5 ms·

on cnn.com, these are the biggest headlines > Trump suggests voters should commit fraud > Bill Barr's indefensible defense of 2020 voter fraud > Officers cov

on cnn.com, these are the biggest headlines > Trump suggests voters should commit fraud > Bill Barr's indefensible defense of 2020 voter fraud > Officers covered a Black man's head before he stopped breathing, video shows > Dr. Fauci says it's conceivable but not likely a vaccine will be ready in October The only one I think is questionable is the second, but even that one doesn't seem like it contains factual inaccuracies to me

krapp 6y ago
Bear in mind some of those may be opinion pieces and some may be journalism, those need to be considered separately.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  The line seems to becoming increasingly blurred these days.
  - eplanit 6y ago
    I advocate for something like consumer warning labels on products: you cannot call something Aspirin unless it is truly, chemically Aspirin. Nobody should be able to label their product "News" unless it is strictly Who/What/When/Where; also, opinion and editorial should be required to be labeled clearly as such. Something akin to the Fairness Doctrine (now defunct) might be a place to start. A thorny issue to discuss, but given the current state of "journalism", I think it's worthwhile.
    - nickthemagicman 6y ago
      This is great. How much healthy information vs how much sugary fructose information! Going to repeat this to hopefully spread the idea.
goodluckchuck 6y ago
Ugh... Even CNN admits that the following headline is a lie... Let's follow the rabbit trail: > Trump suggests voters should commit fraud The source that article links is another one of CNN's own articles: > Trump appears to encourage North Carolinians to vote twice to test the system The first paragraph of that article then gets closer to the truth: > President Donald Trump on Wednesday appeared to encourage people in North Carolina to vote twice -- once by mail and once in person -- during the November general election to purportedly double check that their initial vote was counted, ... Of course, that's not "double" checking. That's checking. If you mail a ballot and never check, then you haven't checked. Moreover... "Appeared." If the author believes Trump was saying that, then say Trump said it. However, the author knows that's not true, so the author said he "appeared" / his words could be twisted. Utter cowardice. Then that links to this source, which gets even closer: > President Donald Trump suggested Wednesday during his visit to Wilmington that people who vote by absentee ballot should “check their vote” by attempting to vote in person as well. > https://www.wect.com/2020/09/02/wects-jon-evans-interview-with-president-trump-he-arrives-ilm/ https://www.wect.com/2020/09/02/wects-jon-evans-interview-wi... Then finally 3-4 links deep WECT links to a f-in Twitter post: https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1301284245449576453 https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/13012842454495764... Where Trump clearly explains that people should go to their polling places so that the poll workers can check the voter rolls and confirm whether their ballots have been received. If so, then voters will be turned away. If no, they'll already be at the polling place and will be able to cast a ballot. You, I, WECT, and CNN all know that Trump isn't saying to lie about whether you mailed a ballot. To say otherwise is to lie.
- tgb 6y ago
  The video in the tweet you link to is explicitly as in the headline: Trump tells people to mail in a ballot and then to go vote in person. He repeats it multiple times and is very clear that the "check" is done by them attempting to actually vote, not merely asking to confirm the ballot was received. I had really assumed it would be much more ambiguous than this from the headlines.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Moreover... "Appeared." If the author believes Trump was saying that, then say Trump said it. However, the author knows that's not true, so the author said he "appeared" / his words could be twisted. Utter cowardice. Trump is so confused and unclear sometimes that it's hard to tell exactly what he's trying to say, hence the "appeared.". What he says is newsworthy, and some of the most likely interpretations are shocking, so it can't just be ignored. It wouldn't surprise me if he advised his supporters to do something that clearly amounted to voter fraud without actually understanding that it was fraud. > Where Trump clearly explains that people should go to their polling places so that the poll workers can check the voter rolls and confirm whether their ballots have been received. If so, then voters will be turned away. If no, they'll already be at the polling place and will be able to cast a ballot. You, I, WECT, and CNN all know that Trump isn't saying to lie about whether you mailed a ballot. To say otherwise is to lie. I don't know how it is in North Carolina, but where I live they never ask if you've already mailed in a ballot at the polling place. They just ask for your name, look it up in the voter roll, and cross it off, and give you a ballot. North Carolina accepts absentee ballots postmarked on election day (https://www.ncsbe.gov/voting/vote-mail/five-steps-vote-mail-north-carolina-2020-general-election https://www.ncsbe.gov/voting/vote-mail/five-steps-vote-mail-...), so following Trump's advice could potentially bypass the poll worker check if the poll workers are like those in my state. I believe North Carolina has other checks to prevent double absentee/in-person votes from being counted, but fraud is still fraud if the deception doesn't work.
cgriswald 6y ago
Without commenting on the factual nature of the content or the content itself: The biggest headlines for you aren't the biggest headlines for me. And I get quite a different view on mobile than I do on desktop. On mobile I get blasted by the coronavirus and economy sections, which are mostly gloom-and-doom (the article about a possible vaccine is far far down the list in a different subsection). On desktop those sections are there front and center, but the other stuff is visible too, so it's not quite so in-your-face. CNN has multiple articles/videos about the exact same topics, but the headline---although any individual headline arguably represent its article technically accurately---are not equivalent to each other. Consider: "Dow and Nasdaq plunge after record highs" vs "Stock Market Bloodbath: Down and Nasdaq plunge" "Trump suggests voters should commit fraud" vs "Trump encourages people to vote twice -- which is illegal" vs "Trump appears to encourage North Carolinians to vote twice to test the system" So, from my point of view very different pictures can be painted with just: 1. Choice of headline. 2. Choice of presentation/order. 3. Choice of material to cover. My takeaway is that, no, I can't trust it. A charitable interpretation is that the headlines are technically true, but designed to get me to click on them. That's not truthful. (Other interpretations may also be plausible, but would require more evidence.) Edit: List formatting

krapp 6y ago

Bear in mind some of those may be opinion pieces and some may be journalism, those need to be considered separately.

nickthemagicman 6y ago
The line seems to becoming increasingly blurred these days.
- eplanit 6y ago
  I advocate for something like consumer warning labels on products: you cannot call something Aspirin unless it is truly, chemically Aspirin. Nobody should be able to label their product "News" unless it is strictly Who/What/When/Where; also, opinion and editorial should be required to be labeled clearly as such. Something akin to the Fairness Doctrine (now defunct) might be a place to start. A thorny issue to discuss, but given the current state of "journalism", I think it's worthwhile.
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    This is great. How much healthy information vs how much sugary fructose information! Going to repeat this to hopefully spread the idea.

goodluckchuck 6y ago

Ugh... Even CNN admits that the following headline is a lie... Let's follow the rabbit trail: > Trump suggests voters should commit fraud The source that article links is another one of CNN's own articles: > Trump appears to encourage North Carolinians to vote twice to test the system The first paragraph of that article then gets closer to the truth: > President Donald Trump on Wednesday appeared to encourage people in North Carolina to vote twice -- once by mail and once in person -- during the November general election to purportedly double check that their initial vote was counted, ... Of course, that's not "double" checking. That's checking. If you mail a ballot and never check, then you haven't checked. Moreover... "Appeared." If the author believes Trump was saying that, then say Trump said it. However, the author knows that's not true, so the author said he "appeared" / his words could be twisted. Utter cowardice. Then that links to this source, which gets even closer: > President Donald Trump suggested Wednesday during his visit to Wilmington that people who vote by absentee ballot should “check their vote” by attempting to vote in person as well. > https://www.wect.com/2020/09/02/wects-jon-evans-interview-with-president-trump-he-arrives-ilm/ https://www.wect.com/2020/09/02/wects-jon-evans-interview-wi... Then finally 3-4 links deep WECT links to a f-in Twitter post: https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1301284245449576453 https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/13012842454495764... Where Trump clearly explains that people should go to their polling places so that the poll workers can check the voter rolls and confirm whether their ballots have been received. If so, then voters will be turned away. If no, they'll already be at the polling place and will be able to cast a ballot. You, I, WECT, and CNN all know that Trump isn't saying to lie about whether you mailed a ballot. To say otherwise is to lie.

tgb 6y ago
The video in the tweet you link to is explicitly as in the headline: Trump tells people to mail in a ballot and then to go vote in person. He repeats it multiple times and is very clear that the "check" is done by them attempting to actually vote, not merely asking to confirm the ballot was received. I had really assumed it would be much more ambiguous than this from the headlines.
ardy42 6y ago
> Moreover... "Appeared." If the author believes Trump was saying that, then say Trump said it. However, the author knows that's not true, so the author said he "appeared" / his words could be twisted. Utter cowardice. Trump is so confused and unclear sometimes that it's hard to tell exactly what he's trying to say, hence the "appeared.". What he says is newsworthy, and some of the most likely interpretations are shocking, so it can't just be ignored. It wouldn't surprise me if he advised his supporters to do something that clearly amounted to voter fraud without actually understanding that it was fraud. > Where Trump clearly explains that people should go to their polling places so that the poll workers can check the voter rolls and confirm whether their ballots have been received. If so, then voters will be turned away. If no, they'll already be at the polling place and will be able to cast a ballot. You, I, WECT, and CNN all know that Trump isn't saying to lie about whether you mailed a ballot. To say otherwise is to lie. I don't know how it is in North Carolina, but where I live they never ask if you've already mailed in a ballot at the polling place. They just ask for your name, look it up in the voter roll, and cross it off, and give you a ballot. North Carolina accepts absentee ballots postmarked on election day (https://www.ncsbe.gov/voting/vote-mail/five-steps-vote-mail-north-carolina-2020-general-election https://www.ncsbe.gov/voting/vote-mail/five-steps-vote-mail-...), so following Trump's advice could potentially bypass the poll worker check if the poll workers are like those in my state. I believe North Carolina has other checks to prevent double absentee/in-person votes from being counted, but fraud is still fraud if the deception doesn't work.

cgriswald 6y ago

Without commenting on the factual nature of the content or the content itself: The biggest headlines for you aren't the biggest headlines for me. And I get quite a different view on mobile than I do on desktop. On mobile I get blasted by the coronavirus and economy sections, which are mostly gloom-and-doom (the article about a possible vaccine is far far down the list in a different subsection). On desktop those sections are there front and center, but the other stuff is visible too, so it's not quite so in-your-face. CNN has multiple articles/videos about the exact same topics, but the headline---although any individual headline arguably represent its article technically accurately---are not equivalent to each other. Consider: "Dow and Nasdaq plunge after record highs" vs "Stock Market Bloodbath: Down and Nasdaq plunge" "Trump suggests voters should commit fraud" vs "Trump encourages people to vote twice -- which is illegal" vs "Trump appears to encourage North Carolinians to vote twice to test the system" So, from my point of view very different pictures can be painted with just: 1. Choice of headline. 2. Choice of presentation/order. 3. Choice of material to cover. My takeaway is that, no, I can't trust it. A charitable interpretation is that the headlines are technically true, but designed to get me to click on them. That's not truthful. (Other interpretations may also be plausible, but would require more evidence.) Edit: List formatting