quote:

I wanted to follow up on this Judy Woodruff clip after I confirmed something.

In this clip, Woodruff said that reporting—without citing which reporting—had revealed that former President Trump had been pushing Prime Minister Netanyahu not to accept a hostage deal because that would help Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign.

Obviously, this was a major allegation. It would mean that Netanyahu was sacrificing the lives of hostages and the security of Israel for Donald Trump’s candidacy and that Donald Trump was trying to keep the hostages, and civilians in Gaza, in harm’s way for political purposes.

When people pushed back against her, Woodruff tweeted that she had relied on Axios and Reuters reporting on the matter but had missed that Trump and Netanyahu had denied this reporting. She apologized for the oversight.

But her tweet was inaccurate.

As I noted last week, Axios and Reuters never reported that Netanyahu was being urged by Trump not to take a hostage deal. They had just reported that Trump and Netanyahu spoke about Gaza.

But to be sure, I went back to check a few things and also asked Axios for comment.

First, the Reuters report that Woodruff cited was just a pickup of an Axios story.

The Axios story Woodruff cited had been updated to reflect Netanyahu’s denial that he and Trump ever discussed Gaza and a hostage deal.

(I have linked to both reports in this thread)

A spokesperson for Axios confirmed that they NEVER reported that Trump was said to have been discouraging Netanyahu from taking the deal.

Not only were Woodruff’s on-air comments inaccurate, but her apology tweet also said that Axios (and Reuters) reported something that they never did.

Neither publication even stepped into the area that she suggested.

I have followed up with PBS for comment.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Get back with me Mike when you ferret out some Axios’ and/or Reuter’s reporting covering Woodruff’s behind.



I stand for free an open reporting. X validates who people are…let them speak.

Another thing, since you fancy yourself as a progressive…X (and maybe like platforms) IS/are the future of news.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Get back with me Mike when you ferret out some Axios’ and/or Reuter’s reporting covering Woodruff’s behind.



I stand for free an open reporting. X validates who people are…let them speak.

Another thing, since you fancy yourself as a progressive…X (and maybe like platforms) IS/are the future of news.

You stand for picking sources that fuel your confirmation bias.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
More speculation like Woodruff there ME?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Get back with me Mike when you ferret out some Axios’ and/or Reuter’s reporting covering Woodruff’s behind.



I stand for free an open reporting. X validates who people are…let them speak.

Another thing, since you fancy yourself as a progressive…X (and maybe like platforms) IS/are the future of news.

You stand for picking sources that fuel your confirmation bias.

I stand for letting people speak and letting the truth sort itself out.

You are likely still drinking coffee to Morning Joe and admiring his tirade about how history would bear out Hunter’s laptop as complete Russian propaganda and only idiots (his word) would ever believe it actually belonged to Hunter.

quote:

I think Trump wouldn't hesitate to defy the Logan Act.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Get back with me Mike when you ferret out some Axios’ and/or Reuter’s reporting covering Woodruff’s behind.



I stand for free an open reporting. X validates who people are…let them speak.

Another thing, since you fancy yourself as a progressive…X (and maybe like platforms) IS/are the future of news.

You stand for picking sources that fuel your confirmation bias.

I stand for letting people speak and letting the truth sort itself out.

You are likely still drinking coffee to Morning Joe and admiring his tirade about how history would bear out Hunter’s laptop as complete Russian propaganda and only idiots (his word) would ever believe it actually belonged to Hunter.

Probably not since I have no idea what you are talking about. You see, I don't stand for "letting the truth sort itself out" when the source is some bullshit internet website like X.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I don't think the problem is X per se. I think the problem is that individuals follow commentators and sources on X that simply validate and confirm their views. They are not following and reading posts by individuals and groups that hold significantly different views. Someone really interested in the truth will listen to and try to understand what those on both sides of the aisle are saying, realizing that the truth is generally somewhere in the middle. That takes someone prepared to think. I don't think that describes many that post here. Many here just want to regurgitate what someone else tells them.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
The First Amendment doesn't apply to private parties like X.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Get back with me Mike when you ferret out some Axios’ and/or Reuter’s reporting covering Woodruff’s behind.



I stand for free an open reporting. X validates who people are…let them speak.

Another thing, since you fancy yourself as a progressive…X (and maybe like platforms) IS/are the future of news.

You stand for picking sources that fuel your confirmation bias.

I stand for letting people speak and letting the truth sort itself out.

You are likely still drinking coffee to Morning Joe and admiring his tirade about how history would bear out Hunter’s laptop as complete Russian propaganda and only idiots (his word) would ever believe it actually belonged to Hunter.

