New York Times Caught In A Lie Again, They Can't Help Themselves...

[jamil]

Let’s recap:

Claim: Times had to retract report of 1000 people in crowd. Was actually 5500.

Kut: NYT couldn’t have lied because why would they? But Trump...

you did not challenge the claim with any evidence. You then went into a “but trump...” defense of NYT.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Let’s recap:

Claim: Times had to retract report of 1000 people in crowd. Was actually 5500. Trump called them fake news.

Kut: NYT couldn’t have lied because why would they? Since Trump...

you did not challenge the claim with any evidence. You then went into a “but trump...” defense of NYT.

Fixed to add purposeful omission.

 

[jamil]

Fixed to add purposeful omission.

Purposeful? Well, you wrote a lot of stuff. I omitted the unimportant stuff.

Trump called them fake news. But Trump...!

You can say that Trump is being inconstant calling NYT fake news, when he spreads enough fake news himself (Frankly we should be astonished that any president lies about anything ever).

But that doesn’t excuse NYT, supposing themselves as the great defenders of truth, from lying about even petty **** like crowd size. And that’s what I meant up thread. One could make the same argument as you about NYT. How credible are they next time they complain about Trump embelishing his crowd size? If it’s petty for him to do it (hint:it is) it’s petty for NYT to do it.

And since we’re talking about omissions, why did you leave out that it was fake news? If your point was stated that if one thinks fake news is wrong, and it is, please acknowledge the President’s fake news. I wouldn’t have said anything. Instead, you pull the tired old, “but Trump...”

 

[Kutnupe14]

Purposeful? Well, you wrote a lot of stuff. I omitted the unimportant stuff.

Trump called them fake news. But Trump...!

You can say that Trump is being inconstant calling NYT fake news, when he spreads enough fake news himself (Frankly we should be astonished that any president lies about anything ever).

But that doesn’t excuse NYT, supposing themselves as the great defenders of truth, from lying about even petty **** like crowd size. And that’s what I meant up thread. One could make the same argument as you about NYT. How credible are they next time they complain about Trump embelishing his crowd size? If it’s petty for him to do it (hint:it is) it’s petty for NYT to do it.

And since we’re talking about omissions, why did you leave out that it was fake news? If your point was stated that if one thinks fake news is wrong, and it is, please acknowledge the President’s fake news. I wouldn’t have said anything. Instead, you pull the tired old, “but Trump...”

Obviously, it depends on which tribe you follow how you see things. Did the NYT lie, or did they simply get it wrong? You said "lie," so I will take that to be your belief. A belief that someone, a reporter and professional attendance counter, was at the rally, looked at the crowd, thought it was about 4-5000 people, but decided to lie and simply put it out at a thousand. And then when the fire marshal gives a conflicting accounting, rather than telling another lie or simply staying silent, they publicly correct and (apparently) admit that they were lying, and just got caught.

I personally do not know if the NYT lied, but if one starts a post about lying, and cite the president pointing out such instances, I'm going to remind people just how much he lies. Everytime. EVERY SINGLE TIME. If you want to call it "but Trump/Obama," because of TWS loyalty, fine.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I could see accidentally calling it 3,000. But 1,000 of a crowd of 5000... I’d say that’s obviously a blatant lie. You don’t accidentally miss 4,000 people.

Sounds like fake fake news to me.

Trumps fault

 

[rhino]

[video=youtube;ljuJnUYozUg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljuJnUYozUg[/video]

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Did they accidentally not count the 5,000 to 10,000 people who did not get in the door?

 

[BugI02]

New York Times Caught In A Lie Again, They Can't Help Themselves...

They hate the "fake news" moniker Trump hung on them but keep living up to it.

Just made a retraction that the crowd the said was just 1000 in TN rally was estimated 5500 by fire marshal.

M

Then "Trump" shouldn't have appeared in the OP. Your complaint would be valid had that reference not been included.... but it was.

Posting the OP again in case you can't see it. Fail to see how the fact that Trump has pointed out that the Grey Lady is now The 50 Shades of Grey Lady is not peripheral and how it enables a but Trump defense or why mention of the NYT's accuser should be verboten

 

[jamil]

What is TWS?

 

[Kutnupe14]

What is TWS?

And in the winner from the category of "you don't really read posts" is...

 

[BugI02]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...hy_archiving_fact_checks_is_vital_137169.html

Everybody that hasn't read this (not skimmed) needs to. Note the examples already in existence and note the NYT's position on stealth editing

Rewrite history, and then burn all the 'books'

 

[1DOWN4UP]

JOIN | THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY. TWS

 

[Alpo]

How is my life affected by this error?

Yawn.....let's not fall below the Yahoo threshold on stupid stuff.

 

[hopper68]

What is TWS?

TDS

Blubrry PowerPress Player

 

[jamil]

And in the winner from the category of "you don't really read posts" is...

What evidence do you have that I didn’t read your post? Can you answer the question? What is TWS?

 

[jamil]

How is my life affected by this error?

Yawn.....let's not fall below the Yahoo threshold on stupid stuff.

That’s kinda the point. It’s stupid unimportant stuff. It’s pretty easy to tell the difference between 1K and 5K people. If you can’t. You probably shouldn’t be reporting on it. Why report on it at all? Who cares? Unless you’re playing petty games. Why play petty games? Times. WaPo. All the major networks. Partisan internet “news” outlets. Activism is replacing journalism. There are still real journalists. But it’s becoming increasingly harder to find cases of real journalism happening.

Maybe Elon Musk’s idea might work, but I’m not sure his solution wouldn’t have unintended consequences. Maybe conventional corporate media just has to die its natural death, and fake news is just going to be part of it.

 

[indiucky]

Just trying to keep things cool....

 

[jamil]

Just trying to keep things cool....

Much appreciated. But it ain’t gotten all that heated up in here yet.

 

[Alpo]

That’s kinda the point. It’s stupid unimportant stuff. It’s pretty easy to tell the difference between 1K and 5K people. If you can’t. You probably shouldn’t be reporting on it. Why report on it at all? Who cares? Unless you’re playing petty games. Why play petty games? Times. WaPo. All the major networks. Partisan internet “news” outlets. Activism is replacing journalism. There are still real journalists. But it’s becoming increasingly harder to find cases of real journalism happening.

Maybe Elon Musk’s idea might work, but I’m not sure his solution wouldn’t have unintended consequences. Maybe conventional corporate media just has to die its natural death, and fake news is just going to be part of it.

It could be just a rough estimate by the journalist and something an editor didn't deem worth checking. No matter. This is picking fly specs out of the pepper. And boring.

 

[jamil]

Yet you’re subscribed to this thread.

Easy enough to get crowd size right. You'd really have to suck at simple math to get it that wrong. So why would it be so wrong? The dichotomy we’re left to contend with is incompetence, or petty “journalism”. Idunno though. Maybe it was a Millennial journalist reporting it, who was only taught math is a social construct that the patriarchy uses to oppress women and people of color. Maybe the math was really that bad.

Or. When accurate crowd estimates are so simple, why would anyone overestimate or underestimate? Controlling narratives seems reasonably obvious.

Trump: my crowds are YUGE! See how wonderful I am?

media: eh, a few people showed up. See how insignificant Trump is?

Reality: somewhere between the two narratives.

conclusion: