Journalist Sharyl Attkisson has a great compendium of media mistakes, lies, and propaganda in the Trump era.

https://sharylattkisson.com/2022/03/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/

So across a multitude of news outlets (New York Times, New York Post, CNN, MNBC, NPR and probably more) she found 157 falsehoods about Trump since 2016, whereas Trump has lied about 30,000 times in his four years as president. So close!

I skimmed through it and out of the about 40 that I looked at, two of them I knew of and assumed true, namely the one about tear-gassing protesters in Lafayette Park and the other about defunding the CDC prior to the pandemic.

:lol:

You hold the same standards for news as you do politicians? No wonder fake news works so well.

Errors aren't fake news. Fake news is the deliberate pushing of falsehoods. The majority of the stories had a) alternative versions on other news outlets that people could read or b) were corrected when facts were clarified. A nice example is comparing 157 and 1, two cases where in one case the New York Post got it right and in the other it got it wrong.

There's of course a certain laziness in news outlets parroting each other under the assumption the original story is correct and with a 24 hour news cycle a lot of reporting involves no investigation just regurgitation of opinions and statements.

Also, Trump was in public office as presidenr which I do hold to a higher standard than newspapers. I guess it's a win you aren't denying the sheer amount of lies he's uttered.

I wish I could call them errors. “Russian collusion” and the multi-million dollar investigations, the red scare, the lives and careers and reputations ruined by it was premised on the fake political dirt of the opposition party. One could go so far as to argue the years of this kind of reporting helped usher in the present threat of nuclear war. This is the greatest media disaster in modern history and some outlets received Pulitzer Prizes because of it. No correction, no apology, nothing.



If my memory serves, I seem to recall that you believed Trump didn’t condemn white supremacy and neo-Nazis after Charlottesville.

If my memory serves, I seem to recall that you believed Trump didn’t condemn white supremacy and neo-Nazis after Charlottesville. — NOS4A2

There were good people on both sides of Charlottesville, my good man, good people on both sides. :flower:

There you have it.

What do I have?

Oh, it was "fine people". Anyway, it seems to me that he was trying to be careful about rubbing the alt-right the wrong way. Why would he need to do that if there wasn't an element of racism baked into the alt-right?

I understand from your reply you didn't read the Mueller report. Collusion isn't a legal term. He looked into conspiracy and it didn't reach that level but specifically he did find:

1) the Russian government tried to help Trump win;
2) the Trump campaign was eager to benefit from hackings targeting Democrats; and
3) Trump’s campaign advisers had a lot of troubling ties to Russia.

Plenty of stuff to raise the question whether there was in, lay man terms, collusion, which is what was reported on: "possible collusion" after Mook mentioned the Russians stole the DNC emails to release via wiki leaks with the purpose of helping Trump. Which turned out to be accurate.

Mueller also found 10 issues of possible obstruction of justice about which he said "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." A logical negative inference is then Mueller believes it likely.

One could go so far as to argue the years of this kind of reporting helped usher in the present threat of nuclear war. — NOS4A2

That's total bullshit when that proxy war spans at least two decades already.

“Collusion” is synonymous with “conspiracy”, as explained in the Mueller report. No one from the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russians to influence the election, according to the Mueller report. There simply wasn’t any evidence for it. And despite there being no evidence, despite there being no collusion, I can’t recall any journalists coming to anywhere near the same conclusions. It was the biggest nothingburger.

It's nice how you deny what happened. Mook claimed the Russians hacked to help Trump. That was called collusion in the media, and that's what was reported on and turned out to be true. That's not criminal conspiracy, which much more common word would've been obvious to use of that's what they wanted to suggest.

And just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it morally right. The goal and purpose of those 100 meetings between Trump and his associates with Russians was hardly benign. See again, the Mueller report.

I refuse to believe everyone in the media didn’t know what “collusion” meant, and therefor what they were reporting on was true.

Again, the Muelller report states that “collusion” is synonymous with “conspiracy”. But because the word is irrelevant to law they went with “conspiracy”. That’s the extent of the matter. They had to do that because the acting attorney general told them to investigate whether members of the Trump campaign—and perhaps Trump himself—had committed crimes by “ colluding with Russia government officials ”, which you yourself admit is not a crime. So not only was the DOJ starting a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign based on something that isn’t a crime, but they used the rubric set forth by the media, not law, to set it in motion.

So not only was the DOJ starting a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign based on something that isn’t a crime, but they used the rubric set forth by the media, not law, to set it in motion. — NOS4A2

The investigation stemmed from information given to the FBI by an Australian ambassador after his meeting with one of Trump's campaign advisors.

The Mueller investigation began when AG Rosenstein buckled under Democrat and media pressure after Comey’s firing.

Attorney General Merrick Garland is naming a special counsel to take over investigations involving Donald Trump

Attorney General Merrick Garland will appoint a special counsel to oversee criminal investigations involving former President Donald Trump, including the inquiry into his handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, a senior Justice Department official said Friday.

The Justice Department official said the special counsel will also preside over key aspects of the investigation into the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

…

Garland appointed Jack Smith, a veteran federal prosecutor who has served since 2018 as chief prosecutor for the special court in The Hague.

Trump should he serving time already for his uncountable crimes.

Imagine looking at this guy and thinking he’s an honest man, a victim of persecution. :lol:

So the criminal degenerate is back on Twitter. He's pretty old news at this point, so...does it even matter?

So the criminal degenerate is back on Twitter. He's pretty old news at this point, so...does it even matter? — Mikie

At least he's not the US President, so you likely won't have every media outlet repeating what outrageous tweet he made last night.

Republicans should understand that for Dems Trump is like Hillary was to them, but on steroids.

"Only one Republican senator has announced publicly that he will support former-President Trump’s 2024 reelection bid, a sign of the uphill battle Trump faces in his quest to win the Republican presidential nomination and a second term in the White House.". -The Hill

wow! times have changed!

Trump seems to have stepped in it having dinner with an avowed white-nationalist holocaust denier.

The GOP struggles to eject Trumpism from the party

It's a good sign that debate on this thread has diminished.

Hopefully it won't pick up.

Trump should he serving time already for his uncountable crimes. — Mikie

What were those crimes?

Making America Great Again.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/president-trump-staggering-record-of-uncharged-criminal-misconduct/

President Trump’s staggering record of uncharged criminal misconduct

An uncharged crime is not a crime.

really, crickets from you, the flamboyant one?

A crime is a crime without police, prosecutor or courts being involved. When someone steals your wallet, he's a thief and committed a crime. Miraculously, that's even true when he's not prosecuted.

An uncharged crime is not a crime. — Merkwurdichliebe

A crime is a crime without police, prosecutor or courts being involved. When someone steals your wallet, he's a thief and committed a crime. Miraculously, that's even true when he's not prosecuted. — Benkei

Classic example of people misunderstanding "innocent until proven guilty". You're innocent if you didn't do it and guilty if you did, regardless of proof, charges, or conviction. The presumption of innocence simply asserts that the courts shouldn't punish anyone for a crime unless it can be proven.