Probably not since I have no idea what you are talking about. You see, I don't stand for "letting the truth sort itself out" when the source is some bullshit internet website like X.

Show me a news source you consider credible and I will show you their X site. They must not share you sentiments.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
The First Amendment doesn't apply to private parties like X.

Yeah. It does. Is absolutely applies that X has 1st amendment rights. Oh, you meant content? Per x , and other social media, there are TOS to members but section 230 states that the posters are accountable for content, not the media companies

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Get back with me Mike when you ferret out some Axios’ and/or Reuter’s reporting covering Woodruff’s behind.



I stand for free an open reporting. X validates who people are…let them speak.

Another thing, since you fancy yourself as a progressive…X (and maybe like platforms) IS/are the future of news.

You stand for picking sources that fuel your confirmation bias.

I stand for letting people speak and letting the truth sort itself out.

You are likely still drinking coffee to Morning Joe and admiring his tirade about how history would bear out Hunter’s laptop as complete Russian propaganda and only idiots (his word) would ever believe it actually belonged to Hunter.

Probably not since I have no idea what you are talking about. You see, I don't stand for "letting the truth sort itself out" when the source is some bullshit internet website like X.

Show me a news source you consider credible and I will show you their X site. They must not share you sentiments.

Typical flawed reasoning from you. The fact that a credible person or organization may be a member of a platform renders all persons/organizations on that platform credible. Nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Get back with me Mike when you ferret out some Axios’ and/or Reuter’s reporting covering Woodruff’s behind.



I stand for free an open reporting. X validates who people are…let them speak.

Another thing, since you fancy yourself as a progressive…X (and maybe like platforms) IS/are the future of news.

You stand for picking sources that fuel your confirmation bias.

I stand for letting people speak and letting the truth sort itself out.

You are likely still drinking coffee to Morning Joe and admiring his tirade about how history would bear out Hunter’s laptop as complete Russian propaganda and only idiots (his word) would ever believe it actually belonged to Hunter.

Probably not since I have no idea what you are talking about. You see, I don't stand for "letting the truth sort itself out" when the source is some bullshit internet website like X.

Show me a news source you consider credible and I will show you their X site. They must not share you sentiments.

Typical flawed reasoning from you. The fact that a credible person or organization may be a member of a platform renders all persons/organizations on that platform credible. Nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Get back with me Mike when you ferret out some Axios’ and/or Reuter’s reporting covering Woodruff’s behind.



I stand for free an open reporting. X validates who people are…let them speak.

Another thing, since you fancy yourself as a progressive…X (and maybe like platforms) IS/are the future of news.

You stand for picking sources that fuel your confirmation bias.

I stand for letting people speak and letting the truth sort itself out.

You are likely still drinking coffee to Morning Joe and admiring his tirade about how history would bear out Hunter’s laptop as complete Russian propaganda and only idiots (his word) would ever believe it actually belonged to Hunter.

Probably not since I have no idea what you are talking about. You see, I don't stand for "letting the truth sort itself out" when the source is some bullshit internet website like X.

Show me a news source you consider credible and I will show you their X site. They must not share you sentiments.

Typical flawed reasoning from you. The fact that a credible person or organization may be a member of a platform renders all persons/organizations on that platform credible. Nonsense.

Yep, he's committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority--AGAIN. He's blind to logic.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I don't think the problem is X per se. I think the problem is that individuals follow commentators and sources on X that simply validate and confirm their views. They are not following and reading posts by individuals and groups that hold significantly different views. Someone really interested in the truth will listen to and try to understand what those on both sides of the aisle are saying, realizing that the truth is generally somewhere in the middle. That takes someone prepared to think. I don't think that describes many that post here. Many here just want to regurgitate what someone else tells them.

Exactly, the issue is that to many people swallow what they are spooned by social media and are therefore easy to manipulate.

The problem is exacerbated when public figures share things on X which are completely false, MTG being a good example.

If you don't hold people to account for spreading garbage you are part of the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I don't think the problem is X per se. I think the problem is that individuals follow commentators and sources on X that simply validate and confirm their views. They are not following and reading posts by individuals and groups that hold significantly different views. Someone really interested in the truth will listen to and try to understand what those on both sides of the aisle are saying, realizing that the truth is generally somewhere in the middle. That takes someone prepared to think. I don't think that describes many that post here. Many here just want to regurgitate what someone else tells them.

Exactly, the issue is that to many people swallow what they are spooned by social media and are therefore easy to manipulate.

The problem is exacerbated when public figures share things on X which are completely false, MTG being a good example.

If you don't hold people to account for spreading garbage you are part of the problem.

So basically you are pro-censorship.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I don't think the problem is X per se. I think the problem is that individuals follow commentators and sources on X that simply validate and confirm their views. They are not following and reading posts by individuals and groups that hold significantly different views. Someone really interested in the truth will listen to and try to understand what those on both sides of the aisle are saying, realizing that the truth is generally somewhere in the middle. That takes someone prepared to think. I don't think that describes many that post here. Many here just want to regurgitate what someone else tells them.

Exactly, the issue is that to many people swallow what they are spooned by social media and are therefore easy to manipulate.

The problem is exacerbated when public figures share things on X which are completely false, MTG being a good example.

If you don't hold people to account for spreading garbage you are part of the problem.

So basically you are pro-censorship.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Get back with me Mike when you ferret out some Axios’ and/or Reuter’s reporting covering Woodruff’s behind.



I stand for free an open reporting. X validates who people are…let them speak.

Another thing, since you fancy yourself as a progressive…X (and maybe like platforms) IS/are the future of news.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Nute
The American 1st amendment absolutely covers lies and garbage... ask any fiction or bodice ripper author

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Get back with me Mike when you ferret out some Axios’ and/or Reuter’s reporting covering Woodruff’s behind.



I stand for free an open reporting. X validates who people are…let them speak.

Another thing, since you fancy yourself as a progressive…X (and maybe like platforms) IS/are the future of news.

You stand for picking sources that fuel your confirmation bias.

I stand for letting people speak and letting the truth sort itself out.

You are likely still drinking coffee to Morning Joe and admiring his tirade about how history would bear out Hunter’s laptop as complete Russian propaganda and only idiots (his word) would ever believe it actually belonged to Hunter.

Probably not since I have no idea what you are talking about. You see, I don't stand for "letting the truth sort itself out" when the source is some bullshit internet website like X.

Show me a news source you consider credible and I will show you their X site. They must not share you sentiments.

Typical flawed reasoning from you. The fact that a credible person or organization may be a member of a platform renders all persons/organizations on that platform credible. Nonsense.

Yep, he's committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority--AGAIN. He's blind to logic.

While both you are too dumb to realize I didn’t make that argument.

quote:

Show me a news source you consider credible and I will show you their X site. They must not share you sentiments.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Show me a news source you consider credible and I will show you their X site. They must not share you sentiments.

You really don't understand the logical fallacy, do you?

quote:

You WERE making an appeal to authority when you said this:

"Show me a news source you consider credible and I will show you their X site. They must not share you sentiments."

The fact that Mr. A, famous news commentator, posts on X does not support the argument that X is a credible authority.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Still applies and is still what you rationalized. Whoosh…the sound of the whole debate going over your head.

That the platform is trusted bc a trusted source may post to it.

Man I used to lust for opponents like you.

I have NEVER made the case for trusting the platform. I have made the case that it is SOLELY a platform…which it is. And that you can read what Reuters (etc etc) have to say from it. And that it being on the X platform is of zero relevance.

That does not make the platform trustworthy as a whole. Who cares? It is only a platform.

Twitter is also a platform used by every single moron, distorter, and hack to broadcast their message for consumption. Who cares? Don’t read them. Do you think Elon holds a .45 in your ear and forces you when on X?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I don't think the problem is X per se. I think the problem is that individuals follow commentators and sources on X that simply validate and confirm their views. They are not following and reading posts by individuals and groups that hold significantly different views. Someone really interested in the truth will listen to and try to understand what those on both sides of the aisle are saying, realizing that the truth is generally somewhere in the middle. That takes someone prepared to think. I don't think that describes many that post here. Many here just want to regurgitate what someone else tells them.

Exactly, the issue is that to many people swallow what they are spooned by social media and are therefore easy to manipulate.

The problem is exacerbated when public figures share things on X which are completely false, MTG being a good example.

If you don't hold people to account for spreading garbage you are part of the problem.

So basically you are pro-censorship.

If Nute is pro-censorship, you must be pro-lie. I actually believe the latter is more likely. I can actually not recall a single time that you have ever acknowledged must less called out Trump for lying.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Hey, stop complaining!

We have THE NAGA ARSEHOLE here!

Glorifying himself as a military man!

Draft dodging is all forgotten.

Cadet Bine Spur is so long ago!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Nute may not be for censorship, but apparently Elon is . . .

Musk's X censors coverage of Trump's Arlington incident, citing potential "spam"

So much for X being the fountain of truth.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I don't think the problem is X per se. I think the problem is that individuals follow commentators and sources on X that simply validate and confirm their views. They are not following and reading posts by individuals and groups that hold significantly different views. Someone really interested in the truth will listen to and try to understand what those on both sides of the aisle are saying, realizing that the truth is generally somewhere in the middle. That takes someone prepared to think. I don't think that describes many that post here. Many here just want to regurgitate what someone else tells them.

Exactly, the issue is that to many people swallow what they are spooned by social media and are therefore easy to manipulate.

The problem is exacerbated when public figures share things on X which are completely false, MTG being a good example.

If you don't hold people to account for spreading garbage you are part of the problem.

So basically you are pro-censorship.

If Nute is pro-censorship, you must be pro-lie. I actually believe the latter is more likely. I can actually not recall a single time that you have ever acknowledged must less called out Trump for lying.

Here's your chance Lane. One speech, filled with lies. Hugely. A perfect speech. Some have said the best speech ever. I don't know, but people are saying that. But filled with lies. Can you acknowledge just one lie in the speech?


Trump Makes Numerous False And Nonsensical Claims In Meandering Speech On ‘Energy’
Story by S.V. Date

Donald Trump claimed Thursday there is no money available for home mortgages, that he was indicted nine times and that there are 19 different ways of pronouncing Vice President Kamala Harris’ first name.

“The cost of the typical monthly mortgage has really tripled, and you can’t get the money,” the coup-attempting criminal former president said in a speech ostensibly about energy at a steel plant in Michigan. “So, you know, you’ll go from 2% to 10% but you can’t get the money at 10%. I guess they want more than that, but you just can’t get the money.”

In fact, banks and credit unions have plenty of money to lend for home purchases. Trump was indicted not nine times, but four — five if you count a superseding indictment filed earlier this week for his actions related to his Jan. 6, 2021, coup attempt. And, according to Harris, now the Democratic presidential nominee, there is one correct way to pronounce her name.

Trump also brought up a variety of other complaints and comments in his 66 minutes of remarks, many of them greatly exaggerated or flatly false.

He said that President Joe Biden was sleeping too much, while Chinese dictator Xi Jinping and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un do very little sleeping. He claimed, falsely, that the United States had the strongest economy in history on his watch and, also falsely, that he had the largest tax cuts in American history. He claimed that in certain states, parents were allowed to kill newborns immediately after birth.

In fact, the economy was stronger at numerous other points, and tax cuts under presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were larger than his.

What’s more, there are no states that permit the murder of newborn babies.

Trump further claimed that crimes are falling all over the world because other countries are sending their criminals to the United States.

There is no factual basis for that claim, and his campaign did not respond to queries asking for sources backing it up.

Even when Trump finally did speak about energy, many of his statements were false.

“You know where we’re getting a lot of our energy now? Venezuela,” he said.

In fact, the United States imports a negligible amount of oil from that country, according to U.S. government statistics.

Trump’s only real energy “policy” in the energy speech was a previously announced pledge to lower gasoline and electricity prices by 50%.

“My goal will be to cut your energy costs in half within 12 months after taking office,” he said.

Oil industry experts, though, point out that Trump’s promise ignores a fundamental reality that oil prices are set in a global market and that Saudi Arabia and other OPEC producers have decided not to let the world price fall much below $75 per barrel.

In recent years, OPEC nations have cut their production as U.S. companies have increased theirs. As a result, oil prices have remained largely unchanged.

In any case, if gas prices somehow actually fell to half their current levels, it would likely be accompanied by a deep recession and the collapse of the U.S. oil industry, which cannot break even if oil were to fall to $20-$30 per barrel — the level necessary for gasoline to cost $1.70 per gallon.

Toward the end of his speech, Trump defended his use of a visit to Arlington National Cemetery earlier this week to make a campaign video — even though federal law prohibits the use of the cemetery for political purposes.

Trump said he was invited by three families of service members who died during the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan who, after the wreath-laying ceremony, asked him for photos.

“Would you take pictures with us, sir? Absolutely, I did,” he said. “And last night I read that I was using the site to politick, that I used it to politick. This all comes out of Washington, just like all of these prosecutors come out of Washington, they all come out. They send their prosecutors into the DA’s office. They send them into the Attorney General’s office. These are bad people we’re dealing with.”

The Army has issued a statement saying that the rule banning campaign photography had been explained to Trump’s staff beforehand, but that Trump violated it anyway.