Edgetho
Diamond Member
- Mar 27, 2012
- 22,805
- 16,013
- 2,405
Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump
Who's lying, dimocrap?
Are you so blind that you refuse to see?
Is this really the type of information you care enough about to want your POTUS/WH to highlight?
- Thread starter usmbguest5318
- Start date
Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump
Who's lying, dimocrap?
Are you so blind that you refuse to see?
Edgetho
Diamond Member
- Mar 27, 2012
- 22,805
- 16,013
- 2,405
Definitive CNN Gigapixel Image of Crowd During Trump Inauguration Speech Confirms Sean Spicer Correct…
Seriously, have we forgotten the spiteful DC park closings during the “sequester” budget debate when DC authorities closed open space –including war memorials on “Memorial Day weekend- because they wanted to create the optic of impact from budget cuts. To wit, they put barricades around the National Mall, and transmitted warnings to kids in school about the zoo animals no longer being fed. Remember all that nonsense?
The behavior of federal employees in DC is nothing if not predictable. President Donald Trump is an existential threat to their interests; and by extension anyone who supports Donald Trump is antithetical to their interests. That is the correct background for the “optics” of crowd size.
However, all of that said – we can see a Gigapixel Image HERE [we can zoom in/out and drag the image etc.] of much of the area during President Trump’s speech and decide for yourselves.
Explore Interactive HERE
Despite the shenanigans Sean Spicer was correct. The crowd grew significantly just as the event began. Yes, this was mostly due to the crowd being intentionally delayed from attending. Yes, tens of thousands of people could not get through the screenings (Edge: I recall several reporters complaining of this). Yes, the federal workers and DC Park and Security leadership made attendance more difficult than any previous inauguration.
Yes, every imaginable tool and technique was utilized last week to provide the maximum level of crisis and discomfort….
…and yet, given the history of DC doing this with other events, this somehow surprises people?
dimocraps are scum
Seriously, have we forgotten the spiteful DC park closings during the “sequester” budget debate when DC authorities closed open space –including war memorials on “Memorial Day weekend- because they wanted to create the optic of impact from budget cuts. To wit, they put barricades around the National Mall, and transmitted warnings to kids in school about the zoo animals no longer being fed. Remember all that nonsense?
The behavior of federal employees in DC is nothing if not predictable. President Donald Trump is an existential threat to their interests; and by extension anyone who supports Donald Trump is antithetical to their interests. That is the correct background for the “optics” of crowd size.
However, all of that said – we can see a Gigapixel Image HERE [we can zoom in/out and drag the image etc.] of much of the area during President Trump’s speech and decide for yourselves.
Explore Interactive HERE
Despite the shenanigans Sean Spicer was correct. The crowd grew significantly just as the event began. Yes, this was mostly due to the crowd being intentionally delayed from attending. Yes, tens of thousands of people could not get through the screenings (Edge: I recall several reporters complaining of this). Yes, the federal workers and DC Park and Security leadership made attendance more difficult than any previous inauguration.
Yes, every imaginable tool and technique was utilized last week to provide the maximum level of crisis and discomfort….
…and yet, given the history of DC doing this with other events, this somehow surprises people?
dimocraps are scum
OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,618
- 2,220
I'm still not seeing where the press was lying about crowd size. Even Fox had to correct the record. Wake up, people! This is not acceptable in our President. If he'll lie about this, what else will he lie about?
Trump had biggest inaugural crowd ever? Metrics say no
FACT CHECK: Trump overstates crowd size at inaugural
Factcheck: Trump and Spicer's Statements on Inaugural Crowd Size
Trump had biggest inaugural crowd ever? Metrics say no
FACT CHECK: Trump overstates crowd size at inaugural
Factcheck: Trump and Spicer's Statements on Inaugural Crowd Size
OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,618
- 2,220
This seems to be not from CNN but from Conservative Treehouse.
Edgetho
Diamond Member
- Mar 27, 2012
- 22,805
- 16,013
- 2,405
Look at the megapixel interactive then look at the LIE the DISGUSTING FILTH is pushing on you.
