Nebfanatic Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 One question for On 1/31/2018 at 11:24 AM, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said: while the facts may be true, it doesn't lend the impression that 70% of Americans viewed the speech favorably link to the actual poll This is an interesting way to present a poll that shows that 48% of Americans viewed the speech as "very positive", and 70% overall were left with a positive impression. The headline is "CNN Instant poll: Trump gets least positive reaction in at least 20 years" then in the actual poll they go back to 2007, presumably to bolster their 20 year claim. The crux of the "story" is the "least positive reaction. In 2007, you have to use all of Bush's positives to exceed Trumps overall positives, as Trump had a "very positive" rating of 48% vs. Bush's 41%. Bush did exceed him overall by 78% for Bush vs. 70% for Trump. Aside from the obviously intentional negative slant to a poll that was very good, (Admittedly no where near Obamas 1st year of 68% very positive and 24% somewhat for an incredible 92% overall favorable rating) Why not lead with the overall 70% rating, if that is the standard that you apply to the story? Personally, I am certain they (CNN) hated the thought of printing 70% favorable, and chose the 48% (less than half) to give the false impression that most of the country viewed the speech in a negative manner. To be fair even his 70% overall rating was the least positive in the last 20 years based on the numbers you linked so where are they wrong exactly? 1 Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, knapplc said: So it's factually accurate, but focused on something specific that will give a specific impression. Just like the OP. So either the first example or the second example could be critiqued, or both. But only the second example was, and continues to be. It's a valid question to ask why. You are right, I could've chosen to rip on the OP and didn't. My only excuse is that it would've been a waste of time. I have a pretty good idea of the response I would get and it isn't worth my time talking to a wall. Besides that, I feel it is obvious how misguided the gist of the OP is. But I thought I would get a reasonable, level-headed, fair response from you. It's a compliment really 2 Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Well, now I'm blushing. 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said: Sorry, it is a bad sword to fall on, I know, but I just felt saying that the Democrats at the SOTU speech sat on their hands was an entirely accurate depiction of what transpired. I addressed that one issue at face value, nothing more. And this is why I go out of my way to avoid P&R anymore. I stated I was not defending Fox News. I didn't defend Fox News. But lo and behold, the response is "I find it odd that so much time is being expended to defend Fox News". Personally I don't have much of any idea what they're doing at Fox or CNN or MSNBC or any major news Network. I avoid the news like the plague and have been for well over 2 years. I'm much happier ignoring the sh#tshow our government has become. It's probably just good to remember to always consider the source. The reason I don't take much of anything negative Fox News says regarding Democrats seriously is the same reason I typically take anything MSNBC reports that's bad for Trump or the GOP. The stories they choose to report & how they frame them are indicative of their own editorial priorities. A good rule of thumb: always, always evaluate the source on anything, and decide for yourself. Edited February 1, 2018 by dudeguyy 1 Link to comment
45timesbetterthanemptysuit Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 8 hours ago, knapplc said: So it's factually accurate, but focused on something specific that will give a specific impression. Just like the OP. So either the first example or the second example could be critiqued, or both. But only the second example was, and continues to be. It's a valid question to ask why. Well your example is a factually accurate article that describes exactly what they were doing. There is no attempt at conveying anything other than the truth. Honestly I am sure the D's had every intention of conveying that they are glum, and don't want to be seen applauding. I wouldn't blush if I were you. Your example is not good. I noticed you claim that Fox does this all the time, yet you post a poor example. Perhaps you can re-read the definition of yellow journalism that you posted and try again! The CNN article I posted is attempting to give the impression that our President Donald Trumps speech was not popular. It is really quite clear, perhaps you should re-read my OP and try again! It could be fun! 1 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 1 hour ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said: Well your example is a factually accurate article that describes exactly what they were doing. There is no attempt at conveying anything other than the truth. Honestly I am sure the D's had every intention of conveying that they are glum, and don't want to be seen applauding. I wouldn't blush if I were you. Your example is not good. I noticed you claim that Fox does this all the time, yet you post a poor example. Perhaps you can re-read the definition of yellow journalism that you posted and try again! The CNN article I posted is attempting to give the impression that our President Donald Trumps speech was not popular. It is really quite clear, perhaps you should re-read my OP and try again! It could be fun! Maybe you should try using context instead of falling prey to yellow journalism yourself. For example, how popular was Trump's SOTUS in historical terms: TRUMP’S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS WAS THE LEAST POPULAR IN AT LEAST 20 YEARS Trump says his State of the Union viewership was 'the highest number in history.' He's wrong Trump's State of the Union ratings are not the highest in history 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 One thing I don't get... Trump lies outright about completely unimportant things like crowd size and state of the union viewership. Almost no one cares about that stuff, and it doesn't make him a better/worse president. Why do people give him a pass for this? When I see him lying about this stuff, I see someone who will lie about anything and everything. I feel like he must lie every single day. If he's lying about things that no one cares about, he must be lying about important things too. I don't know how he still has the support he has when it's this blatant. Especially from people who think they're morally superior. 2 Link to comment
