Post by KJ on Jul 16, 2019 6:06:32 GMT -5
In an article, "Trump Says ‘Many People’ Are Racist Like Him… and He’s Right" (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-many-people-racist-194844827.html), there is a disservice being made against President Trump.
To quote just a relatively small part of the article, "He stood before a bank of cameras and told us plainly and without pause that he meant every deplorable thing he’d tweeted and that if you don’t like it, get out. 'Does it concern you that many people saw your tweet as racist?' a reporter asked. Trump, who appears incapable of shame, did not spare a breath before he responded, 'It doesn't concern me because many people agree with me'." Let me take you through a part of journalism 101.
Just because President Trump fits the supposed description of a 'racist' by that of a decidedly leftist news outlet does not necessarily make that allegation accepted by the rest of us. Just because a news organization calls someone, 'racist,' does not necessarily make them a racist. Only a broader definition in the face of relevant community standards can do that.
In fact, to USE such allegations as the basis of a premise in a deduction your news organization is trying to foist on society is disingenuous as well as containing faulty logic. In an ideal world, those who put out the news have generally accepted the professional notion that their reporting must be fair and honest. And IF they chose to lead readers, viewers, and listeners down a 'rabbit hole' of their own creation, the point of view should likewise also be credentialed.
But, the downbeat of this is that everyone, regardless of what a dishonest media entity might try, should be concerned about that entity -- regardless of what type of story (or angle) is being put forth. If fake thought processes are literally being inserted into a story with a narrative being feed against you, is it at all possible that the a different version of fake thought processes might be used against something that you feel strongly about in the future?
While "'many people saw your tweet [encouraging those discontent with America to leave] as [being] racist'...'many people agree with me'," or President Trump to be more exact. Unfortunately, most people will not see through such slyly clever linguistic games.
To quote just a relatively small part of the article, "He stood before a bank of cameras and told us plainly and without pause that he meant every deplorable thing he’d tweeted and that if you don’t like it, get out. 'Does it concern you that many people saw your tweet as racist?' a reporter asked. Trump, who appears incapable of shame, did not spare a breath before he responded, 'It doesn't concern me because many people agree with me'." Let me take you through a part of journalism 101.
Just because President Trump fits the supposed description of a 'racist' by that of a decidedly leftist news outlet does not necessarily make that allegation accepted by the rest of us. Just because a news organization calls someone, 'racist,' does not necessarily make them a racist. Only a broader definition in the face of relevant community standards can do that.
In fact, to USE such allegations as the basis of a premise in a deduction your news organization is trying to foist on society is disingenuous as well as containing faulty logic. In an ideal world, those who put out the news have generally accepted the professional notion that their reporting must be fair and honest. And IF they chose to lead readers, viewers, and listeners down a 'rabbit hole' of their own creation, the point of view should likewise also be credentialed.
But, the downbeat of this is that everyone, regardless of what a dishonest media entity might try, should be concerned about that entity -- regardless of what type of story (or angle) is being put forth. If fake thought processes are literally being inserted into a story with a narrative being feed against you, is it at all possible that the a different version of fake thought processes might be used against something that you feel strongly about in the future?
While "'many people saw your tweet [encouraging those discontent with America to leave] as [being] racist'...'many people agree with me'," or President Trump to be more exact. Unfortunately, most people will not see through such slyly clever linguistic games.