45timesbetterthanemptysuit Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 2 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! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/25/trump-ordered-mueller-fired-then-backed-off-ny-times-reports.html http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/26/did-trump-try-to-fire-mueller-behind-scenes-presidents-dispute-with-his-legal-team.html They (fox) did cover the story. I guess its possible they featured a hamburger over it! Interesting thing about the Farrakan pic. I think somebody here posted something regarding an outrage about somebodies visitor to the SOTU. Now if the CBC and Obama did meet with Farrakan, that is much worse than inviting a hack to the SOTU. Is that pic real? That is pretty bad! (but I digress) Link to comment
45timesbetterthanemptysuit Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, RedDenver said: Which of those stories have been debunked? Trump tried to fire Mueller Manafort arrested Trump told classified info to Russia is your contribution following me around? Sweet! Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 6 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said: is your contribution following me around? Sweet! So they weren't debunked or you don't know or what? Link to comment
45timesbetterthanemptysuit Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 12 minutes ago, RedDenver said: 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. Perhaps you can quote the post I made that was "without context" Maybe I can either provide context or explain the post!! As is, Im not sure what your point is? You provided links that stated what I said was true in my OP. 2 minutes ago, RedDenver said: So they weren't debunked or you don't know or what? No, it definitely seems that you are following me around! I find it charming! Link to comment
Moiraine Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) The Politics and Religion forum is a pretty small forum, and most people who post in it reply to every topic. Argue your points if you want but don't start this kind of crap. No one is "following" you around. And besides that, it's obvious that's what you want to happen. You're here to stir the pot, period. Edited February 2, 2018 by Moiraine 3 Link to comment
45timesbetterthanemptysuit Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 10 minutes ago, Moiraine said: The Politics and Religion forum is a pretty small forum, and most people who post in it reply to every topic. Argue your points if you want but don't start this kind of crap. No one is "following" you around. And besides that, it's obvious that's what you want to happen. You're here to stir the pot, period. Am I now? I guess having an opposing view is "stirring the pot"? what did you accuse me of earlier? Living in a fantasy world? I cant recall exactly, I do remember the unicorn pic though. It was very nice! did you draw it? I have argued my points. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 10 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said: Perhaps you can quote the post I made that was "without context" Maybe I can either provide context or explain the post!! As is, Im not sure what your point is? You provided links that stated what I said was true in my OP. I'll be more clear. Here's your post with bold on the part I'm referring to: 2 hours 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! To which I responded: 1 hour 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 What I'm saying is that while CNN is misleading about absolute numbers, if we look at the context (e.g. relative to other SOTUS), then Trump's SOTUS is not popular when compared to other SOTUS for at least the last 20 years. CNN should have taken a look at the relative numbers, if they wanted to make a better and more accurate argument. 10 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said: No, it definitely seems that you are following me around! I find it charming! Whatever brightens your day. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 4 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said: Am I now? I guess having an opposing view is "stirring the pot"? what did you accuse me of earlier? Living in a fantasy world? I cant recall exactly, I do remember the unicorn pic though. It was very nice! did you draw it? I have argued my points. Stirring the pot is when you try to deflect with snarky or empty comments or stuff like saying I'm following you around. Those posts aren't arguing any points. I hope you stick around and argue your points. Having a Trump supporter that can actually discuss/debate would be a good addition to the P&R forum, I think. Link to comment
45timesbetterthanemptysuit Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 Just now, RedDenver said: What I'm saying is that while CNN is misleading about absolute numbers, if we look at the context (e.g. relative to other SOTUS), then Trump's SOTUS is not popular when compared to other SOTUS for at least the last 20 years. CNN should have taken a look at the relative numbers, if they wanted to make a better and more accurate argument. Whatever brightens your day. 1 minute ago, RedDenver said: I'll be more clear. Here's your post with bold on the part I'm referring to: To which I responded: What I'm saying is that while CNN is misleading about absolute numbers, if we look at the context (e.g. relative to other SOTUS), then Trump's SOTUS is not popular when compared to other SOTUS for at least the last 20 years. CNN should have taken a look at the relative numbers, if they wanted to make a better and more accurate argument. Whatever brightens your day. What your saying makes little sense. Trumps speech was absolutely popular. That it was "less popular" and trying to equate that with it not being popular, is just odd. I really don't get what, or why you would bother to post it. I stated exactly the same thing in my OP, including the numbers for Obamas speech (high 90's as I recall) and pointed out that it was the least popular in 20 years. I also, clearly and specifically pointed out the intentionally misleading part, and didn't bother to speculate as to why CNN might write an article pointing that out anyway. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 9 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said: What your saying makes little sense. Trumps speech was absolutely popular. That it was "less popular" and trying to equate that with it not being popular, is just odd. I really don't get what, or why you would bother to post it. I stated exactly the same thing in my OP, including the numbers for Obamas speech (high 90's as I recall) and pointed out that it was the least popular in 20 years. I also, clearly and specifically pointed out the intentionally misleading part, and didn't bother to speculate as to why CNN might write an article pointing that out anyway. Then I'm not following what you meant in the OP. From your own post you say that the headline is "CNN Instant poll: Trump gets least positive reaction in at least 20 years": On 1/31/2018 at 10:24 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. How is that misleading exactly? Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 8 hours ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said: What your saying makes little sense. Trumps speech was absolutely popular. That it was "less popular" and trying to equate that with it not being popular, is just odd. I really don't get what, or why you would bother to post it. I stated exactly the same thing in my OP, including the numbers for Obamas speech (high 90's as I recall) and pointed out that it was the least popular in 20 years. I also, clearly and specifically pointed out the intentionally misleading part, and didn't bother to speculate as to why CNN might write an article pointing that out anyway. The bold is a lie, or, an example of the yellow journalism you claim to dislike. CNN did not say it wasn't popular. They, rightly, said: "CNN Instant poll: Trump gets least positive reaction in at least 20 years" That line is objectively true. In the last 20 years, Trump's speech received the least positive reaction. You are the one trying to spin that with "not being popular," which is not what CNN said. For someone so offended by yellow journalism, you seem to fall prey to its foibles quite easily. 2 Link to comment
45timesbetterthanemptysuit Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 Lead them to water. 1 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 1 hour ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said: Lead them to water. Talk about lack of self-awareness. Link to comment
45timesbetterthanemptysuit Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 19 minutes ago, RedDenver said: Talk about lack of self-awareness. Really? Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 1 minute ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said: Really? You really don't see it, do you? 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts