No, I’m looking for him to back up what he claimed:
“Wasted no time” should not mean an article written 6 months after Trump’s declaration.
And yeah, I want to see the media that actually said “this is a lie” or “this is totally false” or “this hurt our feelings”. I want to see doorhinge back up these assertions, because I don’t recall seeing any of it. AND I’D LOVE TO.
I do recall reading and hearing that “there is no known evidence to back up this assertion” and “it sure seems like he’s pulled something out of his ass, but maybe there is some evidence of this, however unlikely it seems to be”.
But I don’t recall that the overall tone of the media was just flat out declarative “this is a lie” or anything else.
And since I think Mr. Trump is a buffoon, I’d love to see those video clips or read those articles, where people just lay into this clown president of ours. Hell, I’d have sought them out at the time, but I don’t recall seeing or hearing anything like what doorhinge described.
All of those video clips that i saw feature people talking about the result of the FBI investigation into whether or not there was wiretapping and about Manafort’s testimony. That means they were taped 6 months after Trump’s tweet. You said “wasted no time” yet you offer clips with at least a 5 month latency. And they don’t say what you said people said, since repeating what the FBI said is not offering their own commentary. You said that the media “wasted no time declaring” but if what they are doing is repeating someone else’s findings, that’s hardly their declaration.
What is the job of the news media outlets? Does the possibility even exist that their job is to verify the stories that they publish? You know, actually verify/investigate the claims/statements/stories made by public officials.
Over the decades, I’ve noticed that public officials have been know to tell a fib now and then. Shocking, I know, but it’s true. I expect the news media outlets to actually spend the time, and make the effort, to debunk a story before they make that I-don’t-know-the-facts-but-the-President/Govenor/statement maker-acted-stupidly.
AFAIK, the investigation continues. Hopefully, the news media outlets will actually help by doing a very professional job of uncovering the truth.
What are your views on news media outlets that do not verify their “news” stories before they begin publically pontificating on whether or not that story is true?
So when Trump said that he has it on good authority that Obama fabricated his birth certificate, the media should not have challenged that statement until an investigation (by who knows who) was complete? Or does it mean that they shouldn’t have reported on Trump’s allegations until an investigation proved them correct?
How, other than by asking people who would be in a position to know, should the media verify that there were no wiretaps? They can’t go climbing through the ductwork of Trump Tower looking for wires - it doesn’t work that way.
Trump made a preposterous claim, the media checked it out by asking people who would know, and those people all said that Trump’s claim was false. That’s the the textbook case for what verifying a story looks like.
I expect the news media outlets to search for, and report, the truth/facts. I really don’t give a hoot what their biased “opinions” may be. I want the news media outlets to provide the Who, What, Where, Why, and When of a story. YMMV.
Hahahaha. What happens when it turns out that there were “wiretaps” going on? Then it doesn’t look like those news media outlets did a very good/thorough job of verifying the story?
That isn’t an answer. Should the media report on Trump’s conspiracy theories that have no proof or basis in fact, like his charge that Obama wasn’t born in the US?
You heard it hear, if Trump says doorhinge was cross-bred in a lab between a human and something that regularly eats poo, and that evidence to the contrary was fabricated, everyone should assume it’s true until the DNA test comes back.
So, when a person is making a ridiculous claim and what little evidence they have to support it is equally ridiculous, it’s someone else’s job to prove that it’s wrong?