3 ms·

> If it changes the context or response to the claim, then yes it does. In this case, whether it's from Day 1 or Day 2 is irrelevant as the original claim doesn

> If it changes the context or response to the claim, then yes it does. In this case, whether it's from Day 1 or Day 2 is irrelevant as the original claim doesn't make a distinction between the days. It simply says that the flags weren't allowed at the convention which is objectively false. The point is that that wasn't the original claim - the original claim was that there wasn't a flag present, and then snopes changed it to something similar but false to get the desired result. If I'm understanding this comment chain correctly, of course.

beerandt 7y ago
Exactly. And there was originally no specific day mentioned, because the original claim was made on and about day one, which at the time, was the only day.
dkonofalski 7y ago
>The point is that that wasn't the original claim - the original claim was that there wasn't a flag present, and then snopes changed it to something similar but false to get the desired result. That's what I said in my response, though. Even if the original claim was that "there wasn't a flag present", that claim is still false as there is demonstrable proof that shows there were plenty of flags present on both Day 1 and Day 2. Even if the original claim was "flags were banned" or "flags were banned on Day 1", it doesn't change the fact that the piece would still be labelled as "False". If people are claiming that Snopes is changing either the claims or the content to get a desired result, they need to show some kind of evidence for that. The only thing that they've shown is that Snopes has changed the claim despite the fact that the result is still the same. They're attributing editorial changes to malice rather than clarity. To be clear, if the claim was originally "Flags were banned" and they changed it to "Flags were banned for Day 1" because it lets them call it false, that might be cause for a call of malice. The evidence, though, shows that any variation of "flags were banned" or "flags weren't present" is not true because there are photos and videos that clearly show they were present for both Day 1 and Day 2. Any change from either of those headings to the current heading would still be 100% accurate as far as the assessment is concerned.
- beerandt 7y ago
  >show they were present for both Day 1 and Day 2 The only flag ever on stage day 1 was the color guard, who left with it. Other pictures from "day one" are actually from day 2. Even politifact admitted that they were over compensating on day 2 after Trump called them out on Twitter the evening of day 1.
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    >The only flag ever on stage day 1 was the color guard, who left with it. There are literally videos of the entirety of Day 1 that show several American flags and people in the audience with flag paraphernalia. Being willfully ignorant is not an excuse here.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      The claim was flags on the stage. Not some audience member with a lapel. They were added the next day, after being called out.

beerandt 7y ago

Exactly. And there was originally no specific day mentioned, because the original claim was made on and about day one, which at the time, was the only day.

dkonofalski 7y ago

>The point is that that wasn't the original claim - the original claim was that there wasn't a flag present, and then snopes changed it to something similar but false to get the desired result. That's what I said in my response, though. Even if the original claim was that "there wasn't a flag present", that claim is still false as there is demonstrable proof that shows there were plenty of flags present on both Day 1 and Day 2. Even if the original claim was "flags were banned" or "flags were banned on Day 1", it doesn't change the fact that the piece would still be labelled as "False". If people are claiming that Snopes is changing either the claims or the content to get a desired result, they need to show some kind of evidence for that. The only thing that they've shown is that Snopes has changed the claim despite the fact that the result is still the same. They're attributing editorial changes to malice rather than clarity. To be clear, if the claim was originally "Flags were banned" and they changed it to "Flags were banned for Day 1" because it lets them call it false, that might be cause for a call of malice. The evidence, though, shows that any variation of "flags were banned" or "flags weren't present" is not true because there are photos and videos that clearly show they were present for both Day 1 and Day 2. Any change from either of those headings to the current heading would still be 100% accurate as far as the assessment is concerned.

beerandt 7y ago
>show they were present for both Day 1 and Day 2 The only flag ever on stage day 1 was the color guard, who left with it. Other pictures from "day one" are actually from day 2. Even politifact admitted that they were over compensating on day 2 after Trump called them out on Twitter the evening of day 1.
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  >The only flag ever on stage day 1 was the color guard, who left with it. There are literally videos of the entirety of Day 1 that show several American flags and people in the audience with flag paraphernalia. Being willfully ignorant is not an excuse here.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    The claim was flags on the stage. Not some audience member with a lapel. They were added the next day, after being called out.