alternative facts

[Hurlshort]

I have a much higher expectation for the President than I do the media, though. Which might be unrealistic, but at least historically Presidents have attempted to come off as sincere. Trump seems to just be doubling down on falsehoods. He isn't building a house of cards, he's building a massive tower.

[Leferd]

Ok, let's not necessarily lump journalism and mass media together. Hannity is media. Limbaugh is media. Olbermann is media. Don Cherry, Stephen A. Smith, Skip Bayless are media. InfoWars and Breitbart are media. These aren't legitimate journalistic institutions. They're all hacks.

 

Malcolm Gladwell is media. Sopan Deb, Jake Tapper, Chuck Todd, Maggie Haberman, Adrian Wojnarowski, Katy Tur, Ramona Shelburne, Ivan Watson are media. The NY Times and Washington Post are media. They are also legitimate journalists and journalistic institutions.

[Gromnir]

Right, let's harp on one technicality on a particular, albeit fair, point and miss the forest for the trees.

 

Donald Trump is a liar. The press is needed to do their job in reporting his lies to the public.

 

Look, the media can get things wrong. The investigative hunt for the there there is hard to nail down and culling information still leads to gaps.

 

What separates good journalists from amateurs and hacks are their training and ingrained code of ethics acquired from their schooling, experience, and editorial oversight to produce objective reporting based on facts -- checked against legitimate sources with overlapping concurrence. Good journalist through diligent fact-checking and analysis, produce an objective, fact-based account of the Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How.

 

Even with all that, can journalists still get things wrong? Absolutely.

 

Still doesn't change the fact that an independent and free press is essential to a healthy democracy to act as a guardian against both government and corporate overreach. Attacking the mainstream media with an offhand, blanket dismissal is counterproductive.

false equivalence has been the refuge o' putin apologists for years. crackpots would point out shortcomings in US and western legal and political institutions and then use as an excuse for russian excesses.  were a ridiculous approach.  to see same approach being used by trump apologists is amusing.  

 

to be clear, am not saying trump is a tyrant or despot such as putin.  am saying the defense o' trumpisms is heavily dependent 'pon false equivalence. compare to obama or previous administration truthfulness and see similar mendacity.  nonsense. need look at breitbart and washington post and see as equivalent journalism? hilarious.

 

the President is, at best, a habitual fabulist.  at worse he is a pathological liar.  the defense o' trump truthfulness requires constant reinterpretation o' his words and reimagining of Facts. sure, even legit news outlets put unnecessary spin on stories.  when you got a laundry list o' trump lies, why worry 'bout spinning one example to make trump look as bad as possible?  is unnecessary.  nevertheless, even the folks at time actual got the facts right.  the time journalists accurate reported the change to the nyt headline, though why they would reimagine makes Gromnir a bit queasy.  on the other hand, trump, and trump defenders, play fast and loose with the actual facts, and the degree to which they does so is far beyond anything we has seen from decades worth o' past administrations or legit media sources. 

 

the alternative facts lunacy is disturbing and the need for folks to defend is all too familiar. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

Right, let's harp on one technicality on a particular, albeit fair, point and miss the forest for the trees.

 

If they could get the facts right then there'd be no issue. Writing an article about someone else lying while effectively lying yourself in an absolutely identical way is at very, very best counter productive, if your aim is to convince anyone not already convinced. Because simply put, any Trump supporter who sees that will instantly decide the rest of the article is rubbish at that point, same as any anti Trumper will decide that lying in your article about lying is a 'technicality', or some weird Putin conspiracy.

 

It isn't a technicality and it isn't even a genuine msitake, it was clearly done with absolute intent. Someone sat down and wrote that reasoning deliberately in an attempt to justify Trump being wrong. In that case he wasn't wrong. Did the NYT change their headline? Yes they did. Therefore on that Trump is correct. The correct response is therefore to have an article with 13 lies from Trump or find a 14th (shouldn't be hard), not try and weasel a truth into a lie.

