What's new

"Alternative Facts": Trump's War on the Media

Here is what concerns me. Why is crowd size even any kind of issue at all? Seriously what the ****? Why would anyone care? Does it make him less our president if only 8 people showed up to the inauguration? Does it make him Super-President if 20 million showed up? Seriously this kind of petty ******** is going to get so old so fast. For ****'s sake it already has!

personally it was just funny. i didnt think poorly of Trump because of the smaller attendance. the picture was just a joke. his television rating was higher than Obamas this didnt really matter. none of it matters or means anything.

what was funny is that lots of my conservative got defensive, and started making excuses. i can laugh at myself, and my mostly liberal views.
its just hilarious and sad when people get upset about saturday night live skits, and pictures.
 
Here is what concerns me. Why is crowd size even any kind of issue at all? Seriously what the ****? Why would anyone care? Does it make him less our president if only 8 people showed up to the inauguration? Does it make him Super-President if 20 million showed up? Seriously this kind of petty ******** is going to get so old so fast. For ****'s sake it already has!

to me it is about the press calling out someone for lying, while they themself are!
 
i agree! take your own advice! so stop with the "liberal" media nonsense. like you said both sides have twisted or altered news stories.

both sides are, but in thise "alternate facts" qoute the media started it! so i may suggest they stop. if after they stop trump team does not stop then i will rag on them.

isnt it ok to ask honesty. and fake news is also here in the netherlands. i was watching inaugartion with some people, and it was rife with inacuracies but i shut the **** up. until at end of ceremony they litterally said biden will take a plane to wherever. and i knew it was fake and was like no dip****s he is taking a train to dellaware. everybody laughed at me and was like dude seriously where the **** do you get your info they ridculed me. lo and behold soon we see biden getting on a train. nobody apologized!


lets all speak TRUTH! the media started. let them STOP!
 
both sides are, but in thise "alternate facts" qoute the media started it! so i may suggest they stop. if after they stop trump team does not stop then i will rag on them.

isnt it ok to ask honesty. and fake news is also here in the netherlands. i was watching inaugartion with some people, and it was rife with inacuracies but i shut the **** up. until at end of ceremony they litterally said biden will take a plane to wherever. and i knew it was fake and was like no dip****s he is taking a train to dellaware. everybody laughed at me and was like dude seriously where the **** do you get your info they ridculed me. lo and behold soon we see biden getting on a train. nobody apologized!


lets all speak TRUTH! the media started. let them STOP!

ok im with you
 
Here is what concerns me. Why is crowd size even any kind of issue at all? Seriously what the ****? Why would anyone care? Does it make him less our president if only 8 people showed up to the inauguration? Does it make him Super-President if 20 million showed up? Seriously this kind of petty ******** is going to get so old so fast. For ****'s sake it already has!
Agreed
 
Here is what concerns me. Why is crowd size even any kind of issue at all? Seriously what the ****? Why would anyone care? Does it make him less our president if only 8 people showed up to the inauguration? Does it make him Super-President if 20 million showed up? Seriously this kind of petty ******** is going to get so old so fast. For ****'s sake it already has!

Why does this concern you? The liberals lost a election they thought inpossible an now do not know how to react so they are lashing out over ever stupid think on instinct. The right does the same. OBAMA GOLFS!!!!!! You know.
 
Seems like this is important enough to merit it's own thread, rather then in the "oh, what a lovely day thread"...

Thanks to Kellyanne Conway of Team Trump, we will now have a new term to serve as a substitute for the word "lie". For Team Trump, a lie will henceforth be known as an "alternative fact". Thus when Press Secretary Sean Spicer said "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe", this is an example of an "alternative fact". Most of us will probably still know it as a "lie", but for translation purposes, and to better understand the new language being developed by Team Trump, one can substitute the term "alternative fact".

So, we know authoritarian rulers are no fans of a free press. A free press is a pretty inconvenient institution. We may see the White House briefing room removed from the White House to aid in putting more separation between Trump and a free press.

We might also note that authoritarian leaders would understandably be fond of inventing a language to sanitize what would not ordinarily be sanitized in a democratic society. So, since Trump is clearly a serial liar, no surprise that his team, rather then ask the boss to just stop lying, he can't after all, has instead caved to the ever present Trump lie by calling it by a more sanitized term: alternative fact. Can't very well call it a lie. People attach negative connotations to lies. Can't have that, and we certainly can't expect the Pres to actually reduce lies about himself and his accomplishments.

As for Spicer, I have heard friends of his, commentators, saying. "Not the Sean I know", and the like, and suggesting he was fed erroneous facts by people who were poor fact checkers. Poor Sean, in other words. It was the combative, angry tone that caused my jaw to drop. As it did to many who watched the first press briefing live. I wondered if his anger was genuine, he was, after all, simply reading what Trump had dictated, or if some of the anger was him angry at himself for tossing out his pride and going out there to make a complete *** of himself. Which he most certainly did! I took note of the threat most of all: the President is going to take his press office and go home, and not play with you guys anymore. Lol. That's what it amounted to, after all. Twitter it shall be. His supporters won't be asking him tough questions now, will they?

All this nonsense, on the 2nd and 3rd day, for heaven's sake, because the man did not like truthful photos. Why? That's what Chuck Todd kept asking Conway. Why would Trump want to litigate in public such an inconsequential, trivial thing??

Enough of this nonsense! So what if the crowd was larger in 2009? Who the hell cares? Trump. Trump cares. I think he's going to do enough damage as it is. He's already erased all reference to climate change from the official White House website. I guess, if he has his way, we'll be spewing CO2 emmisions up the whazoo. Thanks, Drumpf. Outrageous that he thinks he is going to referee and decide the climate debate! I hope we can bring as many people onto the street over his climate actions as the women did yesterday. I believe we can. But, in the meantime, is it asking too much for Trump to simply grow up? Is it asking too much that he stop worrying about things like photos of his inaugural crowd, and pay a little less attention to himself and the needs of his ego?

There is something wrong with this man that he simply cannot get over himself. To the extent of sending Sean Spicer out there to read such an asinine statement. A wee bit insecure are we, Mr. Trump?

People really need to stop apologizing for him, stop making excuses for him. Enough already. If you can't see there's something wrong with this guy by now, what will it take?

Three days in, and already this administration seems more like a complete farce then something to be taken seriously. Yet take it seriously we must.

Trump wants to ensure he cannot be held accountable by a free press. That is as serious as it gets. Borrowing a page from a friend of his on the other side of the world methinks.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/altern...-war-on-mainstream-media-20170122-gtwmdl.html

I can not follow any think you were attempting to convey here. Someone translate?
 
I can not follow any think you were attempting to convey here. Someone translate?

I'm not surprised, since you often demonstrate you don't know the difference in usage between the word "are" and the word "our".
 
ok lets have a reasonable discusion then!

this "alternative facts" thing started because of the inauguration crowd right?!?!?

do you admit that cnn and others manipulated the video images to show the crowd from before the inauguration started?

"alternative facts" is wrongly used, because what cnn said was not fact, what trumpteam said is also not fact.


so reasonably can you see both sides are at fault? or ar eu just jumping on the anti trump bandwagon? there are reasonable grievances you can take with trump.
but cnn under-exegerate the crowd size. and trump exegerated.

you cant pick on one side in this battle. just call em BOTH OUT!

In this particular instance, no, I don't think the media misrepresented the size of Trump's crowd. I thought a decent analysis can be found here. As noted, the lower angle photos, not the aerial photos, will show a compression of the crowd, and may convey a denser crowd as a result, but I think it's explained better here:

https://www.chicagonow.com/dry-it-i...e-inauguration-crowd-size-and-why-it-matters/

I'm not sure if it's the above article, but I saw an estimate, based maybe on a poll, that 70-80% of Trump supporters believed Spicer, not the media. Which may have been the point, or reason, for slinging the BS by Spicer in the first place. The lie would have forced Trump supporters to chose between what Spicer said and what their eyes told them. The gamble being that most would side with Spicer and reinforce the belief that the mainstream media is "fake news". It also creates doubt over exactly what constitutes fact. If there was a method to the madness here, it may lie in that direction. Because, certainly, on the surface, it's absolutely inconsequential as to who had a bigger crowd.
 
In this particular instance, no, I don't think the media misrepresented the size of Trump's crowd. I thought a decent analysis can be found here. As noted, the lower angle photos, not the aerial photos, will show a compression of the crowd, and may convey a denser crowd as a result, but I think it's explained better here:

https://www.chicagonow.com/dry-it-i...e-inauguration-crowd-size-and-why-it-matters/

I'm not sure if it's the above article, but I saw an estimate, based maybe on a poll, that 70-80% of Trump supporters believed Spicer, not the media. Which may have been the point, or reason, for slinging the BS by Spicer in the first place. The lie would have forced Trump supporters to chose between what Spicer said and what their eyes told them. The gamble being that most would side with Spicer and reinforce the belief that the mainstream media is "fake news". It also creates doubt over exactly what constitutes fact. If there was a method to the madness here, it may lie in that direction. Because, certainly, on the surface, it's absolutely inconsequential as to who had a bigger crowd.

You're obsession with this is running beyond deep.
Petty Petty Petty party raids.
Go have a cocktail.
Go to some Mexican resort.
Visit some friends.
Anything but petty.
 
"This account of Trump’s tumultuous first days in office comes from interviews with nearly a dozen senior White House officials and other Trump advisers and confidants, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations and moments".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...3_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.22008455bf44

Aww, the poor baby!

Just read this and it is chuck full of assumptions and speculations. Now granted there was some truth there. I'll give you that. But this is hardly the damning piece you think it is. Truths like the dumb crowd size fight.

Speculations like Conway being out of favor due to her office location.
 
Back
Top