Trump has been unfairly maligned here. We can see why some reporters ran with this tale, based only on the videotape, but it’s good example of why everything must be checked out.The "Geppetto Checkmart" means “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
६ ऑगस्ट, २०१६
WaPo Fact Checker gives the "Geppetto Checkmark" to Trump's assertion that he did not kick a baby out of a rally.
The press willfully distorted this little story and Glenn Kessler calls them on it:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२४ टिप्पण्या:
I saw this at WaPo.
I was thinking it was a trap for DJT. They have a huge list of compiled four Pinocchios for DJT.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/22/all-of-donald-trumps-four-pinocchio-ratings-in-one-place/
Maybe cons or DJT himself would make a big fuss about this, and then the link I just posted is thrown back and gets more play.
Also, maybe DJT didn't literally grab the baby and chuck it out a door, but he did indicated that the mother should remove or silence the kid after it fussed for the second time. And, the mother did leave to quiet the kid. Not that there's anything wrong w/ any of this. But, is the measure of truthfulness in reporting supposed to be based on the fact that DJT didn't literally chuck the kid out the door? I.e. 'throw the kid out.'
I know the POTUS is a very important decision, but do the Press have to constantly keep these candidates' feet to the fire on these pressing issues of the world? It's nothing but serious stuff 24/7. I'm overwhelmed with all the detailed info and analysis. How about a little trivia once in awhile.
It may be that the media were being lazy, as usual, but it's also the case that most reporters and editors regard Trump as an existential threat and consider it their duty to take him down. The normal rules of journalism are suspended; this is war.
The MSM made this into The Most Importsnt Issue in the History of the Republic.
Obama breaks federal law AND policy to ransom hostages. Who cares? Old news. Yada yada.
kessler learned the whitewash, and the black hat, covering israel for the washington post, he thought he could be their tom friendman, but they already had ignatius for that,
At the least, that baby was not aborted by some Democrat supported baby-killer.,
"At the least, that baby was not aborted by some Democrat supported baby-killer.,"
How old are you James P.?
Old enough to to state the obvious?
The normal rules of journalism are suspended; this is war.
How do you suspend rules that don't exist?
What if I told you that the media is a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC?
PBandJ_LeDouanier
The mother wrote an open letter saying she had already collected the baby's things and was heading out to quiet the baby when Trump made that joking remark. Another eyewitness confirmed this. The baby woke crying, and the mother says she always leaves with the baby to keep from disturbing those around her, no matter where she is. She returned when the baby was quiet again.
FYI.
I heard that Trump ate the baby.
- A New York Times Reader
But, is the measure of truthfulness in reporting supposed to be based on the fact that DJT didn't literally chuck the kid out the door? I.e. 'throw the kid out.'
Snopes has become really partisan lately, and that is how they fact check Hillary. They take the most outrageous photoshop meme that anybody ever made and pronounce it false, no matter the kernel of truth. For instance on the American Flags at the convention. They make a big deal that there was a color guard, but the color guard didn't leave any flags, and they point out video that contained flags, even though most of them had to do with the opening of another bit of Trump mockery, and even though there weren't any flags on the stage until the Democrats actually went to City Hall the next day and got flags, an action which shows the DNC accepted the criticism as true, Snopes chooses to "fact check" the claim that 'There were never any flags on stage the first night of the DNC convention.' Roll their eyes and pronounce this straw man false.
But you are really reaching on the baby thing, PB&J
Oh cripes, look at these "Four Pinocchio" statements:
this zombie claim that President Obama spent $4 million in legal fees to conceal records that would indicate his true citizenship. There is no proof that Obama spent $4 million in legal fees (personally or through his campaign) to keep his school application or passport application records away from the public. Federal campaign finance records show from 2008 through 2012, the Obama for America campaign paid more than $4 million in legal services to Perkins Coie, the law firm that defended the campaign in some of the eligibility lawsuits. But campaigns have in-house and outside counsel to vet a wide range of issues, not just those related to lawsuits.
So Obama did spend $4 million dollars fighting claims that he was not eligible and not every red cent of it went to preventing his college records from getting out. That's four Pinocchios? Sounds more like figurative language to me. Sort of like saying "Donald Trump didn't literally throw a live baby out the door."
Hillary's credibility gap is about corruption, sexual harassment, her monetization of the public trust placed in her as Secretary of State, her "extreme carelessness" to quote the FBI, but not "gross negligence" apparently, with national security information. Her deletion of 30K emails from her time as Secretary of State and at a time when she took millions of dollars from foreign entities like the Russians and the Saudis.
