20 ms·

I’m no fan of him, but I found it odd how information that came from him suddenly was branded as misinformation even if it was true.

unstyledcontent 5y ago
As the old adage says, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
hnbad 5y ago
The difference between bullshit and a lie is that the liar knows he's wrong, the bullshitter doesn't care. Trump said whatever was politically useful to him in any given situation at best (either by earning him praise from supporters or by distracting his critics) and whatever he felt like or overheard someone else say at worst. That anyone would look at any statement from him and use it to justify praise for him or use its falseness to dunk on him is silly. Factuality wasn't a consideration for him when making any of his statements.
treeman79 5y ago
Your noticing the narrative. Like how small town book stores are inherently good and big stores evil. Regardless of facts. Republicans will be portrayed as stupid and dangerous, regardless of facts. So when Trump was saying something it was automatically just that. If need be facts would be twisted until they fit that viewpoint. For contrast the current president making a joke about running a reporter over is just a laughable moment now. Under Trump it would have been discussed for weeks. Definitions of Narrative Journalism Simply put, narrative is the way in which a story is constructed through a particular point of view and arrangement of events.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
This information wasn't true. In fact almost nothing Trump said was true. Even if you can find some examples, there are literally thousands of counterexamples from speeches and Tweets which were clearly nonsense - starting with the claim that he actually won the election, and working through a very long list from there.
- dannyw 5y ago
  "Almost nothing" is a lie. It's ironic that you're so factually incorrect in asserting that someone else is wrong. For one, the 45th president of the United States DID win the 2016 election. We have an electoral college system, and yes, he WON it.
hughrlomas 5y ago
An analogy would be this: it would be like flying in a plane designed by an engineer that calculated coincidentally correct values but arrived at them using completely incorrect methods and calculations. The output happened to be right but the method to get there was fundamentally wrong and would be faulty if used in other scenarios. Getting the right answer for the wrong reasons is still wrong in a way, the process to arrive at the conclusion is important.
- dannyw 5y ago
  For the average American, Trump's description is probably more understandable and meaningful than a precise definition. There's a reason why half of America (~1 in 2 voters) voted for Trump, twice, you know. I for one don't give a crap about the precise definition of immunity when communicating in everyday conversations; the same way I don't argue with a family relative using a computer science term colloquially. Children are almost immune to covid.
  - askafriend 5y ago
    Ok but you’re a nobody. The collateral damage you can do by being loose with words is basically zero. For a President, it’s literally their entire job to be effective at communicating.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    For public policy, being at low risk for severe illness is substantively different than being almost immune. It is over the top to expect leaders to communicate in a way that facilitates effective public policy?

unstyledcontent 5y ago

As the old adage says, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

hnbad 5y ago

The difference between bullshit and a lie is that the liar knows he's wrong, the bullshitter doesn't care. Trump said whatever was politically useful to him in any given situation at best (either by earning him praise from supporters or by distracting his critics) and whatever he felt like or overheard someone else say at worst. That anyone would look at any statement from him and use it to justify praise for him or use its falseness to dunk on him is silly. Factuality wasn't a consideration for him when making any of his statements.

treeman79 5y ago

Your noticing the narrative. Like how small town book stores are inherently good and big stores evil. Regardless of facts. Republicans will be portrayed as stupid and dangerous, regardless of facts. So when Trump was saying something it was automatically just that. If need be facts would be twisted until they fit that viewpoint. For contrast the current president making a joke about running a reporter over is just a laughable moment now. Under Trump it would have been discussed for weeks. Definitions of Narrative Journalism Simply put, narrative is the way in which a story is constructed through a particular point of view and arrangement of events.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

This information wasn't true. In fact almost nothing Trump said was true. Even if you can find some examples, there are literally thousands of counterexamples from speeches and Tweets which were clearly nonsense - starting with the claim that he actually won the election, and working through a very long list from there.

dannyw 5y ago
"Almost nothing" is a lie. It's ironic that you're so factually incorrect in asserting that someone else is wrong. For one, the 45th president of the United States DID win the 2016 election. We have an electoral college system, and yes, he WON it.

hughrlomas 5y ago

An analogy would be this: it would be like flying in a plane designed by an engineer that calculated coincidentally correct values but arrived at them using completely incorrect methods and calculations. The output happened to be right but the method to get there was fundamentally wrong and would be faulty if used in other scenarios. Getting the right answer for the wrong reasons is still wrong in a way, the process to arrive at the conclusion is important.

dannyw 5y ago
For the average American, Trump's description is probably more understandable and meaningful than a precise definition. There's a reason why half of America (~1 in 2 voters) voted for Trump, twice, you know. I for one don't give a crap about the precise definition of immunity when communicating in everyday conversations; the same way I don't argue with a family relative using a computer science term colloquially. Children are almost immune to covid.
- askafriend 5y ago
  Ok but you’re a nobody. The collateral damage you can do by being loose with words is basically zero. For a President, it’s literally their entire job to be effective at communicating.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  For public policy, being at low risk for severe illness is substantively different than being almost immune. It is over the top to expect leaders to communicate in a way that facilitates effective public policy?