 

Donald Trump is a liar.

 

Well yeah, he's a politician. And all the media needs to do is illustrate that without lying themselves. They don't get a pass just because they're media, and every time they do it their reputation drops a little more.

[Leferd]

Forest for the trees...

 

To be fair, it wasn't actually TIME who did the fact-checking. Someone did it and the screenshot got passed around until I came across it. I don't remember where or from whom.

 

TIME presented the transcript as is. I'll re-link. Again.

 

http://time.com/4710456/donald-trump-time-interview-truth-falsehood/?xid=homepage

[Ben No.3]

http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend-755.html

 

 

If I can just interrupt....

If you go down the he article you'll see a graphical representation of our voters opinions right now. Keep in mind that in Germany, parliament elects chancellor (not people).

 

Now:

CDU-Merkels party, center-right, conservative: 32%

SPD-Schulz (new guy who runs for chancellor) party, center-left/left (considerably more left since Schulz), social democrat : 32%

Linke-far left populism (we don't have a serious far left party, there used to be a communist party but it got declared illegal in 1953): 7%

Green-ecological leftist, also done a lot for women's rights in the past: 8%

FDP-liberal in the European sense (more personal freedom, less market regulation): 6%

AfD-far right populism (our trumps; we used to have a serious far right party, but it never managed to get into parliamenf and well it died out): 11%

 

 

If voters COULD vote chancellor directly, 36% would vote Merkel and 45% Schulz.

 

 

It appears Merkel is loosing her untouchable status. Luckily, unlike in many other countries right now, we have the choice between two good alternatives. But how do non Germans find the idea of Merkel loosing? To a left winger, perhaps?

Edited March 24, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

How such country as Germany can be this close to being led by a guy with only basic education? Don't you guys have standards?

Is this a reference to him having no Abitur (German diploma you'll get after school and need to go to university)?

 

I suspect someone who's been leading EU parliament for years will have some level of education. And interestingly, he incorporates his missing Abitur quite intelligently into his campaign... sort of "I came from the lower classl style (which is technically correct).

[ShadySands]

That's the best kind of correct!

 

I hope that guy wins

[Gromnir]

a degree don't grant intelligence or wisdom, as the recent shaq dialogue in a different thread should attest.

 

shakespeare had the equivalent o' an elementary school education. faraday had even less education than the bard.  

 

we had manual labor jobs in high school and college. many o' the guys we got to know on jobs where we came home covered in dirt and sweat, guys who wore jeans and tool belts 'stead o' expensive suits, were as smart as the folks we work with today.  change circumstances. change luck.  those folks we knew working roofing supply or doing ranch work coulda been attorneys or doctors.  

 

on the other hand, we know plenty o' folks who had every advantage and managed to get their degree(s) from the mostest prestigious universities. can have decades o' education and never gain no insights.  an ivy leaguer who is as useful as a bag o' dead cats is far too common in our experience. 

 

is no special wisdom gleaned from blue collar work. similarly, fulfilling degree requirements does not make one smarty.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[majestic]

It appears Merkel is loosing her untouchable status. Luckily, unlike in many other countries right now, we have the choice between two good alternatives. But how do non Germans find the idea of Merkel loosing? To a left winger, perhaps?

 

Hint: Only Germans like Merkel. Everyone else will go:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jn8K8EA7-Q

 

'cept for Bruce of course.

[Chilloutman]

 

It appears Merkel is loosing her untouchable status. Luckily, unlike in many other countries right now, we have the choice between two good alternatives. But how do non Germans find the idea of Merkel loosing? To a left winger, perhaps?

 

Hint: Only Germans like Merkel. Everyone else will go:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jn8K8EA7-Q

 

'cept for Bruce of course.

 

To be fair, most people in EU are not happy to replace Merkel with someone worse than her and Schulz for sure is even worse. He is even more 'we can make it' guys than her. Germany will never learn, they will break Europe once again

[Barothmuk]

But how do non Germans find the idea of Merkel loosing? To a left winger, perhaps?

