The disinformation thread

[PapaG]

Democrat candidates spreading a disproven narrative to gain votes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/13/harris-warren-ignore-doj-report-claim-that-michael-brown-was-murdered/

Harris, Warren ignore DOJ report to claim Michael Brown was ‘murdered’

[Scscsc89]

Have you noticed that Papa says that Mueller making a clarification to his testimony, Democrats deleting incorrect tweets & the Times demoting a whacked-out editor is PROOF of how crooked they are?

When actually it shows that these people are all trying to do the right thing & correct the record.

when was the last time that Trump acknowledged let alone retracted an untruth?   And he makes them more than anyone 

[Scscsc89]

16 minutes ago, PapaG said:

Democrat candidates spreading a disproven narrative to gain votes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/13/harris-warren-ignore-doj-report-claim-that-michael-brown-was-murdered/

Harris, Warren ignore DOJ report to claim Michael Brown was ‘murdered’

I’m glad that you agree that the WaPo is also a valuable fact-checker that will let us know when politicians of both parties are misleading us.

now that I know that the difference between “murdered” and “killed” means so much to you, I look forward to noting the words you carefully choose in your posts.

[KUGRDON]

1.  WaPo Did distinguish itself from Politifact, there’s that.

2.  “Murdered by a white cop” as Warren, a former law professor, said or murdered as Harris, a former prosecutor said is a horrendous, hateful, racially incendiary divisive lie of the type that Trump traffics in.  

I understand your frustration with Papa G and don’t read this as sticking up for him as his posts have taken an odd turn.  But SC, I hope you realize the magnitude of these lies and that they are not merely poor word choices.  I hope the Democrats select someone who does not traffic in the same vile shit that Trump does. These lies Were truly Trumpian and were told for no other reason than to create, reinforce and take political advantage of dangerous passionate ignorance and bias in their respective bases.  Sound familiar?

[Scscsc89]

The difference between “murdered by” and “killed by” is not a lie, it’s spin.  Intentional but not untrue.

I do agree that warren & Harris, with their backgrounds in the law, made significant mistakes in choosing this word for cheap political gain.

I would say it was a 6 maybe 7 out of 10 on the bad judgement scale.  Serious but only Trumpian if it continues as a trend.

[Quack 12]

1 hour ago, KUGRDON said:

These lies Were truly Trumpian and were told for no other reason than to create, reinforce and take political advantage of dangerous passionate ignorance and bias in their respective bases.  Sound familiar?

I agree. It appears, as Papa points out at every opportunity, that some on left are willing to employ the same tactics Trump does. As Jalapeno says, something incomprehensible about centrists.  

[glduck]

To piggyback off of what SC said, to be truly Trumpian the whole world would need to say “no, that’s wrong” and then they would need to then repeat it two dozen times anyway.

But I agree with the point. 

[KUGRDON]

39 minutes ago, Scscsc89 said:

The difference between “murdered by” and “killed by” is not a lie, it’s spin.  Intentional but not untrue.

I do agree that warren & Harris, with their backgrounds in the law, made significant mistakes in choosing this word for cheap political gain.

I would say it was a 6 maybe 7 out of 10 on the bad judgement scale.  Serious but only Trumpian if it continues as a trend.

It is untrue.  If I accidentally run somebody over with my car I killed them, I did not murder them.  Brown was not murdered.

[Scscsc89]

Investigators found that officer Wilson was justified in shooting Brown because he reasonably feared for his safety.   But as far as I can tell, everyone agrees that the shooting was intentional, not an accident.

If a non-lawyer described one man intentionally causing the death of another man as murder it would be a far less serious mistake.  It’s only that Harris & Warren obviously know the legal difference between “killed by” and “murdered by” and still chose the latter that it’s significant as it is.

[KUGRDON]

My example was not to point out that his killing was an accident but to point out That his killing was not unlawful and therefore not murder.  I get that was an inartful example.

I think The overwhelming majority of adults know there is a qualitative difference between killing and murder, Especially if they are running for president.  The difference between the two is not a fine point of legal semantics.  I would go so far as to say that someone who doesn’t know the difference would have such limited education and/or life experience so as to be disqualified for any Significant political position.

These were premeditated intentional lies Calculated and told to benefit each of them politically at the price of inflaming Dangerous political passions.

 

 

[Scscsc89]

I think most Americans could explain the concept of justifiable homicide & would use that exact phrase to describe the investigators’ findings in the Wilson/Brown shooting.

