7 ms·

Hold on there. What was believed by significant percentage of people were "claims" from satirical articles. For example, "CNN news anchor Anderson Cooper said

by bhk 7y ago

Hold on there. What was believed by significant percentage of people were "claims" from satirical articles. For example, "CNN news anchor Anderson Cooper said his belief that Trump colluded with Russia is unshakable; it will not change regardless of statements or evidence to the contrary." or "National Security Advisor John Bolton said that an attack on two Saudi Arabian oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman is “an attack on all Americans.”" When taken out of context, it could appear entirely plausible (though unlikely) that Anderson Cooper or John Bolton really said that. People say weird things all the time. Only when the context of a satirical article is given would we expect someone to understand. An article like the CNN industrial washer story would clearly not be believed by a significant percentage of people.

nkrisc 7y ago
Clearly I'm in the minority of the public here, but both those claims are so outrageous that even if Reuters reported them I would be checking other sources as well to see if they got duped or hacked, or who knows what.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  It's happened more than once in the last couple of months that I came across actual news and had to do a double take and check to see if I'm accidentally on a satirical page. Just today: "Trump says Republicans should release their own transcripts in impeachment probe" You think that's satire? Here's the news article: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/468788-trump-says-republicans-should-release-their-own-versions-of https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/468788-trump-say... Not a line in there to suggest this is nonsense (which it is), here it is directly from the Ass's mouth: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1193896275093184512 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/11938962750931845... Parody account? It has 'real' in it... You be the judge.
  - derision 7y ago
    Why do you think that's satirical? It's been proven that Adam Schiff lied in statements made in Congress and he's repeatedly leaked information or cherry picked parts of testimonies to support his narrative. Trump is suggesting the republicans release transcripts too, to better represent what's happening in the hearings.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      Thank you for making my point better than I ever could.
      - beerandt 7y ago
        Schiff is not the actor I'd choose to rest my case on.
        jacquesm 7y ago
        To believe that Schiff would doctor transcripts is ridiculous, especially because there are quite a few republicans in the room who would immediately jump on any opportunity to nail him to the nearest cross if he were to do something like that. In a situation where Adam Schiff and Donald Trump claim opposites your safe bet would be on Schiff. Think about it this way: Adam Schiffs reputation can be damaged by mere paraphrasing of someone else's words, Trump could say anything and it would not damage his reputation.
        beerandt 7y ago
        Schiff's reputation doesn't ride on twisting of words, it rides on how much he's participating in the activities that he's supposed to be in charge of investigating. Nobody's saying pick a side between the two. Be sceptical of every politician. Don't pick either one as your character reference for a narrative. (That said, I don't mean any of the following to be exonerating or damning to Trump.) I find it troubling that Schiff appears to have taken an abrupt change in strategy, once he was accused of meeting with the "whistleblower" before the claim was filed. The timeline doesn't look good, especially when considering the change in IG whistleblower rules. And cherry-picked leaks are a giant problem in DC right now. Regardless, you don't need to necessarily change a transcript if you told (coached) the witness what to say (or how to say it) in the first place. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. And that applies no matter how innocent or guilty Trump is of anything.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  Snopes exists for people who think that a claim is outrageous and want to check other sources to determine the truth.
dkonofalski 7y ago
>not be believed by a significant percentage of people The requests to fact-check that article on the Snopes forums beg to differ with this assessment.
chipotle_coyote 7y ago
An article like the CNN industrial washer story would clearly not be believed by a significant percentage of people. I'm sure it wouldn't be believed by a significant percentage of people, but "no reasonable person would believe this" has never been Snopes's standard. If you take a meander through their whole database, there are a lot of articles that will make you go "come on, who would even ask about something this stupid?".
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  Exactly. "Come on... no one is stupid enough to eat a Tide Pod. It's laundry detergent!" Yet, here we are...

by bhk 7y ago

nkrisc 7y ago

Clearly I'm in the minority of the public here, but both those claims are so outrageous that even if Reuters reported them I would be checking other sources as well to see if they got duped or hacked, or who knows what.

jacquesm 7y ago
It's happened more than once in the last couple of months that I came across actual news and had to do a double take and check to see if I'm accidentally on a satirical page. Just today: "Trump says Republicans should release their own transcripts in impeachment probe" You think that's satire? Here's the news article: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/468788-trump-says-republicans-should-release-their-own-versions-of https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/468788-trump-say... Not a line in there to suggest this is nonsense (which it is), here it is directly from the Ass's mouth: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1193896275093184512 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/11938962750931845... Parody account? It has 'real' in it... You be the judge.
- derision 7y ago
  Why do you think that's satirical? It's been proven that Adam Schiff lied in statements made in Congress and he's repeatedly leaked information or cherry picked parts of testimonies to support his narrative. Trump is suggesting the republicans release transcripts too, to better represent what's happening in the hearings.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Thank you for making my point better than I ever could.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      Schiff is not the actor I'd choose to rest my case on.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        To believe that Schiff would doctor transcripts is ridiculous, especially because there are quite a few republicans in the room who would immediately jump on any opportunity to nail him to the nearest cross if he were to do something like that. In a situation where Adam Schiff and Donald Trump claim opposites your safe bet would be on Schiff. Think about it this way: Adam Schiffs reputation can be damaged by mere paraphrasing of someone else's words, Trump could say anything and it would not damage his reputation.
        beerandt 7y ago
        Schiff's reputation doesn't ride on twisting of words, it rides on how much he's participating in the activities that he's supposed to be in charge of investigating. Nobody's saying pick a side between the two. Be sceptical of every politician. Don't pick either one as your character reference for a narrative. (That said, I don't mean any of the following to be exonerating or damning to Trump.) I find it troubling that Schiff appears to have taken an abrupt change in strategy, once he was accused of meeting with the "whistleblower" before the claim was filed. The timeline doesn't look good, especially when considering the change in IG whistleblower rules. And cherry-picked leaks are a giant problem in DC right now. Regardless, you don't need to necessarily change a transcript if you told (coached) the witness what to say (or how to say it) in the first place. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. And that applies no matter how innocent or guilty Trump is of anything.
daveFNbuck 7y ago
Snopes exists for people who think that a claim is outrageous and want to check other sources to determine the truth.

dkonofalski 7y ago

>not be believed by a significant percentage of people The requests to fact-check that article on the Snopes forums beg to differ with this assessment.

chipotle_coyote 7y ago

An article like the CNN industrial washer story would clearly not be believed by a significant percentage of people. I'm sure it wouldn't be believed by a significant percentage of people, but "no reasonable person would believe this" has never been Snopes's standard. If you take a meander through their whole database, there are a lot of articles that will make you go "come on, who would even ask about something this stupid?".

dkonofalski 7y ago
Exactly. "Come on... no one is stupid enough to eat a Tide Pod. It's laundry detergent!" Yet, here we are...