Spin Forum Dumping Bin

[nate]

By the way, here are some of the magazine covers from the National Review, the magazine Tank used to source his misleading cover argument.

[nate]

Anyway, my point is that magazine covers are imagery designed to draw people to them, it has nothing to do with the facts presented in the magazine itself.

It is the oldest form of "clickbait"

[Spirit]

59 minutes ago, nate said:

It was a picture portrayal

 

It was not just a picture portrayal.  It included reporting that he girl in the picture was carried away screaming by U.S. Border Patrol agents and separated from her mother.  That was a lie.

 

 

[Spirit]

10 hours ago, nate said:

Lol.

By your same logic, this is also a misleading cover.  That isn't actually Mars, that is an artists rendering.

 

If the cover included text that said, "This is actually Mars and not an artist's rendering" you would be correct.

 

 

[nate]

8 minutes ago, Geoff said:

 

It was not just a picture portrayal.  It included reporting that he girl in the picture was carried away screaming by U.S. Border Patrol agents and separated from her mother.  That was a lie.

 

 

So it wasn't a misleading cover at all, it was actually a misleading statement.  Got it

[Spirit]

4 minutes ago, nate said:

So it wasn't a misleading cover at all, it was actually a misleading statement.  Got it

 

 

[RallyMo]

2 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

Well it certainly plays into the scenario that the press is against Trump and against those who support him (which is the bigger point).

...which is pretty stupid, because none of this bullshit hairsplitting would be taking place if a completely plausible illustration was used for the cover. I say this only because it's pretty natural for a kid to cry when their parent(s) are being taken away from them. Meanwhile, this actually becomes an issue for some susceptible to "look over there!" It's pretty unfortunate. 

 

[mtangelsfan]

11 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

...which is pretty stupid, because none of this bullshit hairsplitting would be taking place if a completely plausible illustration was used for the cover. I say this only because it's pretty natural for a kid to cry when their parent(s) are being taken away from them. Meanwhile, this actually becomes an issue for some susceptible to "look over there!" It's pretty unfortunate. 

 

I think because you don't fall into the group called "Trump supporters" or at least "Trump reluctant voters" it is very hard for you to see that side of it.  When you have been convinced that a group is against you, then it is pretty easy to have that belief affirmed.  I don't think it has anything to do with look over there.  It has to do with a supposition that Time Magazine has unfortunately affirmed.  

[Tank]

7 hours ago, nate said:

By the way, here are some of the magazine covers from the National Review, the magazine Tank used to source his misleading cover argument.

 

i chose the article because it was the first one that came up in my google search. there were no other reasons or motivations for my selection of it.

i'm sorry you can't tell the difference between caricatures and parody vs. how Time tried to use a photo to sway opinion as if it was accurate for what's going on.

 

[Tank]

not Time's first go-round with this:

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/25/us/time-responds-to-criticism-over-simpson-cover.html

 

[RallyMo]

On 6/27/2018 at 3:10 PM, mtangelsfan said:

I think because you don't fall into the group called "Trump supporters" or at least "Trump reluctant voters" it is very hard for you to see that side of it.  When you have been convinced that a group is against you, then it is pretty easy to have that belief affirmed.  I don't think it has anything to do with look over there.  It has to do with a supposition that Time Magazine has unfortunately affirmed.  

It's sad that this cover is an affirmation.

[UndertheHalo]

So, was the content of Times story false ? Or was the picture on the cover the only problem ? As far as I know the actual reporting was accurate to what was happening on the ground. 

Edited June 29, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[Spirit]

18 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

So, was the content of Times story false ? Or was the picture on the cover the only problem ? As far as I know the actual reporting was accurate to what was happening on the ground. 

 

It was false.  They had to apologize. 

 

 

[UndertheHalo]

31 minutes ago, Geoff said:

 

It was false.  They had to apologize. 

 

 

What was false ? They apologized for the cover I thought ? 

[Spirit]

9 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

What was false ? They apologized for the cover I thought ? 

 

 

[Blarg]

Yeah, but... 

[Crampknees]

3 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Yeah, but...but...but...Benghazi! 

 

[Blarg]

How cute, you still think it's all about Hillary. 

[Crampknees]

3 minutes ago, Blarg said:

How cute, you still think it's all about Hillary. 

Not really but just saw your A player, Trey Gowdy, saying get it the hell over so he can get back to work on Benghazi.  It was just fresh in my mind is all and wanted you to know justice will soon be served on her. 

[UndertheHalo]

2 hours ago, Geoff said:

 

 

Ya Geoff,  I saw this before.  I understand they were wrong about the particulars of the girl on the cover.  The Time people should have definitely vetted that particular story better, obviously.  But the general reporting on the ground isn’t false.  Which is what you’re implying. It’s incredible I know, that errors are made and have to be corrected.  It’s never happened before, ever. 

It’s amusing to me that this is what you want to fixate on.  Not that 2000+ children were objectively abducted from their parents by the US government.  A: in order to weaponize against other immigrants.  And B: to use a bargaining chip over budgeting a F*ck*ing wall.  That’s not the important part of the story though apparently for you.  It’s that time magazine fu*ked up and that our liar president that lies about everything isn’t actually a liar. 

Who’s selling the narrative again ?

[Blarg]

I think you are. 

[mtangelsfan]

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

Ya Geoff,  I saw this before.  I understand they were wrong about the particulars of the girl on the cover.  The Time people should have definitely vetted that particular story better, obviously.  But the general reporting on the ground isn’t false.  Which is what you’re implying. It’s incredible I know, that errors are made and have to be corrected.  It’s never happened before, ever. 

It’s amusing to me that this is what you want to fixate on.  Not that 2000+ children were objectively abducted from their parents by the US government.  A: in order to weaponize against other immigrants.  And B: to use a bargaining chip over budgeting a F*ck*ing wall.  That’s not the important part of the story though apparently for you.  It’s that time magazine fu*ked up and that our liar president that lies about everything isn’t actually a liar. 

Who’s selling the narrative again ?

It is like some of you refuse to get the point.  Do you want to beat Trump?  This isn't the way to do it.   Do you want to win the hearts and minds of some of the Trump supporters?  This isn't the way to do it.

This is just further proof for them to believe the press is against them.  Bottom line.  Whether you think it is really is irrelevant.

[Thomas]

Well doesn't this back and forth beautifuly illustrate why we're fucked. We have nefarious forces on step 83 of utilizing confirmation bias to manipulate the masses and delegitimize the media. Literally getting people to shoot into to their offices. And here we are arguing about step 2. 

[UndertheHalo]

10 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

It is like some of you refuse to get the point.  Do you want to beat Trump?  This isn't the way to do it.   Do you want to win the hearts and minds of some of the Trump supporters?  This isn't the way to do it.

This is just further proof for them to believe the press is against them.  Bottom line.  Whether you think it is really is irrelevant.

This is such a joke.  Just complete bullshit MT.  Trump supporters aren’t fuckin*g babies.  They’re adults who see the world the way they want to see it.  They’re responsible for filtering out news themselves.  It’s fine to accept the mass torrent of lies coming from the right wing blogosphere and literally Russian internet trolls.   But a handful of slightly misleading poor editorial decisions is all it takes for them to go all in on the Trump narrative then that’s what they’re going to do.  No matter what. 

If you give a shit.  You go ahead and do your part and vote against Trump in these next 2 elections. 

[Blarg]

The media is doing a fine job all by themselves deligitimizing themselves.