President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

We covered this four years ago.

RIP, Facts

 

The White House is given credit by the media for their shrewdness in fabricating this bit of fake news, that they swallowed and "reported" as true, though it was completely false:

In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/m...o-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html?_r=0

 

When I run for president, I promise I'll give you the first copy of my returns.

 

Yes, he should. If it's true, he needed to tell the whole story at the time of the tweet. When he deleted it, he should've explained why.

Many in the media have already said as much.

He, and all journalists, should be held to the same standards whether in social media or traditional media.

I do, however, find this indignation very rich coming from someone who has literally spent the past 18 months telling us our next president never means what he says or says what he actually means, and never planned on following through on any of the promises he made dozens of times a night, every night for almost two years.

 

The administration was struck by how naïve reporters -- without any real prior knowledge of the subjects they write about -- were, and how easy it was for them to get their false narratives out to the public, without their authorship being seen:

As she explained how the process worked, I was struck by how naïve the assumption of a “state of nature” must seem in an information environment that is mediated less and less by experienced editors and reporters with any real prior knowledge of the subjects they write about. “People construct their own sense of source and credibility now,” she said. “They elect who they’re going to believe.” For those in need of more traditional-seeming forms of validation, handpicked Beltway insiders like Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic and Laura Rozen of Al-Monitor helped retail the administration’s narrative. “Laura Rozen was my RSS feed,” Somanader offered. “She would just find everything and retweet it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/m...o-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html?_r=0

 

Keep fighting the good fight, YF. You're gonna love Trump's National Security Advisor, by the way!

 

When did Trump stop beating his wife?

 

Jeffrey Goldberg is editor in chief of the Atlantic. The WH brags that he was an easy dupe to spread their fake news, and he's still employed.

Tell me again how seriously the media takes this problem.

 

Actually, the YouTube video did lead to spontaneous protests in Egypt and Yemen that week. The mistake that was made was assuming the attack in Libya was also due to the video; a mistake that was admitted to several weeks later.

 

I grew up with Time as a gold standard among the legit media. So when I hear that Time waited two fucking years to update its wholly misleading "Paul Ryan Says Free School Lunches Give Kids ‘An Empty Soul’" story, I begin to think that the legit media needs little help in tearing down itself.

Time updates misleading 2014 story after it resurfaced as attack on Paul Ryan

 

To be serious, I have been surprised at how some in the media will believe whatever they are told.

I assume it's tempting to think you have this inside source in the White House feeding you great stuff and you don't want to look that gift horse in the mouth.

The NY Times reporter was guilty of this during the Bush runup to war as well.

I also think that the demand to keep churning out news and beating the websites and others to the punch makes reporters tend to be less skeptical and thorough and that's a shame.

But reporting what a White Houst source tells you might be bad reporting, but it's not Fake News.