Administration To Rely on "Alternative Facts" To Run The Country

[Altfish]

Well alternative facts won Trump the election, they ensured the UK voted Brexit. Why not try them in government.

The press is going to be so important in the next few years; that's why Trump is trying to control them now.

 

[Skwim]

Journalists are supposed to gather their own facts, if it's not true don't report it.

But if it is true shouldn't they report it if they want to?

TRUTH 1) The President sent out his press secretary to "utter a provable falsehood,"

TRUTH 2) As we see in the video, Kellyanne Conway said that press secretary Sean Spicer uttered an "alternative fact."​

Both facts that qualify as being reportable.

It's not like the man was lying to congress like some libs we know.

Aside from the "lib" reference, so what? Are lies only meaningful when they're directed at congress or other powerful entities? "I'm not sorry dear that I lied to you about all the affairs I've been having, because unlike the US Congress you're simply not worthy of being told the truth."


.

 

[Kemosloby]

But if it is true shouldn't they report it if they want to?

TRUTH 1) The President sent out his press secretary to "utter a provable falsehood,"

TRUTH 2) As we see in the video, that Kellyanne Conway said that press secretary Sean Spicer uttered an "alternative fact."​

Both facts that qualify as being reportable.


Aside from the "lib" reference, so what? Are lies only meaningful when they're directed at congress or other powerful entities? "I'm not sorry dear that I lied to you about all the affairs I've been having, but unlike the US Congress you're simply not worthy of being told the truth."


.

Obama ordering bombing on Libya his last day was a reportable fact too, but they didn't. They report on trivial news that isn't news, which is why we call them the fake news. Not that they don't have facts, but they don't report news.

 

[McBell]

Obama ordering bombing on Libya his last day was a reportable fact too, but they didn't. They report on trivial news that isn't news, which is why we call them the fake news. Not that they don't have facts, but they don't report news.

What objective means do you use to sort out "reportable" facts from "fake news"?

I would advise you think long and hard on your reply.
I suspect you are unaware of the corner you just backed yourself into.

 

[Kemosloby]

What objective means do you use to sort out "reportable" facts from "fake news"?

I would advise you think long and hard on your reply.
I suspect you are unaware of the corner you just backed yourself into.

That stuff on the news today compared to the stuff on the news say 16 years ago when the news had some integrity left.

 

[McBell]

That stuff on the news today compared to the stuff on the news say 16 years ago when the news had some integrity left.

you did not answer the question.
Here it is again:

What objective means do you use to sort out "reportable" facts from "fake news"?

​

You seem to be guilty of the exact thing you whine so much about.
You did notice my post where I said the lady in the OP video is a prime example of what is wrong right?
Do you really think that you doing the same thing will some how change my mind?

 

[Kemosloby]

you did not answer the question.
Here it is again:

What objective means do you use to sort out "reportable" facts from "fake news"?

​

You seem to be guilty of the exact thing you whine so much about.
You did notice my post where I said the lady in the OP video is a prime example of what is wrong right?
Do you really think that you doing the same thing will some how change my mind?

It's not my goal to change your mind, only to voice my opinion. To symbolically spit on the news stations of today.

 

[McBell]

It's not my goal to change your mind, only to voice my opinion. To symbolically spit on the news stations of today.

Thank you for the clarification.
Your hypocrisy is duly noted.

Have a nice day.

 

[David1967]

[QUOTEYOU="Lyndon, post: 5042700, member: 56004"]It seems a lot of Trump supporters are both gullible and stupid enough to believe him.[/QUOTE]

 

[David1967]

Actually I was just stating the truth, and the obvious, do you live in the alternative Universe Trump inhabits?? If someone actually believes, as Trump stated, that more people attended his inauguration than Obama's then they are a special kind of stupid, there's no doubt about it. Even Trump is smart enough to know full well that he was lying!!

You are stating your opinion, which is fine , just not necessarily fact. Don't know why you feel the need to be so personally insulting though.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That stuff on the news today compared to the stuff on the news say 16 years ago when the news had some integrity left.