45timesbetterthanemptysuit Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 24 minutes ago, RedDenver said: Maybe you should try using context instead of falling prey to yellow journalism yourself. For example, how popular was Trump's SOTUS in historical terms: TRUMP’S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS WAS THE LEAST POPULAR IN AT LEAST 20 YEARS Trump says his State of the Union viewership was 'the highest number in history.' He's wrong Trump's State of the Union ratings are not the highest in history Gosh, I really didn't think it was that confusing? Link to comment
45timesbetterthanemptysuit Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 16 minutes ago, Moiraine said: One thing I don't get... Trump lies outright about completely unimportant things like crowd size and state of the union viewership. Almost no one cares about that stuff, and it doesn't make him a better/worse president. Why do people give him a pass for this? When I see him lying about this stuff, I see someone who will lie about anything and everything. I feel like he must lie every single day. If he's lying about things that no one cares about, he must be lying about important things too. I don't know how he still has the support he has when it's this blatant. Especially from people who think they're morally superior. After Obama, the silly things President Trump lies about are nothing. I mean when you get people killed to perpetrate a lie? We have just gotten past the most corrupt administration in US history, you expect people to care about how big the audience was for SOTU? It was awesome though seeing how many did watch! I had a lot of friends sending pledged and promising to "boycott" it! Damn that was funny! Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said: Gosh, I really didn't think it was that confusing? Do you have anything but empty statements and attempts to deflect? Maybe some evidence to add to the discussion instead? I guess not: 1 minute ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said: After Obama, the silly things President Trump lies about are nothing. I mean when you get people killed to perpetrate a lie? We have just gotten past the most corrupt administration in US history, you expect people to care about how big the audience was for SOTU? It was awesome though seeing how many did watch! I had a lot of friends sending pledged and promising to "boycott" it! Damn that was funny! Link to comment
commando Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said: After Obama, the silly things President Trump lies about are nothing. I mean when you get people killed to perpetrate a lie? We have just gotten past the most corrupt administration in US history, you expect people to care about how big the audience was for SOTU? It was awesome though seeing how many did watch! I had a lot of friends sending pledged and promising to "boycott" it! Damn that was funny! when this current administration is over we will be past the most corrupt administration in US history. Link to comment
45timesbetterthanemptysuit Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 6 minutes ago, RedDenver said: Do you have anything but empty statements and attempts to deflect? Maybe some evidence to add to the discussion instead? I guess not: You could look at my first post. Very specific, easy to follow. It has an article that is making an obvious attempt to portray something as other than it is, while not actually lying. I even went so far as to be very specific regarding the numbers they chose, and where they were used in the article. Now I will look back and see your contributions. Link to comment
45timesbetterthanemptysuit Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 11 hours ago, Fru said: As previously stated, one tenant of yellow journalism is to put large emphasis on minor stories. Fox is consistently guilty of this. No one was arguing that Yellow Journalism doesn't exist. That is great! You actually provided examples of yellow journalism! I was sure someone would! Not that tough is it? I think one or 2 of those stories may have been essentially debunked, but if there was a credible source at the time, it would be news, and it is entirely possible that Fox did not cover it! Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 3 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said: You could look at my first post. Very specific, easy to follow. It has an article that is making an obvious attempt to portray something as other than it is, while not actually lying. I even went so far as to be very specific regarding the numbers they chose, and where they were used in the article. Now I will look back and see your contributions. I agree that CNN's numbers in the OP article were misleading. My comments have to do with you throwing out statements that are without context, which is somewhat ironic given the topic of this thread and that you started it. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 3 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said: That is great! You actually provided examples of yellow journalism! I was sure someone would! Not that tough is it? I think one or 2 of those stories may have been essentially debunked, but if there was a credible source at the time, it would be news, and it is entirely possible that Fox did not cover it! Which of those stories have been debunked? Trump tried to fire Mueller Manafort arrested Trump told classified info to Russia 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts