6 ms·
> "alternative facts" I think people are taking this and running at breakneck speed without stopping to look at what they actually mean by this. After watchin
by shard972 10y ago
> "alternative facts"
I think people are taking this and running at breakneck speed without stopping to look at what they actually mean by this.
After watching the first few press conferences and Kelly Anne's interviews where she said that, it seems clear to me they weren't trying to say there were more people physically at the inauguration in their "alternative facts" but what they are referring to specifically is the viewership.
It's very possible they are correct in saying this and I guess their point is "well the media isn't reporting on these facts so we are going to present them ourselves".
- skylan_q 10y agobut only the media can be right cause DRUMPF
- ftlio 10y agohttps://youtu.be/pa9YUDNHobE https://youtu.be/pa9YUDNHobE
- reddytowns 10y agoFYI, NSFW
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago> * they are referring to...the viewership* Charitably, Conway might have meant that Trump's inauguration may have been the largest if TV viewers are counted. Unfortunately, that's not what she said. You can't be both unambiguous and wrong, repeatedly, in any human game (EDIT: and win).
- stavrianos 10y agoBet you I can!
- beatpanda 10y agoNo, it's still false when you count viewership. This has been covered by countless news organizations. You are making a mistake by imagining that these people are operating in good faith.
- flukus 10y agoHas anyone actually done an unbiased comparison? I've seen the picture but there are plenty of possible explanations for that. And people seem to be reading far to much into it in any case.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago> people seem to be reading far to much into it in any case Executive orders, cabinet appointments and apparently agency gag orders left right and centre with more, plus SCOTUS nominees, to come. But all my Facebook feed talks about is rain and lawn coverings.
- knieveltech 10y agoReally? My facebook feed is a nonstop stream of political organization, grass-roots advocacy, media takedowns of the day's latest outrage, and the odd picture of someone's dog.
- flukus 10y agoGood chance you've created your own bubble.
- knieveltech 10y agoChance has nothing to do with it. I've intentionally sought out the groups that I follow and the people I socialize with.
- flukus 10y agoJust don't look surprised if Trump gets re-elected. And don't pretend to know what his voters interests are.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jaredklewis 10y agoDirect quote from Sean Spicer: > This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in-person and around the globe If "in-person" doesn't mean "physically at the inauguration" what does it mean then? It is not ambiguous. Spicer made an unsubstantiated claim, and has since been defensively walking it back to the equally unsubstantiated second part of "around the globe." "The media" is a very broad category, so I am not going to universally defend or attack them. But the Trump administration has simply been making things up and, as of yet, has not backed up any of these statements with evidence. The media is a bit more hit or miss. It is true that some media outlets seem determined to make fun of Trump no matter what he does. That doesn't give Trump a free pass to make up shit. Obama had to deal with the same crap.
- VickBear 10y agoWhy are you ignoring the second part of the sentence? He even clarified that he was saying total number of viewership (in person, TV, streaming). There is way more access to watching the Inauguration today than 4 years ago.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago> If "in-person" doesn't mean "physically at the inauguration" what does it mean then? It is not ambiguous. The ambiguity isn't what "in-person" means, it's what "both in-person and around the globe" means. Does it mean "both 1) in person and 2) around the globe (each independently)" or does it mean "both (the total sum) in person and around the globe"? Obviously the second is more strained, but it's not completely absurd, especially if you allow for the inelegant phrasing common in live briefings. It's easy to find things like this if what you're really looking for is to start a fight.
- jaredklewis 10y agoGood point. Of course, it's still total B.S. since they just made the claim up. On the other hand he spent the whole press conference talking about metro ridership, the national parks service, and the physical event, which leads me to think in context that they weren't talking about tv. Never even mentioned the word tv actually.
- rdtsc 10y agoSee I don't even know why people care. Everyone latched on that phrase and keep belaboring it. Wonder how many hours were spent totally talking about how many people at the inauguration. Why not talk about other stuff, cabinet picks, TPP, aid cancellation, Federal hiring freeze except such and such, etc. This is like the media equivalent of bike shedding. Other stuff is complicated so they latched on to that phrase...
- Symbiote 10y agoPeople care because the White House was seen to be lying in one of the first statements made to the press. If, instead, they'd just said n-thousand people attended, and made some comment about bad weather, the attention would have moved on to the next thing a lot sooner.
- rdtsc 10y agoWell when wasn't the White House lying :-). I guess I've come to expect very little from govt officials. It still seems like bike shedding to me
- tossraccount33 10y agoFair enough. What's mental gymnastics do we jump through to wave away their claim that 5 million fraudulent votes were cast? Or how about now it's coming out there is no IRS audit. It was just an excuse to hide his tax returns? IMO, there's plenty on display throughout Trump's life to show he has no interest in anything that doesn't improve his own image. Sure, give them a couple here and there; broken clock is right twice a day as they say. But: 1) This is a petty as fuck argument to make when the world is fracturing itself in pieces over this shitshow. 2) This is a distraction to avoid them having to have serious conversations, since it's pretty obvious they're clueless.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> After watching the first few press conferences and Kelly Anne's interviews where she said that, it seems clear to me they weren't trying to say there were more people physically at the inauguration in their "alternative facts" but what they are referring to specifically is the viewership. In the original claim, Spicer explicitly claimed Trump's audience was the greatest both in-person and by remote media (and stated I. a way which clearly implied this was beyond debate and supported by incontrovertible evidence), and, in any case, the only metrics I've seen anyone bring out for the revised claim (for which, incidentally, the Administration provided no evidence) also are indicative of it being false (but not absolutely conclusive on that pointz as published metrics aren't available for all media channels, particularly many non-YouTube online channels.) At best Spicer both seriously misspoke and referenced separate standards when he meant to reference an aggregate and, even so, presented rank hopeful speculation as certain fact. But even that stretches plausibility considerably.