trump did not say anything about gang members. Perhaps he should be more clear in his speaking.
Note updated link from USA today makes no reference to M13 but lots of references to Hitler, genocide etc.
“These aren’t people. These are animals.”
That’s how President Trump described undocumented immigrants during a White House meeting Wednesday, venting frustration at officials in both Mexico and California.
trump did not say anything about gang members. Perhaps he should be more clear in his speaking.
[/quote]
[quote]Trump was responding to Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims, who expressed frustration over how California’s sanctuary city laws have limited the ability of local law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration laws.
“It’s really put us in a very bad— it’s a disgrace,” Mims said.
“There can be an MS-13 gang member, if they don’t reach a certain threshold, I can’t tell [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] about them,” she added.[/quote]
There was no confusion, at least no unintentional confusion, as to what he was talking. No need for him to say "now let me make clear that my speech is in reference to the subject just preceding it.
I’m sure you feel that way.
Context. include it.
1 Like
It’s why we are forced to look for the bias; what facts and context did they purposely leave out, to push their opinions, etc…
First you had the USA Today link wrong. It’s below.
Second, USA Today mentions gang members in its headline.The story was reported as it should have been.
Forced to look for bias? A copy editor at a daily newspaper (as I once was) reads through the story for AP style (rules on how to write stories), grammar and completeness. Your assumption of bias on what you cited is misguided. I didn’t change stories because of bias. They needed to be right.
False. This is the correct link as you may easily find. The first link did go bad so I replaced it with the subsequent usa today story… How did you miss this?
No doubt I was not the only one who caught what they did and they made a subsequent video. However, many will see their original and go on.
That USA Today headline what is called, “leaving out proper context.” It’s a classic way for an agenda driven news media to knowingly mislead the public.
The editors at USA Today wanted for people to read that headline, and incorrectly assume Trump was calling every single undocumented alien, an “animal.” It pushes their false narrative to paint Trump as a hateful bigot and racist.
Why are you focusing on yourself, and trying to make this person? I’m not referring to you in any way.
I’m referring to the dishonest, agenda driven news editors and journalists, who purposely mislead the public, by leaving out proper context, or facts which would destroy the false narrative they are trying to create.
I would point out its not just the title. The story says nothing about gangs and the picture that goes with the story leads you to believe he was talking about women and children. That’s not just a misleading headline, its a total fake.
Because I worked in the media and have first-hand experience of what it’s like. I get very very defensive about the media and the attacks on it. It’s much better than the talking points say it is. A lot of the ■■■■■■■■ being said about the media on this board and elsewhere comes from people who either have no real knowledge of it or are just looking to mouth off to make points. (That’s not an attack on you, by the way.) I know what it’s like because I was in newspapering for over 30 years. There used to be a guy on this board who worked at CBS TV named Goeagles whose stories dwarf the stories I tell because he worked with the biggies – Cronkite, Rather, etc. He used to get criticized to the hilt on this board because he stuck up for the media .I will too. Enough of my morning rant. 
It’s gotten to the point where I just assume anything printed or posted by sites like CNN or USA Today, and even the NYT, are misleading and inaccurate.
I find myself forced to dig thru articles by other news outlets reporting on the same story, to see how much of the facts and context sites like USA Today purposely leaving out, in order to slant the news, or just flat out lie, to push their false narrative.
It’s not just the above news sites that have been guilty of leaving out the facts. I reserve doubt, and double check the news stories other sites print, because most of them, in one case or another, have been known from time to time, to leave out facts which might shine the light of truth on their bias.
Well then, it must bother you, more than most, when you read a story which you know is purposely misleading the public.
You were a professional, ensuring you were getting the truth out to the public is what you did. And these biased stories tarnish your brand, so to speak.
It’s why we should, but too few don’t. A significant number of us consume media passively, and accept it or reject it depending on whether it comfirms or upends our own biases.
Again, I’m not sure what you’re hunting for, but it’s not bias. If you want to nitpick wording in news stories, be my guest. That’s what I used to do as an editor. But don’t assume it’s bias. Bias is when someone in a news story or a TV appearance makes suppositions or conclusions on a whim. Facts are what guide news stories. Seriously, nitpicking one or two words doesn’t make a case for bias.
Yes. And the sources I believe are tarnished are probably not the same ones you think are.
Nitpick? Writing a story that leaves out the “one or two words” which would add the proper context, misleads the public into thinking Trump refers to undocumented immigrants, in general, as “animals.” That is more than just a little unprofessional, it’s shameful and deceitful.
It’s not just USA Today who have been found guilty of this. Just about every news blogger, newspaper, magazine, and every cable news and broadcast station has been guilty of doing this, from time to time.
Of course leaving out the fact that Trump was referring to MS13 gangs as “animals” is biased, because it makes Trump appear to be an anti immigrant bigot, which is the exact narrative that the editor wanted to push.
Here’s an honest headline. I would not assume the editor at the Washington Post is a fanboy of Trump, but he/she is an honest professional;
If this sort of thing were merely gross negligence on the part of the media, then half the time it would make Trump look better. No, all these “mistakes” tend to be in one direction.
If a clerk continually makes mistakes counting change one way and then the other, they are just bad at counting. If their mistakes always go in their favor, then they are likely something else.
