3 ms·
If you read the article I’ve linked and its conclusion, you’ll see that it’s not just arguing whether or not the White House changed a definition, but also what
by mypastself 4y ago
If you read the article I’ve linked and its conclusion, you’ll see that it’s not just arguing whether or not the White House changed a definition, but also what the correct definition is.
It also follows up a quote of the definition used by the video with a statement that they’ve flagged it. To me, that’s a clear indication the definition is an important part of the reason for flagging.
- secondhandle 4y agoYou're arguing nonsense, the politifact article doesn't say the video's definition is wrong. It says the poster of the video "glosses over" the term 'generally' which they do. Your whole argument as to their thought process as to which second in the video they flagged (while ridiculous) is easily explained by this fact. > To me, that’s a clear indication the definition is an important part of the reason for flagging. The article is also titled 'No, the White House didn’t change the definition of “recession”' To me, that's a clear indication of what the most important (and valid) reason for flagging was.