Misleading or false claims by the media

[rightleft22]

Fen, her intent could not be plainer.

Anyone having political bias will come to the conclusion that the intent of someone in opposition could not be plainer.
This is a error I see a lot of us, including myself making and we need to be more careful.

Listening and watching the interview the intent behind her quote on facts and morals does not, to me anyway, point to a intent that people should let facts slide.
"It's (facts) absolutely important. And whenever I make a mistake. I say, "Okay, this was clumsy."

I haven't been paying much attention to her so don't know if she has a habit of playing fast and lose with facts. What I saw was a excited idealist who very much believes in what she stand for.
I found her authentic if naive and expect the system will devour her.

I find the furious and concern over her understanding and use of facts interesting. For me their is a 'clear intent' to ignore the understanding and use of facts from the commander and chief. A clear intent of his supporters to look the other way (or a unconscious shadow projection) but that would be mind reading

[TheDrake]

"Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family."

That's Trumpian hyperbole, and it got her a pants on fire from politifact.

[Seriati]

RL, you quoted her actual statements:

If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they're missing the forest for the trees. I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

"She is saying she is good people so it should be let slide when she's grossly wrong because her larger point is correct. "

It's absolutely important. And whenever I make a mistake. I say, "Okay, this was clumsy." and then I restate what my point was. But it's— it's not the same thing as— as the president lying about immigrants. It's not the same thing, at all.

" She is saying the "other side" is bad people and that's where this kind of fact checking should be focused."

I don't get why anyone's trying to explain this away.  Again, she could not be plainer with her statements about what it means to be "morally right." 

[rightleft22]

I don't get why anyone's trying to explain this away.

  I don't get why anyone tries to explain away Trumps use of facts.  To me Trumps intention could not be plainer however I cannot state as fact that the intention I suspect he has is his intention. Only Trump could know that... and I suspected even he is not sure. 

Again, she could not be plainer with her statements about what it means to be "morally right."

What I got from her interview was that she believe her goals are the ones we should be morally aiming at and that she isn't overly concerned with how we pay for them. That does not mean she intended to promote morality trumps facts.

By all means jump on her about her view of reality and idealistic goals. This focus on her failure to get the facts right is just hypocrisy or worse unconscious shadow projection. At least she indicated that she intends to do better when she is clumsy with the facts.

[Seriati]

What I find confusing is explaining away her position on her misuse of facts not mattering because she's morally right.  That has nothing to do with the errors itself, which are not as big a deal to me.

I really only jump in on the Trump "errors" or "lies" where I think the interpretation of them is at least as misleading as the claim in the first place.  I don't see that with Ocasio-Cortez's statements, everyone knows she was wrong and no one seems to be attributing to any secret dark motives.  There's really nothing to "defend" on them, but the idea that her errors don't matter because her cause in just is truly offensive.

[rightleft22]

What I find confusing is explaining away her position on her misuse of facts not mattering because she's morally right

That is where we disagree. I don't think that is what she "said" or intended to say.
You are assuming you her intent is clear because that is how you see it. Fair enough, That does not however mean your speculation is a fact or that everyone will see it as you do. 

If Trump had said what she said I suspect you would defending it.  I have heard the argument from many of his supporters that what matters isn't the facts but what he's doing. How is that different from your confusion of why people are explaining away her position.

Welcome to the confusion

[Fenring]

Wasn't sure what thread to post this in, but I figured the one about false or misleading media reports was as good as any:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/13/politics/white-house-iran-airstrikes-national-security-council/index.html

The White House's National Security Council asked the Pentagon last year for plans for launching a military attack against Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported early Sunday, citing current and former US officials.

The request from the council, which is led by national security adviser John Bolton, came after an attack in September on the US Embassy in Baghdad by a militant group aligned with Iran, according to the Journal.

[...]

The request was met with concern by both the Pentagon and the State Department, according to the Journal, with one former administration official telling the paper that people were "shocked" by the request.

[...]

Although the Pentagon obeyed the request by the council, the Journal reported, it is unknown whether or not the plans for striking Iran were ever fully developed or even provided to the White House. The Journal also said that it is unknown whether President Donald Trump had knowledge of the request.

Can anyone tell me how it's legal for any of the following to occur:

1) For people at the Pentagon to leak to the media the nature of stategic planning being made between them and the White House?
2) For this to be released through all media channels publicly, despite the fact that it's highly threatening and inflammatory towards Iran in particular?
3) And for a media circus to be made about a plan that was never actually carried out but appears to have just been a theoretical option?

