Love how this article is trying to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Fuck the media for trying to still normalize him and shame on you OP for posting this bs.
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
-41 points (21.9% liked)
politics
19145 readers
3812 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There isn't even any substantial disagreement with what she's saying in this very article. Instead, it MORE than disavows things that Trump has specifically said, or tacitly endorsed, like Project 2025. Why in the fuck would you write an article essentially saying "Well, these statements are based in reality and facts, but you can't just say bad things without seeing it happen first."
YES, YOU FUCKING CAN. HE HAS SAID THESE THINGS.
God damn, NPR. Never thought I'd be downvoting something coming from you.
I bailed when they couldn’t bring themselves to call “enhanced interrogation” what it is in the early 2000s. Fuck that.
12 in 40 minutes. Oh no. Better than the 12 in 40 seconds you get with the other guy...
Literally the point that the article opens with
It’s the role of the press to try and hold politicians to account for the accuracy of their statements in a good-faith way. The dozen Harris statements lacking in context are far less in comparison to 162 misstatements, exaggerations and outright lies that NPR found from Trump’s hour-long news conference Aug. 8.
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/11/nx-s1-5070566/trump-news-conference
The other side of the coin. 162 vs 12
Good for NPR, showing us how it's done. I love to see this kind of holding to account rather than the unquestioning tribalism and sycophantism you get from right wing outlets.
You can vote for a candidate, and even support them - encouraging others to vote for them, while being critical of them as well. Just have to make sure it's the right context (not whataboutism or sealioning).
(Obligatory I'm-not-American disclaimer.)
Oh no, better open up the article to see how egregious the lies are:
Harris says that her administration wants to pass laws. But she did not mention that laws have to be passed by Congress! How dare she mislead people like that!
…
Wow NPR is being down voted....
It's because this attempted neutral stance of "equal treatment" from NPR (and Politifact earlier) is massively benefiting Trump. People won't absorb the nuances between Harris' statements "lacking in context" and Trump's outright outrageous lies, they'll barely even read the article at best. So the effect is only a perpetuation of the sentiment "well, it looks like both sides lie so they're equally bad" which plays right into Trump's hands.
Did you even read the article? NPR also published the same format about Trump's convention speech which covered 162 false and misleading statements and is linked in the beginning of this article. Also, if you read the content of this piece, most of the explanations just make Trump look bad.
They only care about sources that contribute to the echo chamber, all others are Russian propaganda, Russian bots, etc.
Nah, even good sources put out trash articles. And in this case, this is a garbage dump article.
Its a mealymouthed attempt at being CeNtRiSt and show that they hold BoTh SiDeS aCcOuNtAbLe. Problem is, they're bringing up the lamest shit, leading to this bullshit garbage to be used to show how both trump and Harris both lie.
Yeah. It sure is great watching Democrats turn against the most benign, inoffensive, and liberal-friendly news channel in the country because they attempted the most basic level of neutral journalistic rigor (and even had to explain in their article the concept of neutral journalistic rigor).
Makes me super-optimistic for the future of democracy.
I can't wait for Democrats to accuse NPR of being Russian assets.
- “[W]e know and we know what a second Trump term would look like. It's all laid out in Project 2025, written by his closest advisers. And its sum total is to pull our country back to the past.”
'Trump has lied and said he doesn't know anything about it, even though tons of people part of P2025 are close to trump'
Straight into the bin you go NPR.
NPR - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for NPR:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/25/g-s1-19480/harris-dnc-fact-check