Ask the Greek left.

[Ben No.3]

 

a degree don't grant intelligence or wisdom, as the recent shaq dialogue in a different thread should attest.

 

shakespeare had the equivalent o' an elementary school education. faraday had even less education than the bard.

 

we had manual labor jobs in high school and college. many o' the guys we got to know on jobs where we came home covered in dirt and sweat, guys who wore jeans and tool belts 'stead o' expensive suits, were as smart as the folks we work with today. change circumstances. change luck. those folks we knew working roofing supply or doing ranch work coulda been attorneys or doctors.

 

on the other hand, we know plenty o' folks who had every advantage and managed to get their degree(s) from the mostest prestigious universities. can have decades o' education and never gain no insights. an ivy leaguer who is as useful as a bag o' dead cats is far too common in our experience.

 

is no special wisdom gleaned from blue collar work. similarly, fulfilling degree requirements does not make one smarty.

 

HA! Good Fun!

I'm talking about BASIC not higher education.

 

Faraday and Shakespear didn't live in a time where there was mandatory education.

 

Schultz is an example where he was given positions not by his merits but by his political connection by family ties.

 

He has a bad record as EU president including falsely counting votes etc.

 

He is even worse than Merkel who was just bad ideologist, he is uneducated dictator basically.

Erm, what? Sources please... you are putting up quite a claim there....

 

1) show me Schulz family ties to high politics

 

2) show me instances of Schulz purposely creating a false count of votes

[Gromnir]

what does mandatory have to do with anything? lack o' mandatory actual enhances our example.  the human animal weren't dumber in faraday's or shakespeare's day. more ignorant as a whole?  sure, but ignorance can be overcome whereas stoopid is a whole different kinda obstacle. regardless, are missing the point o' shakespeare and faraday as it sure weren't the formal education they received which made 'em intellectual giants, and in any event, shakespeare and faraday were both finished with their formal education before completing the equivalent o' elementary education. 

 

am believing education is extreme important.  am not diminishing the value o' education.  if everybody were a faraday or shakespeare, we wouldn't need national education programs.  the thing is, even in this thread, we can see how education doesn't necessarily make a person smarter.  on an individual basis, as 'posed to societal, it is foolish to overestimate the significance o' highest level o' education attained.

 

back on-topic, the following freebie link does a better job o' explaining the nyt headline issue.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/fact-check-trump-misleads-on-times%e2%80%99s-surveillance-articles/ar-BByEaOr?ocid=spartandhp

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps formal and mandatory education, even to this day, typical fails at most important goals.  the vast majority o' people finish their educations w/o ever having learned how to learn effective and w/o a goodly grasp a basic problem solving scheme.  nowadays we got such an emphasis on making all learning modalities equal viable that ironic, people seem less able to learn beyond the boundaries o' schoolhouse gates.  as for problem solving, it always amazes us how many folks fraudulent believe they has well-developed critical thinking skills and analytical skills in spite o' the emphasis modern schools place 'pon development o' "critical thinking." 

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

Schulz if not for his political conotations wouldn’t be anyone special ever. And being in power sorely because your family is well connected rarely ends well.

 

Ha! Good Fun!

You always bring up his family.

 

"Well connected"?

 

His father was a police officer and his mother did indeed work in a political party... the branch of that party in a small village. Did Schulz get into politics through that village? Yes. But those (local politician in a small village) are certainly not the kind of connections that make you EU parliamentarian. Please, inform yourself.

[Zoraptor]

Forest for the trees...

Not really, the point of a fact check is to be factual; a fact check that isn't factual is just a polemic wearing authoritative clothes. It's pointing out that some of the trees in the forest are actually plywood cut outs. And the forest is there, there's no need for fakery.

