Jophiel wrote:
When the head of an event says "This event might well break records" then it's pretty understand to, you know, see if it broke records.
Except that's not what the NYT did. They used a shot when the crowd was at well below its fullest point. So they weren't "seeing" anything. They were showing their audience what they wanted the audience to see.
Here's a
site that questions the photo. It's got some interesting bits of information, but the key points are to compare the photo used by the NYT (and repeated massively on social media), to the CNN gigapixel pictures (which were taken while Trump was actually giving his address. You can clearly see full crowds all the way to the white building seen in the foreground of the NYT photo. But in the NYT photo, that area in front of the building is almost completely empty, as is about 2 sections in front of that section.
It's clear that the NYT photo was taken at a time when the crowd was still filing into the event. And frankly, regardless of when it was taken in terms of scheduling of the event itself, it is not in any way a valid indicator of the total crowd size. Yet, that's pretty much the extent of the "proof" being used here.
Does this mean that Trumps inauguration was "the biggest"? I have no clue. But that's the point. The media, as it always does, went well out of its way to present the narrative they wanted their audience to believe and not the actual truth. The didn't see and report on what happened, they used a photo that they had to know at the time was not a remotely fair apples to apples comparison, but presented it as though it was. Which is incredibly bad journalism. Doesn't matter whether I think Trump is correct about the size of the crowd. I *know* that the NYT photo is not correct.
Quote:
Crying for days about it and spinning reasons why the big ole media is picking on you is a lot less normal. Sort of pathological and sad, really.
I'm sure that's the narrative the same media that presented and repeated the BS photo is telling you to think. One might start considering discarding their advice at some point. Just a thought.
Quote:
It's telling that you can only see this as "Who is winning, Republicans or Democrats"...
No. I really don't. I didn't watch the inauguration, and frankly didn't care that much. I did find the whole crowd size thing strange, and so, like I usually do, I dug around and looked at more than just one "side" for information. And it didn't take long to find many many photos that directly contradicted that being used to push the "tiny crowd" claim. Does that mean his crowds were "bigger"? I have no clue, and frankly don't care about that either. My observation is entirely about the media continuing to do the same thing they did during the election. Remember when that caused a ton of people to assume something other than what was real?
Same deal here. I don't think you get just how strong the whole "mainstream media is lying to us all the time" narrative is right now. Trump is just playing to that. He's literally trolling the media and they're falling for it. Now maybe that's beneath a president to do. Heck, I'm sure of it. But I don't know if I'd be laughing if I was on the "side" of the media on this one.
Quote:
while the rest of the world is watching a US leader who will literally lie about any tiny thing, no matter how obvious and humiliating the lie is, because his feelings were hurt and he needs to cry.
No. The folks inside the liberal bubble are assuming that. Everyone outside that bubble is mostly comparing the NYT photo with other photos taken at the event and marveling at how blatantly biased their reporting is.
Quote:
Same for the popular vote count. We have a president who would rather tell the world that the US is so laughably incompetent at democracy that nearly 6% of our votes are fraudulent than admit that he lost. And for what? No one honestly believes him anyway so we get the double benefit of looking like idiots and Trump looking like a clown. He's literally the same as when we laugh at some third world dictator for saying he got 100% of the vote only now it's the world openly laughing at us.
You're missing the point on that one as well. Look. I'm no fan at all of the methodology Trump is using, but I do understand it. The funny thing is he's actually taken a page out of the liberal handbook and is quite effective at it. He knows he doesn't have to prove anything here. He just has to put the issue and idea in front of the public's view. The more the media attacks him for it, the more people who might otherwise not have thought about something like how many people vote illegally in our elections are thinking that very question.
Edited, Jan 25th 2017 6:06pm by gbaji