Trump should think twice before challenging the research of a major news organization. There is ample evidence for each of the slurs against women uttered or tweeted by Trump. Perhaps he has a point that he attacks once he is provoked, but there is little doubt that the over-the-top language cited by Kelly was correct.
Shouldn't that reduce it to three Pinocchios right there? Naah! This is Trump!
Let's talk about the "pretty picture" comment. The phrase is 'pretty picture' has been used forever to describe regrettable situations, for example, look at this headline:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/12/21/commentary/world-commentary/putin-up-close-and-personal-not-a-pretty-picture/#.V6cWHrgrKM8
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/police-body-camera-use-not-a-pretty-picture/
Let's all admit though, that if Bill Clinton had said that, the word creepiness wouldn't be strong enough. Based on his history of sexual harassment.
So how exactly does one prove that he wasn't using the phrase ironically to tell her that she was extremely unprofessional? You can't. This stuff is all bullshit. The Rosy O'Donnell stuff? She started with the mockery, including mockery of his appearance, and she is a big girl.
It is just more invidious interpretation of Trump's words. We know that Jeff Bezos, the super billionaire is all in for Hillary, I guess so he can get more and more cheap overseas labor for his company, because billions and billions aren't enough, and he still doesn't want to pay the going rate for American programmers, but I digress...
Then there is the one where he calls Bette Middler "disgusting." She had Tweeted “the man who ruined New York seeks to ruin the nation.” Trump said "When she sees me, she kisses my ass, disgusting."
What is disgusting? Her behavior at sucking up to him in private, sort of like Hillary does, and criticizing him in public?
And lets look at the statement that Trump actually made that was being "fact-checked":
“Some of the things that she said I didn’t say, ok. And she went through a whole list and this was a hell of a first question, by the way. But I will say this. I was attacked by the people that you talk about. When you mentioned a couple of those names, I was attacked viciously by those people. I don’t mean a little bit, I mean viciously. When I’m attacked, I fight back. But I was attacked viciously by those women.”
— Donald Trump, interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Aug. 9, 2015
So basically Trump was being truthful here. Had this been Hillary, they would have gone out of their way to find the tiniest little crack in the wall to find her "truthful."
The WaPo is a partisan rag.
"I heard that Trump ate the baby.
- A New York Times Reader"
It was reported by a lefty website that Trump, being the evil the evil capitalist, had the baby cut up and sold for parts.
Here they fact check Hillary's convention speech and document her credibility gap quite extensively and award zero Pinocchios.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/29/fact-checking-hillary-clintons-acceptance-speech-at-the-2016-dnc/
What the WaPo seems to do is fact check figurative language as if it is literal when it comes to Trump, and gives Hillary every possible benefit of the doubt.
This little bit of research into Trump's "Four Pinocchio" statements only seems to show he is far more honest than Hillary and that the fact checking of the WaPo is "rigged."
But PB&J, if you have one in that list that you think is as important and destroying potential evidence when one has taken millions of dollars from, for example, the Russians, you let me know and I will fact check the fact check.
You choose, otherwise you will only say I picked the weakest ones. I have played this game before. I took the first two up there.
I hate living in a world where the contest is to come up with stupid gimmicks like Pinocchios and the Geppetto Checkmark. There used to be some guy on the local TV news who rated movies on a scale of one to four Liberty Bells because it was, you know, Philadelphia.
Can I play, too?
How about, when someone on the internet does something I think is ugly, how about maybe I rate it from one to four Hitlers?
One to four Aborted Fetuses?
One to four Ordinary Human Souls?
I mostly doubt that Most Journalists Not Actual Psychopaths.
How do you suspend rules that don't exist?
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, there was a thing called journalistic integrity...
If you watched the whole video that came out later, it was obvious that Trump was joking and if anything was trying to lighten up the situation and comfort the woman with the baby that it was no big deal.
According to Drudge, nor did Trump's world end; he is right back tied with Hillary! in the latest poll.
How about that, eh?
Joking or not, what's wrong with asking a lady to take her crying baby out of the rally? If it's loud enough to be heard from the stage, it certainly must have disturbed people in the crowd closer to the baby. Maybe he could have asked in a nicer way, but hey--the rudeness is in letting the baby just cry the whole time (no offense, lady, but get a sitter! A rally is no place for a baby in the first place).
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा