3 ms·

They did not issue a retraction. They issued a correction. The precise language of the call is different, but the core of the reporting is unchanged. The preci

They did not issue a retraction. They issued a correction. The precise language of the call is different, but the core of the reporting is unchanged. The precise differences are that, what was quoted as "find the fraud" was actually find "dishonesty", and you'll "a national hero" was actually that you have "the most important job in the country right now". This doesn't change the overall story: Trump attempted to reach out to GA election officials and push them to overturn election results. > But the harm was already done, the misinformation was already used, and the false quote can be seen on page 10 of this: None of the citations on page 10 reference this reporting or any of the quotes attributed to Trump on this call.

p1necone 6y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted, the differences from the reporting and the actual call are exactly the sorts of differences you'd expect if their anonymous source was someone who had heard the call once and was conveying the wording based off of memory. There's no significant difference in meaning as far as I can tell - Trump was still instructing them to find him votes.
Natsu 6y ago
Page 10 says this: "December 23, for instance, President Trump reportedly called one of Georgia’s lead election investigators, urging him to “find the fraud”" and references, among others: 28 Amy Gardner, ‘Find the Fraud’: Trump Pressured a Georgia Elections Investigator in a Separate Call Legal Experts Say Could Amount to Obstruction, Wash. Post (Jan. 9, 2021). This specific fake quote was used in the WaPo headline, in a charge of obstruction, and in a criminal referral. The call was secretly recorded, then deleted, so the source knew or should have known this was false. The wording changes the call from implying some vague kind of quid-pro-quo arrangement to overturn an election to making a complaint because he (wrongly) believed he was a victim of fraud. The faked quotes are relevant to the legal charges brought against Trump. Their source had a recording, so there was no excuse for being inaccurate on something this important.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > Page 10 says this: Ah, my mistake, was looking at the 10th page of the document, not page 10 of the document (no blame on your part here, I just hate that this is an ambiguity). > The call was secretly recorded, then deleted, so the source knew or should have known this was false. This doesn't follow. We don't know how many people were on the call, nor do we know that they all knew the call was recorded. We don't know who WaPo's source was. There are all kinds of possibilities where the person either was a second hand source (e.g. they weren't on the call, but were in the room when someone on the call, aghast, described it), or was recalling from memory having been on the call, but unaware someone recorded it. > The wording changes the call from implying some vague kind of quid-pro-quo arrangement to overturn an election to making a complaint because he (wrongly) believed he was a victim of fraud. It does not. Nothing was directly offered in either case. If you believed it was a quid-pro-quo before, you should still believe it. If you didn't before, than the headline doesn't matter. Just to clarify, here are some things Trump said on the recording. - “When the right answer comes out, you’ll be praised.” - “whatever you can do, Frances, it would be — it’s a great thing. It’s an important thing for the country. So important. You’ve no idea. So important. And I very much appreciate it.” If you thought there was a quid pro quo originally, Trump's words, as spoken, still support it. If you're looking for a way to excuse his actions, yes, this gives you a scapegoat. You can blame the WaPo for bad reporting, instead of Trump for committing a crime. Notably however, WaPo didn't contend that Trump tried to negotiate a quid-pro-quo. They simply reported the facts, as best they could. > Their source had a recording This is, again, untrue. There's nothing to suggest that Frances Watson was WaPo's source. There's nothing to suggest that anyone who is not Frances Watson knew there was a recording. > and in a criminal referral And in the course of that criminal referral, the actual recording, which, to reiterate, isn't exculpatory, was found. What's your point.
  - Natsu 6y ago
    This is what I mean by "unringing a bell" though. Due to the initial (false) framing, people end up with trapped priors: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/trapped-priors-as-a-basic-problem https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/trapped-priors-as-a-ba... In the end, it doesn't matter whether this is accidental or not, people are sharing the most salacious headlines and those are often significantly undercut by the story beneath them even at the time of writing because they get selected for "engagement" and A-B tested or similar. So circling back to the story we're discussing, the problem goes deeper than just people trying to ensure that they share only the most accurate stories, there are significant problems with the supply even from the most trusted outlets.

p1necone 6y ago

Not sure why you're being downvoted, the differences from the reporting and the actual call are exactly the sorts of differences you'd expect if their anonymous source was someone who had heard the call once and was conveying the wording based off of memory. There's no significant difference in meaning as far as I can tell - Trump was still instructing them to find him votes.

Natsu 6y ago

Page 10 says this: "December 23, for instance, President Trump reportedly called one of Georgia’s lead election investigators, urging him to “find the fraud”" and references, among others: 28 Amy Gardner, ‘Find the Fraud’: Trump Pressured a Georgia Elections Investigator in a Separate Call Legal Experts Say Could Amount to Obstruction, Wash. Post (Jan. 9, 2021). This specific fake quote was used in the WaPo headline, in a charge of obstruction, and in a criminal referral. The call was secretly recorded, then deleted, so the source knew or should have known this was false. The wording changes the call from implying some vague kind of quid-pro-quo arrangement to overturn an election to making a complaint because he (wrongly) believed he was a victim of fraud. The faked quotes are relevant to the legal charges brought against Trump. Their source had a recording, so there was no excuse for being inaccurate on something this important.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> Page 10 says this: Ah, my mistake, was looking at the 10th page of the document, not page 10 of the document (no blame on your part here, I just hate that this is an ambiguity). > The call was secretly recorded, then deleted, so the source knew or should have known this was false. This doesn't follow. We don't know how many people were on the call, nor do we know that they all knew the call was recorded. We don't know who WaPo's source was. There are all kinds of possibilities where the person either was a second hand source (e.g. they weren't on the call, but were in the room when someone on the call, aghast, described it), or was recalling from memory having been on the call, but unaware someone recorded it. > The wording changes the call from implying some vague kind of quid-pro-quo arrangement to overturn an election to making a complaint because he (wrongly) believed he was a victim of fraud. It does not. Nothing was directly offered in either case. If you believed it was a quid-pro-quo before, you should still believe it. If you didn't before, than the headline doesn't matter. Just to clarify, here are some things Trump said on the recording. - “When the right answer comes out, you’ll be praised.” - “whatever you can do, Frances, it would be — it’s a great thing. It’s an important thing for the country. So important. You’ve no idea. So important. And I very much appreciate it.” If you thought there was a quid pro quo originally, Trump's words, as spoken, still support it. If you're looking for a way to excuse his actions, yes, this gives you a scapegoat. You can blame the WaPo for bad reporting, instead of Trump for committing a crime. Notably however, WaPo didn't contend that Trump tried to negotiate a quid-pro-quo. They simply reported the facts, as best they could. > Their source had a recording This is, again, untrue. There's nothing to suggest that Frances Watson was WaPo's source. There's nothing to suggest that anyone who is not Frances Watson knew there was a recording. > and in a criminal referral And in the course of that criminal referral, the actual recording, which, to reiterate, isn't exculpatory, was found. What's your point.
- Natsu 6y ago
  This is what I mean by "unringing a bell" though. Due to the initial (false) framing, people end up with trapped priors: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/trapped-priors-as-a-basic-problem https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/trapped-priors-as-a-ba... In the end, it doesn't matter whether this is accidental or not, people are sharing the most salacious headlines and those are often significantly undercut by the story beneath them even at the time of writing because they get selected for "engagement" and A-B tested or similar. So circling back to the story we're discussing, the problem goes deeper than just people trying to ensure that they share only the most accurate stories, there are significant problems with the supply even from the most trusted outlets.