 

I don't really care who did the fact checking (ironically, last Time article I read was the 'Total Meltdown' one on Trump per election), that's the least important aspect. I don't need to be convinced that Trump lies. For a 'fact check' the target audience has to be those who believe Trump- proving to them that he lies. Instead, practically, the target is people who already believe Trump lies and who want that belief reinforced, for anyone else that fact check is counter productive. Indeed, the effect it had was such that I didn't even notice that the author had doubled down on #6 with #14 as I'd been turned off completely. Worse, the quote in #14 even has Trump mention the internet edition specifically.

 

You'd have been far better off without the graphic.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Zoraptor

[Wrath of Dagon]

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-nyt-struggles-to-fight-off-trumps.html

[Leferd]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/president-trump-called-my-cellphone-to-say-that-the-health-care-bill-was-dead/2017/03/24/8282c3f6-10ce-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html?utm_term=.cd2b332bc280

 

I suppose Trump is correct to blame the Democrats for them not wanting to vote against repealing the ACA.

[Gromnir]

 I don't see the point in your posts

welcome to our world.  

 

is repetition and nonsense.

 

possible clarification: shakespeare and faraday didn't have the ordinary level o' education o' their contemporaries.  dunno, were that the hangup?  

 

*shrug*

 

perhaps level o' formal education is a noteworthy measure o' societies.  perhaps.  is ill-suited to measuring the intellect and ability o' individuals.

 

 

google srinivasa ramanujan if the shakespeare and faraday examples is too english.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

Are you claiming Schultz is a intelectual prodigy like them? 

what is with you? point to where we claimed or implied schulz is an intellectual prodigy.

 

...

 

we can wait.

 

we made a limited claim.  we observed how absence o' a degree is insufficient proof of mental deficit. our support o' such a claim were varied, but we did indeed give examples o' giants in multiple fields o' study who were undereducated by any reasonable measure.  

 

we recognize how you ain't "seeing."  lord knows we is attempted to help you. 

 

and to stay on-topic, we got a few new alternative facts from trump regarding the recent health bill fail.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/fact-check-trump%e2%80%99s-misleading-claims-on-the-health-bill-failure/ar-BByIuUZ?ocid=spartandhp

 

HA! Good Fun!

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I'm a engineer 

 

 

 

we observed how absence o' a degree is insufficient proof of mental deficit. 

 

You claim that because there are some exceptions the rule is false?

 

 

> claims to be an engineer

> apparently can't grasp the basic concepts of necessity and sufficiency 

 

sounds legit

[Guard Dog]

 

 

ps formal and mandatory education, even to this day, typical fails at most important goals.  the vast majority o' people finish their educations w/o ever having learned how to learn effective and w/o a goodly grasp a basic problem solving scheme.  nowadays we got such an emphasis on making all learning modalities equal viable that ironic, people seem less able to learn beyond the boundaries o' schoolhouse gates.  as for problem solving, it always amazes us how many folks fraudulent believe they has well-developed critical thinking skills and analytical skills in spite o' the emphasis modern schools place 'pon development o' "critical thinking." 

 

You hit the nail on the head here. In my job I have had the opportunity to work with some highly educated individuals. Advanced degrees are common and even go so far as to form an absurd "pecking order" where the assertions of a PhD are taken at face value even when demonstrably incorrect. A phrase I coined a while back describes someone whose "education has exceeded their intelligence".

[Malcador]

Happens. In my engineering school the workload was so heavy that it can be easy to not learn and just fight through to the next hump. As an old coworker said the degree proves you're either smart, resourceful or plain lucky.

[Leferd]

Right. Blind trust. What conflicts of interest?

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/03/24/after-promising-not-donald-talk-business-with-father-eric-trump-says-president-give-him-financial-reports/#4f2f1569359a

 

[Leferd]

 

“Senator, I think what they were trying to do was drive a wedge within the Democratic Party between the Clinton group and the Sanders group, and then in our nation between Republicans and Democrats.”