Do you see the difference?
If you say, "No'' you are a pathological, dishonest, partisan liar.
Edgetho
Diamond Member
- Mar 27, 2012
- 22,805
- 16,013
- 2,405
So, among your other cognitive abilities, reading comprehension is totally absent as well.
It's got "CNN" plastered all over the pic and in the website address. I just C&Ped it from CT.
Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump
sheesh
Winston
Platinum Member
It is more than seeing. Transit numbers, television ratings--in every metric, the first Obama inauguration clearly comes out ahead, despite the terribly cold day. And well it should, a historical milestone. Just what milestone does the Trump election represent?
Can't you see it? It is a confidence game. The whole crowd size issue, arguably started by the administration but certainly fanned by it, is a smoke screen. Have his nominees completed all their financial disclosures?
And OMG I am watching Kelly Anne on MTP and it is a full blown meltdown.
Kelly Anne Conway is FIRED. Spicer is FIRED. Trump better nip this shit in the bud quick.
OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,618
- 2,220
Edgetho, what are you trying to say with this photo of yours? Spit it out. What is your point, and how are they lying, specifically?
PredFan
Diamond Member
0bama lied for 8 years straight, now all of a sudden, the left is shocked at someone saying something that isn't true.
OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,618
- 2,220
Trump better nip this shit in the bud quick.
This shit is coming straight from Trump. Some of us DID try to nip it in the bud by voting against him; some of us saw this coming. I don't know what we do at this point, except keep making noise.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #71
Soft news got Mr. Trump elected.
Winston
Platinum Member
I have some specific tests for Trumps first few weeks. I voted against him but am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Needless to say, he is quickly wearing away the benefit. Now we have a new one.
Spicer and Conway should both be terminated, and Trump should issue an apology for their behavior. He might not do it with Conway, he can be loyal, to a fault. But I fully expect to see Kimberly Guilfoyle at the podium within the next couple of weeks. Spicer's actions terminally poisoned a vital connection between the press and the presidency.
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,117
- 2,180
So you just admitted you have no expectation of a free, unbiased press. You approve of their dishonesty and fabrications and anyone who says so must be terminated. Got it!
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #74
The Hill may be unbiased but what you cited is an editorial, the very point of which is to argue a specific point of view. Editorials are by definition biased.
As for media bias, if you care to make a point about it, than do so using something that is at least objectively developed and critically analyzed as your basis for making your claim. That you'd use an editorial to make a claim about bias is preposterous; that's just your being too damned lazy to find out the facts for yourself. The facts are, however, available if you but look for them: Public Perceptions of Media Bias: A Meta-Analysis of American Media Outlets During the 2012 Presidential Election
You also may want to consider this.
From the charts above, one can see plainly that in the 2012 election cycle, most news major organizations presented more negative content pertaining to Obama than to Romney. Did Obama gripe about the negativity of the coverage he and his campaign received? I don't recall him making a major issue of it, although it's possible he did mention it at some point.
Researchers have found that the media tend more often to note the ideological bent of various think tanks when referring to content published by those think tanks. The study's "most surprising result is that the self-identified conservative newspaper The Washington Times attaches ideological labels to conservative think tanks at a higher rate than it does to liberal think tanks." The thing to note about that is that adjectivally identifying an organization as liberal or conservative when said organization is indeed liberal/conservative can't be seen as more than disclosing a fact. Put another way, there is no bias associated with saying a skunk stinks; it does stink, and the skunk knows that as well as you or I.
To be newsworthy, information must be reported in context, and it is the journalist’s task to provide the background and interpretation necessary to give events meaning. But what is media bias? It seems there is at best a plurality of answers to that question. Bias means many things to many people. The ASNE found:
- 30 percent of adults see bias as “not being open-minded and neutral about the facts.”
- 29 percent say that it’s “having an agenda, and shaping the news report to fit it.”
- 29 percent believe that it’s “favoritism to a particular social or political group.”
- 8 percent say bias in the news media is “all of these.”
- Bias reduces the demand for news because individuals are more skeptical of reports from news organizations that tolerate bias.
- A profit-maximizing news organization tolerates bias only if that allows it to hire journalists at a lower wage.
- When it tolerates bias, a news organization lowers its subscription price. Price and bias are thus negatively correlated.
- With competition between like-oriented news organizations individuals self-select with the more risk averse subscribing to the publication with the greater bias.
- With competition between two like-oriented news organizations the one with the greater bias has a lower price but can have higher profits. Moreover, average bias can be greater with competition than with a single news organization. Lower quality (more biased) news commands a lower price, but lower quality news can be more profitable than higher quality news.
- With news organizations with opposing biases individuals sort based on which news report leads them to change their prior decisions. High risk aversion individuals subscribe to the publication biased toward greater precautions, and low risk aversion individuals subscribe to the publication biased toward fewer precautions. The news organization with the greater bias can have higher profits.
- In public politics media bias results in less stringent regulation conditional on a news report, but the news report leading to the more stringent regulation is more likely. The expected stringency of regulation is increasing in media bias toward greater precautions.
The impact of the media on political attitudes and behavior has been studied empirically, and rather than develop the implications of the present theory for those studies only one observation will be offered. Some studies of elections have shown that individuals’ beliefs are not affected by news reports, and the model has this feature in the sense that individuals adjust their beliefs anticipating bias. Empirical testing using ex post data; i.e., after a story has been published, would show that bias reduces the number of individuals taking precautions, i.e., ˆαL is increasing in σ. Moreover, individuals would report that they took bias into account and adjusted their beliefs appropriately. The journalist’s decision to bias her news report, however, is an ex ante decision; i.e., when preparing the news report, and bias results in a higher probability of a particular story being reported. Media bias thus would not be found using ex post data but could be found using ex ante data on the frequency with which particular stories appear.
As for the specific examples cited in The Hill editorial, one is about public allegations of criminal behavior on Trump's part made by the alleged victims of that behavior and the other is about the content of private emails, emails that were (1) stolen and (2) not at the time confirmed or denied as to their authenticity. Moreover, when Bill Clinton was accused of similar acts, a full on investigation, special prosecutor and all, was held to determine their validity. You may not recall it, but that investigation was daily news for the entirety of the Starr investigation.
You seem to care so much about balanced news...Fine, that's good, so if you, you should watch PBS, listen to NPR and watch CSPAN. That will give you loads of unbiased or at least balanced coverage of news and events.
OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,618
- 2,220
You are very much giving Trump the benefit of the doubt if you don't think every word out of Spicer's mouth was Trump's. I hope to God KG is not at the podium in a few weeks--I like her and would not like to see her in such a compromising position.
Winston
Platinum Member
No, at a minimum, I have an expectation of a press secretary, that works for me, providing accurate and verifiable information regarding the most important issues of the day during a daily press conference that is open to questions. What I cannot tolerate is that same press secretary, that works for me, using that press conference to perpetuate easily demonstrated falsehoods about minor issues that have almost no bearing on history or everyday life and then refusing to answer any questions.
YOU'RE FIRED
The press, I don't give a damn. I don't pay their salary.
Weatherman2020
Diamond Member
Fake news using photos before the event started.
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,117
- 2,180
So here is the Todd/Kellyanne confrontation. Her point is good. Why was the first falsehood from the press that Trump had removed the bust of MLK? Still trying to divide the country and got caught?
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #79
Conway noted that Trump did several things besides gripe about crowd size, yet he didn't have Spicer make a point to discuss those things and their impacts.
It's also noteworthy that she didn't simply answer the question of why the Press Secretary made a point of discussing a falsehood about an insignificant matter. She even tried to pivot by asking the interviewer questions about what he thinks...As if what he thinks matters? He's a reporter; his job is to ask decision makers why they do what they do, not share his views on past public policy. Conway is smart. No question, but she uses her brains to avoid the question, not to answer it intelligently.
Conway: "He thought he was going to the CIA to witness the swearing in of Trump's nominee for CIA Director." (not exactly quoted, but I'm not inaccurately represented what she said.) Say what? Excuse me? How could Trump have not known before going that his nominee had not been confirmed? If that's really why he went, Trump's a bigger fool than I thought.
SmokeALib
Platinum Member
How many times do I have to tell you fools this:Watch this video and then read the rest of the post.
No policy making discussion. Was there a noteworthy action the President took between the 20th and and 21st?
Spicer opens his press conference not with the most important things going on in Trumps recent schedule -- signing executive orders, upcoming meetings with foreign leaders, etc. -- but with ranting about "soft news" coverage of the inauguration: crowd size, grass and ground coverings, minor redecorating in the Oval office, and artwork. Really? Content better suited to an op-ed on "Page 6" is what the White House thinks is important enough to call in reporters and discuss?
The fact is that the press will say whatever it wants to say; they have freedom of speech rights too. More importantly, however, the press will talk about whatever the president is talking about. Why on earth does Trump insist on making something out of nothing?
Crowd Size:
As for Spicer's claims about the crowd size, well, judge for yourself. (click the photos for the related articles)MLK Artwork:
2009 Obama Inauguration on the left and Trump's inauguration on the right. (Time magazine)
Trump on the left and Obama 2009 on the right (The Telegraph)
B. Scott
PBS
If the 750K people it'd take to reach Trump's claim of a million people in attendance for his inauguration showed up after 12 noon, well, guess what, they missed the inauguration. Say what you want, but that's that's more people "late to the party" than one can reasonably assume just were late. You see, if at nine a.m. one commenced to walk from the far northwestern corner of DC to the National Mall, one would get there before 11:30 with time to spare, and nobody in their right mind would have thought they could drive on down to The Mall and park.
Snopes
Vox
What about the inaugural parade?
Josh Rogin
Evening Standard
Associated Press
Mediate (there's live video there too)
I suppose the crowds were "photoshopped" out of the bleachers? Not. You can watch the parade on video here. Watch it. It's CSPAN coverage. I can assure you that if there were a million people even in the vicinity of The Mall, that route would not look that empty.
For comparison, here is a shot of the crowd for the 2009 inaugural parade.
The mall with no crowds
Other large events on the national Mall:
Million Man March on the left and the 20th anniversary rally to commemorate it on the right
1997 Promise Keeper's rally
Here's some discussion that can put the whole thing in perspective.
Here are the widely cited estimates for recent inaugurations:
Just looking at the pictures, I don't see anything that resembles millions of people on The Mall for Trump's inauguration.
- President Bill Clinton, 1993: 800,000 people
- President Bill Clinton, 1997: 250,000 people
- President George W. Bush, 2001: 300,000 people
- President George W. Bush, 2005: 400,000 people
- President Barack Obama, 2009: 1.8 million people
- President Barack Obama, 2013: 1 million people
Trump is right. The reporter for Time magazine made an error. The White House said Trump never removed the King bust from the Oval Office. The error about the bust was first transmitted in a pool report distributed among reporters. The White House often uses a pool system when not all reporters who want to attend an event can be accommodated in a space.It is worth noting that unlike Donald Trump, credible people and organizations simply admit their were wrong/mistaken and move on. That is a mark of integrity and character that eludes Trump.
At 7:30 p.m., reporter Zeke Miller wrote a pool report saying, “The MLK bust was no longer on display.” Once Miller realized his error, an update was sent to the pool. “The MLK bust remains in the Oval Office, in addition to the Churchill bust, per a WH aide. It was apparently obscured by a door and an agent during the spray. Your pool offers sincerest apologies.”
Miller also corrected the error on Twitter, and Time magazine corrected its story based on his report. “Correction: An earlier version of the story said that a bust of Martin Luther King had been moved. It is still in the Oval Office,” it reads.
And in truly irrelevant news....
Whose suit did Sean Spicer borrow to deliver his press conference? Surely the RNC paid him enough that he could afford a property fitted suit.
Conservatives WORK.
Liberals don't.
Thus more leftists attend leftist gatherings.
Dumfucks.
Similar threads
- Locked