As I understand it the military spends a considerable amount of time working out theoretical military plans based around just about every conceivable contingency. At any given time there are probably hundreds of established plans of attack sitting around focused around any possible foe they could imagine, obviously including Iran. So I'd like to know how it's anything other than fake news to suggest that being asked to create an attack plan against Iran is (a) irregular, and (b) something to blast out in public, and (c) even questionable. How can it be questionable to create lines of attack to be used if needed?

So you tell me: is this pure fake news, in that this is being paraded around as if it's something fantastically marvelous?

And I'm even more concerned about the idea that Pentagon officials will just tell media organizations about covert strategic requests from the White House. Isn't that treason?

[NobleHunter]

There's a difference between having plans on hand so a surprise conflict isn't starting from scratch and being told to draw up plans in response to an "act of war." Though I don't think article properly supports its conclusion that the request was "shocking" or particularly noteworthy.

[Fenring]

There's a difference between having plans on hand so a surprise conflict isn't starting from scratch and being told to draw up plans in response to an "act of war." Though I don't think article properly supports its conclusion that the request was "shocking" or particularly noteworthy.

The usual procedure as I understand is to have ready battle plans for many contingencies, and that this isn't just to avoid surprise but to judge how effectively various problems could theoretically be dealt with. I'm sure that the mere existence of some of these actually helps with policy because knowing how difficult or perhaps easy some of them would be to execute might inform the White House about whether that entire scenario should be avoided or courted. In this case if a plan was drafted in response to an act of war, how is that different than any of the other other battle plans, other than the fact that it was a particular scenario they didn't already have a plan lying around for?

It sounds to me not just that it's not news, but that it's deliberately being manufactured into being inflammatory for some reason.

[NobleHunter]

Because the "act of war" bit implies that it's intended to be used rather than just be used to inform policy. Though all we seem to have is that someone said people were shocked. This article is certainly playing up the significance of whatever happened but it could just be click bait rather than to inflame anything.

[Fenring]

Because the "act of war" bit implies that it's intended to be used rather than just be used to inform policy.

Afaik all of these theoretical plans are intended to be used, in the event that the contingency arises.

Though all we seem to have is that someone said people were shocked. This article is certainly playing up the significance of whatever happened but it could just be click bait rather than to inflame anything.

Yeah. I'm almost less concerned with the clickbait aspect to it as compared with the fact that this would get told to the media in the first place.

[D.W.]

Or...  This leak was intentional to ratchet up the threat to Iran to negotiate from a position of weakness.  Or so a hawk would see it. 

A controlled and well timed leak (no clue if this qualifies) can be every bit as potent a tool as actual diplomatic outreach or overt threat. 

Sets you up for good cop bad cop, military overreach, anti-whistleblower measures and countless other things. 

OR... it's just more incompetence and backstabbing from a government in turmoil. 

[rightleft22]

For people at the Pentagon to leak to the media the nature of strategic planning being made between them and the White House

If the plan was classified I would think it was illegal to leak it. That said leaking it could be a strategic move to let Iran know the US is "thinking about them"

I'm not paying attention to the story however anyone is attempting to spin the idea that asking for such a plan was improper won't come off as credible.

[Fenring]

It's certainly plausible that things can be released to have a deliberate effect. But I don't recollect ever hearing (since I've been paying attention) of reports before of Pentagon military planning being leaked to have an effect on a foreign power. It would seem like a weird thing to begin doing now, although maybe under the Trump admin we should expect weird.

[D.W.]

Depends also upon how exaggerated the whole narrative of "Trump is impossible to advise and won't listen to anyone".  If there's any truth to it, leaks seem more plausible; as does sabotage.  (Is it still sabotage when you are trying to stop a saboteur?)

[Fenring]

So far the only explanation proffered is that the leak was a result of the White House itself allowing it to be released in order to put Iran in its place or something. That's an extremely specific scenerio, and on the balance it doesn't seem to be the most likely explanation, although certainly it's possible. But putting that scenario aside for a moment, does it not seem like the alternative scenario (that it was leaked to the media without authorization) seem outright treasonous? Reasons for such a leak could be to embarass the White House, or else possibly to undermine a non-aggressive policy towards Iran by forcing the issue, so that warhawks could make provoking moves towards Iran on their own even despite the White House's policy. These are both completely plausible as I see it, and I don't know how to evaluate such moves other than in dire terms.

Or am I missing something?

[TheDrake]

So far the only explanation proffered is that the leak was a result of the White House itself allowing it to be released in order to put Iran in its place or something. That's an extremely specific scenerio, and on the balance it doesn't seem to be the most likely explanation, although certainly it's possible. But putting that scenario aside for a moment, does it not seem like the alternative scenario (that it was leaked to the media without authorization) seem outright treasonous? Reasons for such a leak could be to embarass the White House, or else possibly to undermine a non-aggressive policy towards Iran by forcing the issue, so that warhawks could make provoking moves towards Iran on their own even despite the White House's policy. These are both completely plausible as I see it, and I don't know how to evaluate such moves other than in dire terms.

Or am I missing something?

You had asked "how would this be legal" and that was the only way. If we consider the question, "why was this done?" That comes under a different heading.

It is not treason to expose something that you think is harmful to the country. It wasn't for Snowden, it wasn't for the Pentagon Papers, and it might not be here. If the leak were an attempt to alert the public that the administration is trying to pull a Gulf of Tonkin Resolution with Iran, it could be a selfless patriotic act that prevents a war with Iran.

We can rehash what treason is, and is not.

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere,

Releasing this information would not appear to aid Iran particularly much. They didn't release any specifics to the plan, or there's a much stronger case for treason. Not to say it isn't illegal, I suspect it is.

As for using it to influence public policy, I think it is far more likely that it was intended to reign in aggression toward Iran and to make people suspicious about any Administration "act of war" claims they might make.

[Fenring]

As for using it to influence public policy, I think it is far more likely that it was intended to reign in aggression toward Iran and to make people suspicious about any Administration "act of war" claims they might make.

Interesting idea!

[rightleft22]

You had asked "how would this be legal"

If the document was classified it might not be treason to release it however it would be Illegal... I think or at least someone should have there security clearance revoked and or fired. 

[Fenring]

You had asked "how would this be legal"

If the document was classified it might not be treason to release it however it would be Illegal... I think or at least someone should have there security clearance revoked and or fired.

I'm not saying I know anything for sure, just really asking questions. But wouldn't it be considered as treason to disclose confidential attack details to the nation targeted by those plans?

[TheDrake]

But wouldn't it be considered as treason to disclose confidential attack details to the nation targeted by those plans?

Even Snowden's crime isn't treason, as I understand it. Take a look at the language. But nobody released the document anyway, they just described its existence.

Under the statute, an enemy is an organization with which the US is in a declared or open war. So even the Navy spy, Walker, didn't qualify despite giving up lots of military secrets.

A brief search ran me across the following weirdness:

During the Civil War, Lewis’ paper noted, a professional gambler named William Mumford who lived in New Orleans was the only person formally convicted of treason. Mumford, angered by the replacement of the Confederate flag with an American one at the city’s US Mint building following the Navy’s capture of the state, scaled a flagpole and removed the flag.

“For this action, he was tried by military tribunal on the grounds of treason,” the paper noted. “His overt act was found to be the desecration of the American flag, and since the United States contended the southern states were still a part of the Union, Mumford was a U.S. citizen who owed allegiance to the country.”

Mumford was executed by hanging on June 7, 1862 from the same scaffolding at the Mint building where he’d torn down the flag.

That seems a bit harsh.

[rightleft22]

I'm not saying I know anything for sure, just really asking questions. But wouldn't it be considered as treason to disclose confidential attack details to the nation targeted by those plans?

Personally I would think so

[Fenring]

But wouldn't it be considered as treason to disclose confidential attack details to the nation targeted by those plans?

Even Snowden's crime isn't treason, as I understand it.

Right, but what he released was information about what he saw as illegal activity by the government towards its own people. Unless the U.S. population is a potential enemy of the state then I don't see how it's analogous to this situation. What I'm asking about is openly telling Iran (since they watch American news) that the government was formulating aggressive plans against them. I mean, let's say for instance the White House was hypothetically planning a surprise first strike against Iran; and now that the news was leaked that battle plans were being drawn, Iran might tighten up their security. Doesn't that sound like aiding a potential enemy? Now, the fact that was hasn't been declared may be a fine point to mention, but at the same time there are no "wars" these days, only police actions.

Take a look at the language. But nobody released the document anyway, they just described its existence.

That's what it sounds like, yeah. I guess if someone had literally faxed the plan to Tehran then that would be espionage, versus leaking sensitive info to the press which is certainly not espionage but still sounds whack to me. And btw I'll just toss in that I'm in no way pleased about the idea of taunting Iran so I'm not sure how to evaluate the results of this leak, regardless of its intent. But just on the face of it, when I read about this in the news my reaction was basically "wtf?"

[TheDeamon]

Honorable mention should probably go to NBC News, and presumably some other outlets with regards to the hearing for the next AG when questioned about the Mueller Investigation: "I've known Mueller for over 30 years... I don't believe he would take part in a 'witch hunt'"

Headline: AG Nominee "Mueller Probe is not a witch hunt." 

[TheDrake]

Various headlines on the matter, CNBC is about as accurate as I could imagine:

Trump AG pick Barr: Mueller would not be 'involved in a witch hunt'

NBC current headline is:

William Barr: 'Vitally important' for Mueller to complete Russia probe

NY Post bends it harder, implying a stronger conclusion.

