6 ms·

Disaster or not, the media has zero credibility when it comes to reporting on anything Trump related. BBC would have declared it a disaster regardless of whethe

Disaster or not, the media has zero credibility when it comes to reporting on anything Trump related. BBC would have declared it a disaster regardless of whether or not it actually did well, just like Fox would have branded it a huge success no matter what. Only time will tell what the real situation is.

notavalleyman 5y ago
Wow, what a struggle you're having. If only there was some way to externally determine whether this is really a disastrous launch, like the BBC have quoted an NYU director as having said, or a huge success, like you've imagined fox saying. There are 1.4million people on the waitlist to access this app. Donald Trump "is said to be furious" and has never used it to post. And it's currently said to be outside the top 100 social network apps by downloads. But I guess we'll never know whether it's really a disaster, or the imaginary Fox's huge success, because you hold the UK's national broadcaster in such low regard
- BMc2020 5y ago
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - IAmWorried 5y ago
    Uh, am I not allowed to dislike Elizabeth Warren? Way to stalk my posts, you fucking creepy weirdo. Go outside or something.
    - BMc2020 5y ago
      I'm not the one filled with hate here.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
vba616 5y ago
Credibility isn't a thing that opinions have, is it? We each choose how to define "disaster" for ourselves. But you seem to be ignoring the (alleged) facts supporting the opinion. It's being reported that Trump never sent another "truth" after a short introductory one quite a while ago. Either that's true or it isn't. If it's false, then how hard can it be to find proof? The reporting gives them credibility, which of course could be rebutted by showing they falsified it.
- IAmWorried 5y ago
  I mean yeah, that's certainly a bad fact, but my whole point is that facts can be cherry picked. I would guess that there are other facts out there which would support the opinion that it is a success - for example, the other commenter said 1.4 million people were on the waitlist, which certainly indicates some marketing success in attracting millions of users. This is my issue with the media is that they selectively report facts in order to push their agendas. This is why it seems like Fox and MSNBC are in alternate realities. Obviously, they're not just blatantly making shit up (although some outlets certainly do).
  - vba616 5y ago
    >1.4 million people were on the waitlist This is not only cherry-picked, but fails to be sufficiently out of context to support the opposing opinion. The key word is "were". Even if that word weren't there, the number is necessarily at a point in time. Not to mention, what independent source verified the number?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
bediger4000 5y ago
> the media has zero credibility when it comes to reporting on anything Trump related. That, my friend, is the absolute truth. The media has always boosted him, never held Trump's feet to the fire about his lies, and never contextualized him. They reported his lies as credible, and it took them 4 years to be able to say "baseless". They gave him much wider latitude on what they'd report than they give to any other figure. Some of the reporters (Maggie Haberman comes to mind) had distinct conflicts of interest when it came to Trump, and yet the NYT let her report on him his entire term. The media has zero credibility when it comes to reporting anything Trump related.
- IAmWorried 5y ago
  Agreed, I even remember audio of earnings reports at NBC or some other ginormous media outlet, where the CEO was basically like "he may not be good for the country, but he's good for our business". Edit: It was CBS (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/leslie-moonves-donald-trump-may-871464/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/leslie-m...).

notavalleyman 5y ago

Wow, what a struggle you're having. If only there was some way to externally determine whether this is really a disastrous launch, like the BBC have quoted an NYU director as having said, or a huge success, like you've imagined fox saying. There are 1.4million people on the waitlist to access this app. Donald Trump "is said to be furious" and has never used it to post. And it's currently said to be outside the top 100 social network apps by downloads. But I guess we'll never know whether it's really a disaster, or the imaginary Fox's huge success, because you hold the UK's national broadcaster in such low regard

BMc2020 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- IAmWorried 5y ago
  Uh, am I not allowed to dislike Elizabeth Warren? Way to stalk my posts, you fucking creepy weirdo. Go outside or something.
  - BMc2020 5y ago
    I'm not the one filled with hate here.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

vba616 5y ago

Credibility isn't a thing that opinions have, is it? We each choose how to define "disaster" for ourselves. But you seem to be ignoring the (alleged) facts supporting the opinion. It's being reported that Trump never sent another "truth" after a short introductory one quite a while ago. Either that's true or it isn't. If it's false, then how hard can it be to find proof? The reporting gives them credibility, which of course could be rebutted by showing they falsified it.

IAmWorried 5y ago
I mean yeah, that's certainly a bad fact, but my whole point is that facts can be cherry picked. I would guess that there are other facts out there which would support the opinion that it is a success - for example, the other commenter said 1.4 million people were on the waitlist, which certainly indicates some marketing success in attracting millions of users. This is my issue with the media is that they selectively report facts in order to push their agendas. This is why it seems like Fox and MSNBC are in alternate realities. Obviously, they're not just blatantly making shit up (although some outlets certainly do).
- vba616 5y ago
  >1.4 million people were on the waitlist This is not only cherry-picked, but fails to be sufficiently out of context to support the opposing opinion. The key word is "were". Even if that word weren't there, the number is necessarily at a point in time. Not to mention, what independent source verified the number?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

bediger4000 5y ago

> the media has zero credibility when it comes to reporting on anything Trump related. That, my friend, is the absolute truth. The media has always boosted him, never held Trump's feet to the fire about his lies, and never contextualized him. They reported his lies as credible, and it took them 4 years to be able to say "baseless". They gave him much wider latitude on what they'd report than they give to any other figure. Some of the reporters (Maggie Haberman comes to mind) had distinct conflicts of interest when it came to Trump, and yet the NYT let her report on him his entire term. The media has zero credibility when it comes to reporting anything Trump related.

IAmWorried 5y ago
Agreed, I even remember audio of earnings reports at NBC or some other ginormous media outlet, where the CEO was basically like "he may not be good for the country, but he's good for our business". Edit: It was CBS (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/leslie-moonves-donald-trump-may-871464/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/leslie-m...).