Without buying into the left/right paradigm, if you truly believe the news today has changed so much from 16 years ago (and in many meaningful ways, I would agree it has), then using 16 year old techniques of gathering and discerning information would seem to be problematic.

Unless you see a path by which the media reverts to 16 year old models of doing business? Because pragmatically that has proven to be largely a path to bankruptcy.

 

[Lyndon]

You are stating your opinion, which is fine , just not necessarily fact. Don't know why you feel the need to be so personally insulting though.

So you're saying you seriously think there were more people at Trumps inauguration than at Obama's in 2009, and your evidence is??????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Kemosloby]

Without buying into the left/right paradigm, if you truly believe the news today has changed so much from 16 years ago (and in many meaningful ways, I would agree it has), then using 16 year old techniques of gathering and discerning information would seem to be problematic.

Unless you see a path by which the media reverts to 16 year old models of doing business? Because pragmatically that has proven to be largely a path to bankruptcy.

Hire journalists with integrity?

 

[Lyndon]

What you mean is hire journalists that support Trump only, right?? Who support the lies, like this one??

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hire journalists with integrity?

No offence, but that seems glib. Media is not a social service any more than any other for-profit business. Traditional models of gathering information, checking facts, etc, results in a slowing down of the news cycle. The whole reason for a shift in news delivery is because of the demand for quick news. Anything a day old is now considered 'old'.

Note, this is NOT an argument of quality. It's simply an argument of economic realism.

The journalistic integrity has been hamstrung, largely as a result of 'efficient' news delivery to the masses, including social media, 24 hours news channels, and the subversion of traditional print journalism.

Hiring 'journalists with integrity' is actually not the problem here. Rewarding journalists with integrity, and valuing slower and more considered news delivery is.

 

[Kemosloby]

No offence, but that seems glib. Media is not a social service any more than any other for-profit business. Traditional models of gathering information, checking facts, etc, results in a slowing down of the news cycle. The whole reason for a shift in news delivery is because of the demand for quick news. Anything a day old is now considered 'old'.

Note, this is NOT an argument of quality. It's simply an argument of economic realism.

The journalistic integrity has been hamstrung, largely as a result of 'efficient' news delivery to the masses, including social media, 24 hours news channels, and the subversion of traditional print journalism.

Hiring 'journalists with integrity' is actually not the problem here. Rewarding journalists with integrity, and valuing slower and more considered news delivery is.

Good point, shooting from the hip often misses its mark.

 

[Kemosloby]

Good point, shooting from the hip often misses its mark.

No offence, but that seems glib. Media is not a social service any more than any other for-profit business. Traditional models of gathering information, checking facts, etc, results in a slowing down of the news cycle. The whole reason for a shift in news delivery is because of the demand for quick news. Anything a day old is now considered 'old'.

Note, this is NOT an argument of quality. It's simply an argument of economic realism.

The journalistic integrity has been hamstrung, largely as a result of 'efficient' news delivery to the masses, including social media, 24 hours news channels, and the subversion of traditional print journalism.

Hiring 'journalists with integrity' is actually not the problem here. Rewarding journalists with integrity, and valuing slower and more considered news delivery is.

I think it's more a problem of lack of class, lack of civility. They used to have...not sure what the word is for it.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

You just insulted a heck of a lot of people.
An arrogant and rude attitude.
I admire your fire but detest your lack of finesse.
I suppose even nice rabbits can have bad habits.

You are totally right. Lyndon should becareful what he says.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

Yes, from what I can tell they are indeed pictures of the National Mall.


.

But was it before or during the inauguration?

 

[JakofHearts]

But was it before or during the inauguration?

Apparently it was before. CNN refute themselves. If you watch CNN's gigapixel shots (which I must say is quite impressive, and just shows how big brother can watch you from way back) you'll see that as usual, CNN fake news.

Source: Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump