'Alternative Facts' and Threatening the Free Press. The Trump Presidency is Orwellian.
Believe in Trump and don't trust your lying eyes could've been the motto for President Trump's press team this weekend. Following an awkward announcement from Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, in which he angrily delivered a series of easily fact-checked falsehoods to the press before storming out without answering questions, former campaign chief and now senior white house adviser, Kellyanne Conway, gave an ominously Orwellian interview to NBC News's, Chuck Todd, on Sunday's episode of Meet The Press.
The clip above is edited to the most explosive parts of the interview when Kellyanne delivers a not so veiled threat to NBC News by saying.
Chuck, if we are going to keep referring to our press secretary in those types of terms, I think that we are going to have to rethink our relationship here...
In other words if you are going criticize us for lying we will attempt to sideline your network. This is a disgusting attack on the free press for doing their jobs. I think the press should act first and stop giving Kellyanne air-time.
If that wasn't bad enough, Kellyanne, followed it up by coining the now famous term 'alternative facts'. Chuck did a great job of holding Kellyanne's feet to the fire on the issue.
The scariest part about this whole ordeal is that we now know the Trump administration will lie about things that can be easily fact-checked. How can they be trusted when they deliver news that no one else is able to corroborate? I shudder to think of the not so trivial issues we will be lied to about in the future.
You can watch the full Interview here:
Make sure to follow this profile @contentjunkie to stay up to date on more great posts like this one.
CNN's gigapixel cam
And this is the #fakenews many websites are pushing.
If one cannot accept facts (no matter what side they are from), one deceives himself.
It would appear that you just label facts you don't like as fake news. Why is it that no one in the supposed crowd that filled mall took a picture from back there? This is quite the odd narrative you are trying to espouse.
This was not the most attended inauguration by a long shot.
I don't care if it was the most attended or not. The picture of the emptiness is a fake. It was taken between 8:00 and 9:00. The thing about the truth is - it will always find you out.
I saw this and thought of you. (shut your eyes tighter)
"I don't care if it was the most attended or not."
Well that is one of the 'alternative facts' delivered by Spicer and is highly relevant to the subject of this post. You don't care that the president sent his press secretary out to state falsehoods to the public? I think it's far more likely you are feigning disinterest because you know that in reality it wasn't nearly as well attended as Obama's.
The picture you provided uses Pacific time which would make that tweet 40 minutes prior to inauguration.
https://twitter.com/BCAppelbaum/status/822491863575916544 that is a tweet of his from 9:11am quoting President Trump's speech. Or do we have a time traveler?
Why are you clinging so tightly to this lie? Why have you decided this is 'fake news' when all the evidence available says otherwise. I mean the photo you provided even tells the same story if you look closely enough. Why are you choosing to ignore reality on such a petty issue?
I get that one can be caught up in picking a side but when you have to start denying reality and lying to yourself it's time to take a step back.
Wow. Just wow.
Okay. I will look really close to see the picture you want me to see. You are right!
"the picture you want me to see. You are right!"
Sarcasm? Am I properly detecting sarcasm?
Watch the speech - they pan out to show that the mall did NOT look like the mainstream media pictures. Then today, Spicer brought up
Neilsen's numbers plus CNN's own numbers adding up to more than Reagan's inauguration. Nobody challenged him. Let's talk things being easily fact checked.
Don't trust my lying eyes right?
The pictures match up. Yes one angle is better than the other but the crowd did not extend all the way to the Washington monument. Make sure you are looking at the full picture and not the cropped version. Zoom in if you have to. The mall was not full.
Nielsen's numbers have Obama at 38 million, Reagan at 42 million and Trump at 31 million.
Those lawn covers were also used at Obama's last inauguration.
Metro ridership numbers delivered by Spicer were not the official numbers.
Easily checked indeed.
Edit: If you add livestreaming numbers to Obama like Spicer did for Trump it looks like Obama still comes out on top.
Do you have poor eyesight? Can you not see that white way in the background. Here is a better angle for you
Yes the crowd looks nicer from this angle but it doesn't change anything about what was reported. This photo and yours corroborates the others.
All the photos add up and tell the same story. Trump's inauguration was poorly attended in comparison to Obama. There are plenty of valid reasons why his crowd was smaller. Obama was the first black president and the DC area votes democrat. Those are two big reasons why Trump's crowd would be smaller.
Denying the objective reality that the crowd was in fact smaller than Obama's despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary is both sad and pathetic, especially since the disparity can be easily explained with perfectly valid reasons that do nothing to take away from Trump.
A ridiculous argument, but Spicer was able to pull all media into how the #fakenews picture was published, making all Americans count hats, turning everyone into armchair photo analysts and thus, diverting from the women's march, which was largely anti-trump.
Hook, line and sinker.
What was fake about the picture? Do you have any evidence that the photo was "fake"?
As far as it all being a distraction from the protests going on, I don't agree. I pondered that possibility but if it were true then Spicer deserves an Oscar. Spicer's demeanor told me this was a poorly thought out spur of the moment reaction.
As far as distracting from the protest coverage it appears their plan would have been a failure if that was the actual goal. The crowd size narrative was a perfect segue into the massive crowds the protests had accumulated.
@brains just posted the best evidence - good job. I was reading the twitter feed of that @BCAppelbaum guy. If I were him, I would delete my acct and restart.
Funny.
Yes, Thanks. If it's on CNN it's #fakenews (a reputation is a terrible thing to lose)
That time is Pacific so it would be 11:20AM in D.C. just 40 minutes prior to inauguration. Look at the timing on one his retweets
Here is the crowd tweet
https://twitter.com/BCAppelbaum/status/822478866035986435 8:20am
Here is a tweet he retweeted 40 minutes later just minutes after inauguration
https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/822489416455360512 9:02am
This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the first half of Jan 24. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $7.88 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jan 24 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
Scary yet a lot are unaware.
Because they've already convinced all their supporters that any other source of info is lying. It's how they won the election in the first place.
We're fucked.
No you're in denial and you know it.