Wednesday, September 9, 2020

We should regret that they are liars but at least be thankful that they are bad liars.

Continuing on the theme of gaslighting.  Trump held a rally in North Carolina.  The Hill had a headline they wanted to run but their first photo illustration contradicted their headline.  So, instead of changing the headline, they changed the photo to hide the evidence that their headline was misleading.

The Hill wants to focus on mask wearing compliance at a public rally rather than on the substance of the rally.  Almost certainly a poor editorial choice but it is their free choice.  As long as they don't lie.  The above and below evidence supports that they are lying.  

Using technology which now allows everyone to be an investigative reporter, someone helpfully posts a video magnifying the crowd behind Trump showing that virtually all of them are wearing masks.

The Hill is a mainstream media mass deceiver.  Game, Set, Match!

But are they?

The Hill comes back to address the charge of deception.  This time they provide a video not of the people behind Trump but in the crowd in front of him.  In that crowd, mask compliance appears anywhere from 5-15% only.

Now we are in kind of deeper waters.  Apparently the Trump campaign selected people to appear in the bleachers behind him based at least in part based on their wearing a mask.  As the large majority or most of them appear to be.  In that respect, clearly the Trump campaign is highlighting mask wearing.  

The fact that free citizens lawfully assemble to participate in a political rally is a good thing.   Independent of one's estimation of the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of masks in an outdoors environment, in North Carolina, they are required to wear masks outdoors if they are in a situation where they are closer than six feet.  Fine not to wear a mask, as long as you are more than six feet apart.  Clearly some or many of the unmasked are also less than six feet from one another.  

Equally clearly, the state has chosen to pass a law but has then been at best selective in the enforcement of that law.  Peaceful protests aren't policed for mask wearing, and apparently neither are rallies.  So are citizens breaking a law if there is questionable evidence for its efficacy, questions about the law's constitutionality, and if the police do not usually enforce it?  

So where does that leave us with The Hill?  Liars?  Deceivers?  Mistaken?  Careless?  

Careless Fools might be the best category.  They wanted to score a political point and instead they scored an own goal.  They illustrated the headline claim with a photo that debunked the claim.  It was self-debunking fake news.

In defending themselves from the charge of deception they opened a different can of worms.  Is The Hill attacking Trump (which seems to have been their original intent), or are they attacking the judgment of ordinary citizens, which is what their defense now seems focused on.  

They dig the hole deeper and deeper.  

If you bother to click through and read the article (which does make mask-wearing the center of their report), you confront the second deception.

They ended up having to show a video of the crowd in order to defend themselves from the charge of lying when their first photo showed a mostly masked crowd on the stand behind Trump.

But with their own video, we can now see the lie in the first paragraph of their report:

President Trump and scores of supporters gathered for a rally in Winston-Salem, N.C., on Tuesday without masks, despite the urging of a local Republican official and a state mandate.

Their own video suggests at least a few hundred rather than scores.  

This video suggests at least a few thousand

As best I can tell from local mainstream media accounts and blogs from actual participants there were likely 1-3,000 participants.

Far more than scores, far short of the Tump estimation of 15,000.  But only one of those sources of estimates is supposed to be running a campaign.

So The Hill.  News source or DNC mouthpiece?  In this instance more the latter than the former.

I suppose, using this case alone, we should regret that they are liars but at least be thankful that they are bad liars.  


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)