(Wikipedia) In most countries, a homicide is justified when there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was reasonable for the subject to believe that there was an imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.

Since the vast majority of laypeople would define “homicide” as a simple synonym for “murder”, I would bet that they would also agree that ‘justifiable homicide’ is a type of homicide.

I know it’s far more complicated than that in criminal law, which is my point.

[KUGRDON]

Oh my.

 

[PapaG]

What?  The NYT feeds disinformation to the public and constructs anti-Trump narratives?  Shocked!  Shocked, I say!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/new-york-times-chief-outlines-coverage-shift-from-trump-russia-to-trump-racism?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, said recently that, after the Mueller report, the paper has to shift the focus of its coverage from the Trump-Russia affair to the president's alleged racism. 

"We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well," Baquet said. "Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story." 

Baquet made the remarks at an employee town hall Monday. A recording was leaked to Slate, which published a transcript Thursday. 

The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened," Baquet continued. "Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, 'Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.' And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we're talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We're a little tiny bit flat-footed.

Now, Baquet continued, "I think that we've got to change." The Times must "write more deeply about the country, race, and other divisions."

"I mean, the vision for coverage for the next two years is what I talked about earlier: How do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks?" Baquet said. "How do we cover the world's reaction to him? How do we do that while continuing to cover his policies? How do we cover America, that's become so divided by Donald Trump?"

The town hall was spurred by angry reaction, both inside and outside the Times, to a headline that many on the Left faulted for being insufficiently anti-Trump. After the El Paso shootings, when the president denounced white supremacy, the Times published a page-one story with the heading, "Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism." 

"I think one of the reasons people have such a problem with a headline like this ... is because they care so much," one staffer said to Baquet. "And they depend on the New York Times. They are depending on us to keep kicking down the doors and getting through, because they need that right now. It's a very scary time." 

Baquet vowed a transition to a new "vision" for the paper for the next two years. "How do we grapple with all the stuff you all are talking about?" he said to the staffer. "How do we write about race in a thoughtful way, something we haven't done in a large way in a long time? That, to me, is the vision for coverage. You all are going to have to help us shape that vision. But I think that's what we're going to have to do for the rest of the next two years."

The headline controversy, it appears, was a preview of a new 2019-2020 New York Times. If Baquet follows through, the paper will spend the next two years, which just happens to be the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, building the Trump-is-a-racist narrative. (Baquet added, almost as an afterthought, that the Times will "continu[e] to cover his policies.")

[PapaG]

13 hours ago, Scscsc89 said:

I think most Americans could explain the concept of justifiable homicide & would use that exact phrase to describe the investigators’ findings in the Wilson/Brown shooting.

(Wikipedia) In most countries, a homicide is justified when there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was reasonable for the subject to believe that there was an imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.

Since the vast majority of laypeople would define “homicide” as a simple synonym for “murder”, I would bet that they would also agree that ‘justifiable homicide’ is a type of homicide.

I know it’s far more complicated than that in criminal law, which is my point.

The irony of this bullshit spin by the OP being in this thread is not lost on me.

[Scscsc89]

9 hours ago, PapaG said:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/new-york-times-chief-outlines-coverage-shift-from-trump-russia-to-trump-racism?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

 

[Quack 12]

10 hours ago, PapaG said:

The NYT feeds disinformation to the public and constructs anti-Trump narratives? 

Go to Slate and read the transcript, the "Washington Examiner" won't give you an objective view, that's for sure.

And yes, it's unfortunate that the president consistently constructs racist narratives, forcing news agencies to grapple with how to cover them.

[KUGRDON]

Hillaryous

[PapaG]

7 hours ago, Quack 12 said:

Go to Slate and read the transcript, the "Washington Examiner" won't give you an objective view, that's for sure.

And yes, it's unfortunate that the president consistently constructs racist narratives, forcing news agencies to grapple with how to cover them.

What are the racist narratives?  The NYT editor said they had to pivot since the Russian Hoax they "won" two Pulitizer Prizes for was made up for political reasons by a corrupt Obama administration and DOJ.

Look up Walter Duranty and his Pulitizer on Google if you want to see decades of Fake News.  Or Eason Jordan and CNN with Baghdad coverage during Saddam's era.

Or don't, because it may crack your faith in your liberal religious fervor.  The NYT has been spreading disinformation for almost 100 years.

[Scscsc89]

 

[KUGRDON]

I would have sworn it was CNN.