330

Trump challenges Biden to cognitive test but confuses name of doctor who tested him : NPR (www.npr.org)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by dogsnest@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Refers to ''Ronny Jackson" as "Ronny Johnson"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 8 points 2 weeks ago

also they are waaaayyy more critical than the first go round where they would not call out anything. I mean I sorta get it. His stuff was just so incredibly stupid and outside the bounds of what a presidential candidate would do that they just did not know how to react to it. Then also to he would do something rediculous each day so it was hard for them to have time and cover the previous stuff more in depth. Even online you would see people (like myself) ask what was the worst or stupidest things he had said to date or just a list of all of them and it was hard to find because there were so many existing and many being created in real time.

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 3 points 2 weeks ago

I don't think it's a "to much material" issue. It's 100% not wanting to be seen as bias/political by people that argue and conduct everything they do in bad faith. It's about chasing profits from an audience they aren't going to get, because they are trying to sell facts to a cult that has been conditioned to discard them outright with no critical thinking involved, just blind deference to Dear Leader. And giving the press a pass is why we got Trump the first time, and certainly looks like will be a factor this time around as well.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, call it a duck instead of "it might be a duck" or "some people believe it may be a duck". The media is suppose to report what they see/hear, not play favorites or white wash things to placate a section of the country that has gone off the rails. Congress also needs to bring back some type of legislation prohibiting the types of Murdock "reporting" that serves only to muddy the water and/or throw shit at the wall for profit.

[-] irreticent@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

"Then also to he would do something rediculous each day so it was hard for them to have time and cover the previous stuff more in depth."

It's not exactly the same but that tactic reminds me of the Gish Gallop technique.

"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality."

[-] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

oh man this is so what they do. water resistant. no its not. water absorbent. super water absorbent.

this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024

330 points (97.1% liked)

politics

18065 readers

4342 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News