caught when the tape of the phone call was released. They changed the story days later.

It was at best shoddy journalism and quite possibly could have been intentional deception to promote their own agenda.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Mar 19 21:23:42
“If they bothered to not be lazy and corroborated the story “

I’m quite confident they tried, there is no indication they didn’t

———

“quite possibly could have been intentional deception to promote their own agenda”

not likely... since the quotes DID come from Fuchs and the gist of the conversation remains completely true, the most obvious answer is a misunderstanding that Fuchs was summarizing and not quoting

if the story was actually false (as shithead liar after shithead liar pushing on twitter about this correction) then you’d have a lot more to work with... as it stands it’s -your- team deliberately deceiving the public
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Mar 19 22:01:04
you made me go listen to that call...

Trump:
"...i won Georgia by a lot... and the people know it... and you know something happened, something bad happened, and i hope you're doing that <??> ... i hope you're going back 2 years as opposed to just checking one against the other cause that would be a signature check that doesn't mean anything... but if you go back 2 years... and if you can get to Fulton, you're going to find things that are gonna be unbelievable... the dishonesty that we've heard from... Fulton is the mother lode, you know as the expression goes"
...
"the people of Georgia are so angry as they know i won"
...
"when the right answer comes out, you'll be praised... people will say 'great' because that's what it's about, the ability to check and make it right, cause everyone knows it's wrong, there's just no way"
...
"but whatever you can do Francis, it's a great thing, it's important"


so they said reported that their source said he said "find the fraud" instead of all that above & "national hero" instead of "praised"*...
big fucking deal. how do the quotes make it worse? or some reason to suspect lies/deception

again, i'm talking about the total deception by the cult side of media, not that it wasn't an error


*and that's "praised" for finding fraud & 'making it right' which is him winning... not praised for simply doing her job which she was doing already... we saw how much he cared about the evidence disproving his claims on the much longer, more famous call w/ Georgia Sec of State (hint: he didn't care at all... his zero evidence always outweighs evidence opposing him)


here's the full audio of the call in question
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlUItuAxLjg

...and fuck you for making me listen to that fucking fraud talk again :p
kargen
Member
Fri Mar 19 23:31:41
"so they said reported that their source said he said "find the fraud" instead of all that above & "national hero" instead of "praised"*...
big fucking deal."

yes it is because they offered up a false quote.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Mar 19 23:57:58
"Huge embarrassment for the Washington Post. I’m sure the msm will cover the teeny tiny correction of their enormous falsity with as much fanfare as they promoted the original story."
~ Megyn Kelly

i don't recall huge fanfare on -this- story, i kinda wonder if Megyn thinks it's about the Sec of State call like asshole Cawthorn... & there's not a whole lot of reason to focus on the correction as doesn't really change the story so -not- an "enormous falsity"


Hannity claimed to be having Kayleigh on to discuss it... i'm sure that was fact-filled discussion... (she seems to be on Hannity a lot, so couldn't find it)


various outlets noting how Trump says this shows the original story was a "hoax" (of course), & obviously his cultists will all believe that


so has that coverage of the correction misled people more or less than simply the wrong partial quotes of a true story?

i said it was an error, as that's what it was... now you say your side is total garbage as that's what they are...
habebe
Member
Sat Mar 20 05:15:29
http://twi...tatus/1372903283933712393?s=19

Did Biden scream at Blinken?

It was said so by an un named WH official says some guy on twitter ( pergaps a reporter?)
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Mar 20 10:01:20
Check your Youtube bloggers, they'll have all the information you want. lol
habebe
Member
Sat Mar 20 10:06:03
woo, Your far less entertaining these days, grasping at straws.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Mar 20 11:28:17
Says the retard that gets his information from Youtube bloggers. Derp. You'll excuse me if I value your opinion as low as Rugian's delusional emo rantings.
Habebe
Member
Sat Mar 20 11:30:23
Wapo fanboy?
Habebe
Member
Sat Mar 20 11:37:45
See, what your trying to do is be relevant ( your not) by claiming superiority by twisting my words " omg, omg he said YouTube...derp"

Wapo is a proven fake news organization who uses single unverified sources.

What I have said is that each story in context should be looked at with skepticism befitting the situation.

Krystal Ball and Saagar,better than wapo or Nuts, but none the less should be scrutinized.

Especially in political climates such as we have, smear articles should be scrutinized for verification more than say a non partisan story, like say a natural event or what not.

But yes in your mind that meame someone gets their news from bloggers....
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Mar 20 12:08:29
Jack Posobiec is one of the lead spreaders of misinfo (that's who made your tweet)... he is not part of any news organization that cares about reputation otherwise he would be fired instantly

as to whether Biden screamed at Blinken, i have no idea... Posobiec's claims mean zero
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Mar 20 12:15:39
As I've said, you can babble and try to backtrack all you want, but it's there in writing. You always find ways to astonish with your idiocy. You definitely live up to your namesake, Retard Rod 2.0.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Mar 20 19:13:48
not terribly related, but sticking it here...
this is a Fox News tweet & article:

"Jeffrey Toobin pulls major upset in ‘Liberal Hack Tournament,’ seeks redemption from Zoom masturbation scandal"

http://www...ment-zoom-masturbation-scandal

covering some small joke podcast/twitter thing, but certainly giving it a ton of publicity

pretty hard to defend putting "Toobin seeks redemption" like he's actively participating or something... it's not in some humor section, just regular news for Fox

what a joke of a news org Fox has become
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share