Fake News: NBC Spreads False Claim President Trump Did Not Visit Troops at ‘Christmastime’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The same people who constantly post “fake news” whenever there’s bad news about their super-hero are also the same people who just love to post “alternative facts”. It’s been show what Breitbart’s problem was, but that gets ignored.

It’s simply impossible to have a serious discussion with those who use such disingenuous tactics, which is why I’ve given up on responding directly to their posts. As the saying goes, “One can have their own opinions but not their own facts”. It’s always important to “cross-check” information by using multiple sources but some simply don’t seem to want to do that, and I think we know why.
 
Metis1 . . . .
The same people who constantly post “fake news” whenever there’s bad news about their super-hero are . . . .
To the readers here.

This is an example of exactly what I was discussing in post 58 when I said . . .
(I don’t hate President Trump. And I am not going to be brow-beaten to do so.)
That you should dislike “Trump” with the “super-hero” dig, is the rhetorical admonition or proverbial brow-beating for me to dis-like President Trump too.

But this is not going to work. (At least on me, and I suspect many others as well.)

.

Metis1 . . .
the same people who just love to post “alternative facts”.
Who are those people Metis1?

.

Metis1 . . .
It’s been show (sic) what Breitbart’s problem was, but that gets ignored.
Breitbart was right-on here.
 
Last edited:
They made a wise, open, and transparent journalistic decision to leave all the data there along with the retraction.
And that may be the problem. “Wise,” “open,” “transparent,” and “retraction” are unfamiliar concepts to many of those who get most of their “news” from Breitbart, InfoWars, and Fox.
 
Last edited:
Breitbart was right-on here.
Well…no. As is typical with Breitbart, they were not. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, the NBC story was accurate at press time. When there was a new development, they updated the story. Now, if we could only expect that basic level of good journalism from Breitbart—but sadly, I have not seen any pigs winging their way across the cloudy skies today.
 
JulianN . . .
the NBC story was accurate at press time.
It was an unvetted story at press time.

And even the correction CONTINUES to have half-truths Julian.

It was propaganda Julian.

.

JulianN . . .
I have not seen any pigs winging their way across the cloudy skies today.
This is not persuasive argumentation but really amounts to you carrying out name-calling.

I will not be brow-beaten by leftist tactics into ignoring Breitbart stories.
 
Last edited:
This is not persuasive argumentation but really amounts to you carrying out name-calling.

I will not be brow-beaten by leftist tactics into ignoring Breitbart stories.
Actually seeking the truth is not the purview of the Left alone, although it may seem that way in our current climate.

However, I can see participation in this thread is fruitless, so I shall bow out and put it on mute.
 
JulianN . . . .
Actually seeking the truth is not the purview of the Left alone . . .
Brow-beating disapproval because I refuse to dislike someone the left wants me to dislike, . . . . . and . . . .name-calling (“I have not seen any pigs winging their way across the cloudy skies today.”) . . .

. . . . Are not examples of “truth seeking”.

I am more than happy to have the discussion, but these rhetorical “digs” presented with only PART of the issue, is not conducive to real discussion of issues.

Look. I hope you stay on here and have the discussion Julian. But the desire to see me dislike another person and the name-calling is only going to hinder that discussion.
 
And that may be the problem. “Wise,” “open,” “transparent,” and “retraction” are unfamiliar concepts to many of those who get most of their “news” from Breitbart, InfoWars, and Fox.
Very true, and this can also be applied to some people on the “left” as well. All too many are into “confirmation bias”, so they simply do not want to get into information coming from “the other side”. In my case, with anything even remotely controversial I use multiple sources from varying perspectives, and Yahoo News is a good place for me to start since they draw from different sources, whether they be left, right, or neither. Breitbart, however, I have found to be so terribly biased and all too often so slanted or inaccurate to waste my time with.
 
Metis1 . . .
Breitbart, however, I have found to be so terribly biased and all too often so slanted or inaccurate to waste my time with.
I have found them ALL to be “terribly biased.”

But Breitbart at least prints stories that more politically-correct outfits attempt to hide from you.

Here is yet ANOTHER FIVE-TIME example of just what I am talking about . . . .

At least five Oregon media outlets reported on the sentencing hearing on December 12 of a man convicted of stabbing his girlfriend to death.​

Not one of the articles found on a search mentioned the killer’s status as an illegal alien. . . .​

40.png
Local Media Ignore Immigration Status of Convicted Killer World News
Local Media Ignore Immigration Status of Convicted Killer Bob Price 29 Dec 2018 Breitbart News At least five Oregon media outlets reported on the sentencing hearing on December 12 of a man convicted of stabbing his girlfriend to death. Not one of the articles found on a search mentioned the killer’s status as an illegal alien. . . .
And if someone is good with that kind of ignorance,
and WANTS to proverbially consume and share an on-going onslaught of known partial truths (which amounts to fake news), they can consume error.

But we all know Pope Francis’ warning to such news outlets (see our Holy Father’s warning here).
 
Last edited:
And if someone is good with that kind of ignorance,
I suppose that some medial outlets might like to introduce matter that is not germane to the story at hand, and which, in regard to larger issues, is not particularly probative but may be prejudicial in the service of some agenda that they would like to advance. Caveat lector.
 
Last edited:
John24 . . .
I see where your confusion is coming from. The only way to continue believing the NBC story was inaccurate at the time of publication is to believe that the events of 26 December happened before the events of 25 December. For the record 25 December comes before 26 December. That should clear up your misconceptions.
They could have found that out from watching CSpan too.

But that is irrelevant. They should have just checked with the White House itself before running the fake news story. They have 24 hour-a-day access.

But they did not WANT to double-check.

Why?

Who knows? But from their actions, it seems to me they did not want to kill a “story” that disparaged President Trump.

So they resort to (and later hide behind) slipshod journalism (“We did not KNOW it was false!”).

And even in running their “correction” . . . CONTINUED to report half-truths.

And now some people keep defending this.

And some people actually like this fake news propagation as long as it is “against Trump”, and share these phony stories without exposing them for what they are–fake news.

Our Holy Father Pope Francis has harsh words for those people (see those words here).

You go ahead and think this is all reasonable journalism.

As for me and my house? We will serve Jesus the Lord (who IS Truth).
 
Last edited:
I thought that no one in the press or public was told until the President was in Iraq.
 
I don’t see what the problem is. NBC published a story that was true at the time of reporting. And then when it was announced Trump was in Iraq, they published an update but left the original for full transparency, as is common practice for such events.

That’s not “fake news” at all.
 
sallybutler . . .
I thought that no one in the press or public was told until the President was in Iraq.
But this is not what NBC reported.

They did NOT report “no one in the press or public knows if President Trump will spend part of his Christmas day with the troops or not”.

They (UNKNOWINGLY) asserted . . . . President Trump did NOT spend any of his Christmas day with the troops.

And this was false.

And asking the White Hose may have gotten you an answer like “We will have to wait and see.” Or “The President IS going to be with Troops, but it is classified for now where.” Or some such thing.

But NBC didn’t bother.

They just decided to report unvetted WRONG news.

And they KNEW from the get-go, they reported unvetted news that at least COULD BE wrong.

But went with it anyway.

Nobody else reported this (so NBC could not claim, we assume CNN had information we did not have so we reported “CNN reports that Trump will be ignoring the troops today”).

This was slipshod journalism and they KNEW it might have shut-in on them when they decided to print these unvetted falsehoods against the President

The fact that this occurs over and over, and with even the correction including half-truths . . . this cements the fake news paradigm. At least to me. And many others.
 
Last edited:
ProVobis . . .
Unless you’re traveling across the international dateline back and forth you need not have to ask anyone whether 25th Dec precedes the 26th.
Then check C-Span. (They had the story on Christmas Day).

Or better yet, vet your story with the White House. You have unfettered access to the White House press people.

But don’t print a “story” that you have no idea on.
 
Last edited:
If one was so concerned about objective accuracy, then why in the world would they be supporting Trump to begin with? At least NBC corrected their mistake, but just how often does Trump admit and correct his mistakes?

The WaPo and the Toronto Star both calculated that Trump lies or seriously distorts things an average of 8 times per day when speaking publicly, and yet I don’t see his supporters criticizing him for that. Some just use an excuse like “Well, that’s just Trump being Trump”, as if that’s somehow a valid excuse.

And, btw, investigations have indicated that it was “fake news”, particularly Russian bots onto sites like FaceBook for example , that very much helped to get Trump elected. So, if Trump and his supporters were and are so concerned about “fake news”, why haven’t they, and especially Trump, criticized Russia and Putin in particular?
 
Metis1 . . .
At least NBC corrected their mistake
I have answered the problem with what NBC did Metis1. Several times.

The story was not for news.

The fake news story was propaganda.

Trump? Whataboutism (a tu quo que fallacy) is not going to make your argument any stronger.
 
Last edited:
Metis1 . . .
And, btw, investigations have indicated that it was “fake news”, particularly Russian bots onto sites like FaceBook for example , that very much helped to get Trump elected.
Metis1. This claim above of yours “happens to be based on no facts; every expert, regardless of political party, regardless of ideology, conservative or liberal, who has ever examined these issues in a serious way, will tell you that instances of significant voter fraud are not to be found.”

.


.
. . . great things about America’s democracy is . . . bitter political contest and when it’s done, historically, regardless of party, the person who loses the election congratulates the winner, who reaffirms our democracy and we move forward.

That’s how democracy survives . . . that is making sure that the integrity and trust in our institutions sustains itself.

Because democracy, by definition, works by consent, not by force. I have never seen, in my lifetime or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place.

It’s unprecedented. It happens to be based on no facts; every expert, regardless of political party, regardless of ideology, conservative or liberal, who has ever examined these issues in a serious way, will tell you that instances of significant voter fraud are not to be found, that — keep in mind, elections are run by state and local officials, which means that there are places like Florida, for example, where you’ve got a Republican governor, whose Republican appointees are going to running and monitoring a whole bunch of these election sites.

The notion that somehow if Mr. Trump loses Florida, it’s because of those people that you have to watch out for, that is both irresponsible and, by the way, doesn’t really show the kind of leadership and toughness that you want out of a president.

If you start whining before the game’s even over, if whenever things are going badly for you and you lose, you start blaming somebody else, then you don’t have what it takes to be in this job . . .

. . . I want to emphasize here is that there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even — you could even rig America’s elections, in part, because they are so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved.

There is no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time. And so I’d invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.

. . . it would be my expectation of Hillary Clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and pledge to work with him in order to make sure that the American people benefit from an effective government.

And it would be my job to welcome Mr. Trump, regardless of what he’s said about me or my differences with him on my opinions, and escort him over to the Capitol, . . . peaceful transfer of power.

That’s what Americans do.–Barack Obama
 
I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.

Are you posting Barack Obama’s remarks to the effect that there is no significant voter fraud in American presidential elections as evidence that Metis1’s claim that Russia tried to influence voting by the use of bots and fake news is false?

Apples and oranges. Not the same thing at all.

Or perhaps I’ve misunderstood your point.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top