William Barr says Mueller’s probe is not a ‘witch hunt’

[TheDeamon]

NBC current headline is:

William Barr: 'Vitally important' for Mueller to complete Russia probe

NY Post bends it harder, implying a stronger conclusion.

William Barr says Mueller’s probe is not a ‘witch hunt’

NBC's evening news ran with the NY Post version, and probably repeated the proclamation about half a dozen different times in the span of about 2 1/2 minutes. 

[TheDeamon]

Here's one I'm conflicted on, the video report is solid, the text that accompanies it is a bit different.

Personal "favorite" part of it has to be after 1:48 mark, where he goes into describing how the border wall in the area is ineffective and how it is being defeated, and concludes with(not in text of the report):
https://abcnews.go.com/beta-story-container/US/largest-single-group-migrants-tunnels-border-wall-arizona/story?id=60462672

What the Border Patrol needs most is a barrier system, one that includes sensors in the ground, and better camera systems to detect asylum seekers as they come through.

How exactly do you build a barrier system without including barriers, such as, say, a wall?

I don't think the "build the wall" crowd ever said the wall was the be-all and end all for border security. Agents weren't going to be reassigned after it was built. The wall was always "step 1" of a more comprehensive effort to secure the border.

[D.W.]

Skynet controlled hunter killer drones?

[LetterRip]

What the Border Patrol needs most is a barrier system, one that includes sensors in the ground, and better camera systems to detect asylum seekers as they come through.

How exactly do you build a barrier system without including barriers, such as, say, a wall?

Ground sensors and cameras - are referred to as barrier systems and don't include physical walls - they are also called "virtual barriers" or "virtual fences".

Yes it is confusing terminology.

[DJQuag]

https://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-house-dem-caucus-chair-hakeem-jeffries-calls-trump-the-grand-wizard-of-1600-pennsylvania-avenue/

JFC.

You all know, I'm pretty damned socialist and don't chime in too often.

For some reason I had to point this out.

And by point out I mean is this guy who is supposed to be on my side tryin to tell people that some punkass bitch needs to be looked down on for some bitch ass idiot claiming us?

[DJQuag]

Dear Crunch and SeriatI.

I don't like your ideas. Spend most of my time compos mentos trying to talk some sense but it's a random message board but FI.

Let's just agree to in good faith consider the reasons we all hate the other. No matter what.

[TheDeamon]

https://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-house-dem-caucus-chair-hakeem-jeffries-calls-trump-the-grand-wizard-of-1600-pennsylvania-avenue/

JFC.

You all know, I'm pretty damned socialist and don't chime in too often.

For some reason I had to point this out.

And by point out I mean is this guy who is supposed to be on my side tryin to tell people that some punkass bitch needs to be looked down on for some bitch ass idiot claiming us?

He's claiming you, and thinking you're going to believe him.

[Seriati]

So two absolutely over the top fake media stories over the weekend and no reactions yet?

The first where the media went over the top in reporting on "bombshell" yet unverified reports based on leaks from the Special Counsel's office.  Where the fact they couldn't be verified didn't stop them from being run, with plenty of talking head's and even Democratic politicians with the "if true" Trump needs to be impeached immediately line.  Whole story blown up by the Special Counsel's office issuing a statement refuting the basis.

Dozens of articles out there, even retractions, but I'm linking this one because it frames a particularly issue that makes it even worse in my book for NBC and MSNBC - their $400 million investment in Buzzfeed (the group that broke the story).

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/nbc-raises-eyebrows-over-400-million-relationship-with-buzzfeed

The second one of course is a group of teens that were singled out by half of Hollywood and most of the media for an absolute orgy of hate over their racially insensitive confrontation of a Native American man (as seen on a YouTube clip).  Even open calls for doxxing teenagers and "jokes" about killing them.

Problem, this time, was that full clips also existed, some an hour long, that show that the claims of the Native American man that the kids were changing hate turned out to be false, that showed in fact that they were being harassed by activists and that in fact it was the man himself who walked up into the kids faces while they were waiting for their bus to create the scene in the first place.

The fakeness of the news is beyond the pale at this point.

[Seriati]

Whole story blown up by the Special Counsel's office issuing a statement refuting the basis.

I just want to double down on this.  The Special Counsel's office has been a remarkably quite group, there's no real way anyone could have anticipated they'd make a statement.  Without that statement this story is still playing and manipulating the whole country.  This makes this almost criminal to me.

[Fenring]

Problem, this time, was that full clips also existed, some an hour long, that show that the claims of the Native American man that the kids were changing hate turned out to be false, that showed in fact that they were being harassed by activists and that in fact it was the man himself who walked up into the kids faces while they were waiting for their bus to create the scene in the first place.

The fakeness of the news is beyond the pale at this point.

This one is indeed egregious and is fake news at its best: as in, literal made up facts meant to inspire hatred. Where are the arrests of those printing such stories which have potentially created real danger and harm to those MAGA-sporting kids? KIDS! I think this is far more criminal than a typical anti-Trump propaganda piece (assuming it was that). We're talking about inciting a literal lynch mob to harass high school kids over made-up facts.

I watched some video footage about the altercation. In one instance a fellow from the native-American group was haranguing a MAGA kid about how the white man stole all this land, and the white kid was replying with what he understood to be the history of native-American migrations to North America from Asia...it was actually inspiring to see the altercation involving argumentative historical points to an extent, verus what the news portrays as a hate-filled confrontation. The MAGA kid was comparatively calm, and the yelling was mostly due to the fact that it was friggin loud and one could only converse and be heard at all by shouting. Of course that was just a few minutes out of what I saw was a 2 hour video. Overall it seemed that what was happening was various protest groups sort of physically near enough to each other to create "a situation", but it hardly looked aggressive. If there was one aggressive aspect to the event it was the black Jewish group waving their signs around and voicing speach about how all white Americans are descended from homosexuals and are all gay themselves, and serve the devil. Now how curious that the "neo-Nazi" Trump kids were the focus of media attention, and not the group that was much more the locus of the event, and whose speech was basically anathema to almost all Americans? Ah, but they happened to be black...so I guess that makes them untargetable by the media? Or was it just that it was a juicy chance to get a good story built up around kids wearing the maligned MAGA hats? As I reflect on it I think the entire basis of the story was about the hats. Can you imagine?

[TheDrake]

I was highly skeptical about the Buzzfeed report when it came out. I thought it was irresponsible for media outlets to publish on it without independent verification. Having them add a disclaimer (Blah blah news was not able to independently verify), is a cop out.

[TheDeamon]

So while on my phone, not going to hunt down supporting links but two BIG media mea culpa moments from the press in the last week:

The BuzzFeed report claiming large amounts of evidence supporting a claim that Trump ordered Cohen to perjure himself before Congress about Russia.

Then after the Mueller Investigation issued an unprecedented press release saying the BuzzFeed report was wildly inaccurate... We get item number two:

A high school touring the Washington Mall, many in MAGA Attire, cross paths with an Anti-Trump protest. After They were insulted, harangued and had racial epithets hurled AT THEM, one of the students has a Tribal Elder get in his face.

The MSM gets ahold of the clip of the Tribal Elder in the kids face, accusing the school group of surrounding the Elder and disrespecting him, and genetically make a media circus of things condemning the MAGA teens. At least until a video of the event in it's more complete context became available.

Of note from my "White Privilege" perspective, the teen was placed in an awkward situation with no real good option beyond running away, and as far as options go, that one sucks.

The other thing is watching the other teens and their reactions, given they're white teenagers from Kentucky with virtually no context for how to "appropriately respond" to a Native American banging on a drum. I think a number of them were "getting down" with the drumbeat and trying to accompany the Elder(clapping in rhythm with the Drum beat, and some other things), but even that was being skewed as "disrespect" in the mass media. Which could be valid for some, but I doubt it's true for most. Also bearing in mind he(the elder) sought them out, not the other way around.

Also related to that, why did the popular media seem compelled to also always describe the Tribal Elder as "A Vietnam Veteran and Tribal Elder" as though they were trying to make confrontation also about the Elder's Veteran status? Particularly given it looked like he was in Tribal Regalia and likely wasn't wearing anything that most people would be able to use to identify him as a Veteran from Vietnam?

Keep in mind, I am asking as a Veteran myself.

Edit, looks like this came up while I was typing and off doing some other things.

[D.W.]

Mostly trying to stay out of this one till the dust settles.  (as that's the largest cause of all the polarizing BS) but...

The brief interview on my local news (he's from this area) with Nathan Phillips indicated that he was trying to interject himself between two groups he believed were likely to take a more ugly turn if he did not. 

Beyond that, it's hard to say because the man spoke slowly and the time allotted for the piece was short so, to me at least, the interview itself bordered on disrespectful to him as the reporter tried to keep the ball rolling...

You make an interesting point about the highlighting of his veteran status.  We like to believe that a vet deserves to not be disrespected, but if it wasn't obvious he was one, why bring it up?  Probably because it preys on sentiment and feeds outrage.     Gotta love the business of selling views on pages.

[cherrypoptart]

This is an example of the manipulative way the media spins a story that is completely true and they even give all the exonerating details in the story but for anyone who only reads the headline or doesn't care about the devil in the details the media's agenda gets duly promulgated. Maybe to turn a phrase, instead of the devil is in the details, the devil is in the headlines. The saving grace may or may not be in the body of the story but a great number of people never go far enough to find it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/passenger-confronts-gop-congressman-over-225037260.html

Passenger Confronts GOP Congressman Over Flying First Class During Shutdown

------------------------------------------------------

The headline incites anger because some rich Republican flies first class living large on the taxpayers' dime while the hard working little people go without a paycheck and then the truth is buried in the story about how it was a regular coach ticket with an automatic frequent flyer upgrade and there was no additional cost to taxpayers. This is perhaps even more dangerous than fake news; true news that is nevertheless distorted and manipulative.

[Crunch]

Also related to that, why did the popular media seem compelled to also always describe the Tribal Elder as "A Vietnam Veteran and Tribal Elder" as though they were trying to make confrontation also about the Elder's Veteran status? Particularly given it looked like he was in Tribal Regalia and likely wasn't wearing anything that most people would be able to use to identify him as a Veteran from Vietnam?

It’s a way to build more sympathy for Phillips, make him seem double plus deserving of respect based on the way he was treated when he returned from the jungles of Vietnam. It fluffs up the story, put a little more meat on the bone.

Except, like so much of this story, it’s mostly a lie. Phillips was a marine. Thats true. Everything else is bull*censored*. He was a refrigerator mechanic, stationed in Topeka KS, Lincoln NB, and Southern California.  He never went outside the continental US. He went AWOL 3 times. After 4 years, he separated as a private. This is the military record of a *censored* up. By playing off vietnam veteran status, claiming to be a recon ranger(LOL), he’s engaging in stolen valor.

The whole stry is one massive lie by the media.

[TheDrake]

I think the thing about these teens is, they're children. If they aren't fully capable of expressing themselves clearly, or their ideas are not perfectly honed, then let's remember they are children. It is up to the adults to know better and not create a bad situation, or make one worse.

We can be thankful that situation didn't erupt into violence, I guess Anti-fa stayed home.

This seemed like it dragged on a long time. I would think the chaperones for the trip would have got students the heck out of there once the other group started to verbally assault them. Instead they think its a good idea to have them start chanting. It is possible they had nowhere to go, I found one report saying they were waiting on buses. I can still imagine there was somewhere else they could have moved to.

In general, I think it is probably a bad idea to have a school sanctioned protest field trip.

[yossarian22c]

I think the thing about these teens is, they're children. If they aren't fully capable of expressing themselves clearly, or their ideas are not perfectly honed, then let's remember they are children. It is up to the adults to know better and not create a bad situation, or make one worse.

I agree, and I think the media should stop making national stories out of "teen" says/does stupid offensive thing. Leave it up to the adults in their life to correct their behavior or simply growing up and figuring stuff out. I think the media should make a concerted effort not to escalate these stories from local/social media to national, the same way they now make a deliberate effort not to say the names of mass shooters. Teens are young and sometimes foolish, they need to be taught or simply allowed to mature, not shamed nationally in ways that can follow them for years to come.

[TheDeamon]

Also related to that, why did the popular media seem compelled to also always describe the Tribal Elder as "A Vietnam Veteran and Tribal Elder" as though they were trying to make confrontation also about the Elder's Veteran status? Particularly given it looked like he was in Tribal Regalia and likely wasn't wearing anything that most people would be able to use to identify him as a Veteran from Vietnam?

It’s a way to build more sympathy for Phillips, make him seem double plus deserving of respect based on the way he was treated when he returned from the jungles of Vietnam. It fluffs up the story, put a little more meat on the bone.

Except, like so much of this story, it’s mostly a lie. Phillips was a marine. Thats true. Everything else is bull*censored*. He was a refrigerator mechanic, stationed in Topeka KS, Lincoln NB, and Southern California.  He never went outside the continental US. He went AWOL 3 times. After 4 years, he separated as a private. This is the military record of a *censored* up. By playing off vietnam veteran status, claiming to be a recon ranger(LOL), he’s engaging in stolen valor.

The whole stry is one massive lie by the media.

Which would explain why NBC did NOT call him a Vietnam Veteran last night, conveniently dropping the matter and pretending there was nothing amiss. I considered it odd, but not worth commenting on, now I know why.

Although the quality of reporting being what it is, I wonder who made the Vietnam Veteran claim, he may have claimed veteran status(correct), and may have provided the time frame(also correct), but failed to mention the where. Which Vietnam Era vets should be more than aware of how easily people draw wrong conclusions from there, and be taking steps to prevent it.

[TheDrake]

In May of last year, the Catholic diocese ruled just hours before Holy Cross High School’s graduation that the openly gay valedictorian [Christian Bales] and the student council president could not give their planned speeches at the Covington school’s official graduation ceremony.

…

Bales, now 19 and a freshman at the University of Louisville, spoke to NBC News on Tuesday about last year’s incident and the recent viral video that has dragged Covington back into the national spotlight.

“I was not surprised at all,” Bales plainly told NBC News when asked for his reaction to last week’s D.C. confrontation. “It was only a matter of time that something this school community did would blow up to this degree, and I think they need to be held accountable.”
 
Bales claims Covington Catholic is “notorious for being a not-well-disciplined school,” and he described the Diocese of Covington as “archaic.”

So, Breitbart is up in arms over several points.

NBC News does not concede the fact that Bales submitted the speech late, instead framing it only as an allegation — an excuse from the diocese.
Nowhere does NBC News reveal that Bales’ speech was a Parkland-inspired diatribe about gun control.
And now we come to my favorite part….

Are you ready for this…

Seriously, because this is a wowser…

Christian Bales was not a student at Covington High School.
Christian Bales graduated from Holy Cross High School, a completely different high school.
If his speech had been approved, he would have given it at Holy Cross High School, not at Covington High School.
Holy Cross High is run by the same Catholic diocese as Covington High, but they are two completely different schools.
NBC News bombards the story with more than a dozen references to “Covington” but goes out of its way to obscure the fact Bales attended a completely different school…

So, huh. Let's break it down. Let's talk about which school he goes to first. The very first line says "Holy Cross High School's graduation". The Breitbart author seems to think this has been obscured. Both schools are run by the same people, they're not completely unrelated. The language is 100% unambiguous.

The bit about whether the speech was late amounts to a dispute - officials said it was late, the students said they were on time. This is in the original piece, NBC left it out according to this quote.

It seems they are making a big deal about him being gay, insinuating discrimination. But unless scores are fully publicized, wouldn't they have avoided making him valedictorian?

He didn't advocate for gun control, his original text only mentions that another student gave an address to honor the Parkland students lives.


So you can call the NBC piece misleading by omission and by insinuation.

Meanwhile the Breitbart piece badly mischaracterizes the speech material and I think goes a bit far about where he went to school, suggesting that makes it invalid to talk to him about what he thinks of the diocese.

[Fenring]

I don't in the slightest see the relevance between Bales' story and the incident this past weekend. It strikes me yet again of media outlets using children to achieve their ends. They are not only making up reality as they go along, but are dragging young people into the middle of it. These people are making Trump look like a boy scout. So what's the connection supposed to be, that because he's upset with the local Diocese (not the school!) he'll talk smack about their other school when it's convenient? Well of course he will, duh. And naturally the media will prey on it.

Incidentally, I read his fairly short banned speech, and it was fairly activist and charged in content. It was about how young people are going to "win" going forward, and the older generation better get ready to hear their voices and not be silenced. Now while this sentiment is not a terrible one, I also would agree that presenting a basically rebellious message at a Catholic high school is probably not appropriate to cap off what is supposed to be an academic graduation. Actually I sympathize with his rebellious attitude toward 'the powers that be'...but I can also understand a conservative school not wanting it to be thought that they endorse a message that basically says that young vs old is the next battle to be waged, and that the young will win. A valedictorian message is not supposed to be a personal activist screed, regardless of how well-reasoned it is.

But of course that's all beside the point. Even if he's correct that Covington Catholic is a disorganized school program...what has that got to do with anything? That the buses being late is the cause of all this? I guess that would be one way to look at things, and in terms of organizing logistics I guess we might agree that if a scheduling foul-up resulted in those kids standing around for a long time then that could be said to be partially to blame. However it's clear enough that any reporting on this is going to be focused about how the kids themselves are *guilty* and that they are the product of a bad school system. I highly doubt the purpose of such stories would be to paint the MAGA kids of being victims of school disorganization! I only watched maybe 10 min of the video, including the "drum sequence", but from my perspective the kids were actually well-behaved. So yeah, this is all manufactured garbage.

[TheDrake]

Incidentally, I read his fairly short banned speech, and it was fairly activist and charged in content. It was about how young people are going to "win" going forward, and the older generation better get ready to hear their voices and not be silenced.

Except that's a lot of what the diocese is about. Remember, they put their students on buses to have their voices heard. Most such speeches talk about the impact that the graduating class is going to have on the world, which generally includes social issues. Improving the environment, donating time to their communities or being active in non-profits.

The only real reason to call this guy up, and its not a strong connection, is to point out that the diocese selectively supports free speech by students based on what they are saying.

Mostly, I think they frantically cast around to find any warm body to talk to. Like when I saw Tom Clancy giving an interview on terrorism shortly after 9/11.

Of course, my school didn't even let us wear ballcaps regardless of the logo, but that was a different generation.

[D.W.]

Well-behaved?  Or "within norms"?  I might be willing to go so far as to say the latter, given the situation/environment.

[Fenring]

Well-behaved?  Or "within norms"?  I might be willing to go so far as to say the latter, given the situation/environment.

Well I guess it depends what we're talking about. Having worked with kids for years I can imagine many teenagers who would resort to outright trolling people in such a situation, amusing themselves because they're bored, and so forth. I didn't really see any of that in the video parts I watched. Although they were, in some sense, 'talking back' to both other parties present, it didn't seem to me to be going in the direction either of vitriol or trolling. For my part I'd call that above average, but you're right that I probably should not be suggesting that they were little angels either.

[Fenring]

Incidentally, I read his fairly short banned speech, and it was fairly activist and charged in content. It was about how young people are going to "win" going forward, and the older generation better get ready to hear their voices and not be silenced.

Except that's a lot of what the diocese is about. Remember, they put their students on buses to have their voices heard.

The diocese is about how young people are going to teach old people a lesson? I find that hard to believe. I'm not saying that such a speech shouldn't include anything about activism, especially if it involves the kind of activism the school actually engages in, like the March for Life. And also it seems to be the case that the diocese doesn't organize these excursions, but that the individual schools do. To what extent the diocese is involved with it at all is unclear, but I don't see direct evidence that the diocese is "about" activism.

Most such speeches talk about the impact that the graduating class is going to have on the world, which generally includes social issues. Improving the environment, donating time to their communities or being active in non-profits.

Well the claim made by the Diocese is that the content was not in keeping with their teaching, not that it included stuff about improving the world. Reading through it, there seemed to be some stuff that shouldn't have been any problem for them, so either the "young vs old" content, or the gun control sentiments, were considered to be not in keeping with their teaching. I can't be sure, but that's all I could surmise from looking at it. Still, the fact that "doing stuff for the community" may be normal valedictorian content, that doesn't mean that literally any type of comment about community life fits in with that. Assuming for the moment that it was the gun stuff and the old vs young stuff that bothered them, the argument would be that these are not sentiments that represent what the school wants its graduating class to take away with them. Taking it at face value I guess it makes sense; assuming we bypass the possibility that they silenced him simply because he's gay. I assume that this latter point is the implication being made by the press. Even if it's true that doesn't link it to the Covington Catholic incident intelligibly.

The only real reason to call this guy up, and its not a strong connection, is to point out that the diocese selectively supports free speech by students based on what they are saying.

I guess? But I bet you that any school would be just as selective about "free speech" as this one was, just about different topics. Do you think a liberal school would allow a student to get up and delivery a valedictory speech saying that abortion is evil?

Mostly, I think they frantically cast around to find any warm body to talk to. Like when I saw Tom Clancy giving an interview on terrorism shortly after 9/11.

And this is the optimistic interpretation. The cynical one is that they'll prey on anyone to get their fake story.

[Seriati]

TheDrake, I'm not sure I understand your complaint on this point.

In May of last year, the Catholic diocese ruled just hours before Holy Cross High School’s graduation that the openly gay valedictorian [Christian Bales] and the student council president could not give their planned speeches at the Covington school’s official graduation ceremony.

That seems deliberately drafted to mislead a reader into believing that Christian Bales was supposed to be a speaker at the Covington school that is currently nationally relevant, while being able to point back later at the literal truth as a defense against the intended take away.

That's a blatant example of intentional media manipulation

And what did Breitbart's say?

Are you ready for this…

Seriously, because this is a wowser…

Christian Bales was not a student at Covington High School.
Christian Bales graduated from Holy Cross High School, a completely different high school.
If his speech had been approved, he would have given it at Holy Cross High School, not at Covington High School.
Holy Cross High is run by the same Catholic diocese as Covington High, but they are two completely different schools.
NBC News bombards the story with more than a dozen references to “Covington” but goes out of its way to obscure the fact Bales attended a completely different school…

I think you'll note that Brietbart's statement is every bit as literally true as the original article, and it's pointing out a deliberate crafting  of the first piece to create a misleading impression.

And to be clear, I "fell for it" when I first read it as well, because that was the intent of the drafting.

So, huh. Let's break it down. Let's talk about which school he goes to first. The very first line says "Holy Cross High School's graduation". The Breitbart author seems to think this has been obscured. Both schools are run by the same people, they're not completely unrelated. The language is 100% unambiguous.

That is such a weasel answer.  The language is both 100% "unambiguous" and 100% designed to be misleading.  There are plenty of statements that are literal truth and yet result in an intentional misunderstanding on the listener that presents a false claim being believed.

There is no chance that was not deliberately crafted to mislead.