Polish president knocks 'fake news' over wife's Trump handshake

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: veracity

IMO, it is not a "far stretch" at all. He was representing them in that tweet due to his employ there and the twitter handle he chose to use for that tweet. In effect, it was CNN tweeting that story, in a legal sense.

Whether he is a "crackhead" for doing that is not for me to say. It sure is not smart, if done unintentionally. And really irresponsible if done intentionally to push a narrative that demeans the President by propagating a half-truth pre-edited video. As a reporter, there should be some expectation that due diligence be done regarding their sources before reporting something publicly using their employers name. Otherwise, they should not be employed as a representative of a news organization.

What about trump tweets about Obama taping him and the tweeting out of context being mean to the London Mayor after bridge attack ?

That was essentially ...fake news, right?

www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: veracity

IMO, it is not a "far stretch" at all. He was representing them in that tweet due to his employ there and the twitter handle he chose to use for that tweet. In effect, it was CNN tweeting that story, in a legal sense.

Whether he is a "crackhead" for doing that is not for me to say. It sure is not smart, if done unintentionally. And really irresponsible if done intentionally to push a narrative that demeans the President by propagating a half-truth pre-edited video. As a reporter, there should be some expectation that due diligence be done regarding their sources before reporting something publicly using their employers name. Otherwise, they should not be employed as a representative of a news organization.

What about trump tweets about Obama taping him and the tweeting out of context being mean to the London Mayor after bridge attack ?

That was essentially ...fake news, right?

www.cnn.com...

That is irrelevant and orthogonal to this conversation, now isn't it? That could be construed as trying to deflect the conversation.......

a reply to: veracity
Completely agree. It was stupid and irresponsible to have tweeted under his employers name and the omg was childish

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: veracity

IMO, it is not a "far stretch" at all. He was representing them in that tweet due to his employ there and the twitter handle he chose to use for that tweet. In effect, it was CNN tweeting that story, in a legal sense.

Whether he is a "crackhead" for doing that is not for me to say. It sure is not smart, if done unintentionally. And really irresponsible if done intentionally to push a narrative that demeans the President by propagating a half-truth pre-edited video. As a reporter, there should be some expectation that due diligence be done regarding their sources before reporting something publicly using their employers name. Otherwise, they should not be employed as a representative of a news organization.

What about trump tweets about Obama taping him and the tweeting out of context being mean to the London Mayor after bridge attack ?

That was essentially ...fake news, right?

www.cnn.com...

That is irrelevant and orthogonal to this conversation, now isn't it? That could be construed as trying to deflect the conversation.......

its not irrelevant bc they are both lies that were tweeted

to quote you about the reporter: "there should be some expectation that due diligence be done regarding their sources before reporting something publicly using their employers name. Otherwise, they should not be employed as a representative of a news organization"

and also...by your standards...President Trump...who also tweeted fake news should not be "employed" as president of my country.

Personally, i think President of a country is more powerful than a CNN reporter and therefor the consequences should be more.

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: veracity

IMO, it is not a "far stretch" at all. He was representing them in that tweet due to his employ there and the twitter handle he chose to use for that tweet. In effect, it was CNN tweeting that story, in a legal sense.

Whether he is a "crackhead" for doing that is not for me to say. It sure is not smart, if done unintentionally. And really irresponsible if done intentionally to push a narrative that demeans the President by propagating a half-truth pre-edited video. As a reporter, there should be some expectation that due diligence be done regarding their sources before reporting something publicly using their employers name. Otherwise, they should not be employed as a representative of a news organization.

What about trump tweets about Obama taping him and the tweeting out of context being mean to the London Mayor after bridge attack ?

That was essentially ...fake news, right?

www.cnn.com...

That is irrelevant and orthogonal to this conversation, now isn't it? That could be construed as trying to deflect the conversation.......

its not irrelevant bc they are both lies that were tweeted

I beg to differ. It is a false equivalency argument. An attempt to merely defray any negative implications toward another situation. Again, it is a form of deflection, and I was hoping better of you.

Sad really.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: veracity

IMO, it is not a "far stretch" at all. He was representing them in that tweet due to his employ there and the twitter handle he chose to use for that tweet. In effect, it was CNN tweeting that story, in a legal sense.

Whether he is a "crackhead" for doing that is not for me to say. It sure is not smart, if done unintentionally. And really irresponsible if done intentionally to push a narrative that demeans the President by propagating a half-truth pre-edited video. As a reporter, there should be some expectation that due diligence be done regarding their sources before reporting something publicly using their employers name. Otherwise, they should not be employed as a representative of a news organization.

What about trump tweets about Obama taping him and the tweeting out of context being mean to the London Mayor after bridge attack ?

That was essentially ...fake news, right?

www.cnn.com...

That is irrelevant and orthogonal to this conversation, now isn't it? That could be construed as trying to deflect the conversation.......

its not irrelevant bc they are both lies that were tweeted

I beg to differ. It is a false equivalency argument. An attempt to merely defray any negative implications toward another situation. Again, it is a form of deflection, and I was hoping better of you.

Sad really.

its exactly the same...both tweeted fake news, except you cannot find any fault in don bc you are brainwashed.

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: veracity

IMO, it is not a "far stretch" at all. He was representing them in that tweet due to his employ there and the twitter handle he chose to use for that tweet. In effect, it was CNN tweeting that story, in a legal sense.

Whether he is a "crackhead" for doing that is not for me to say. It sure is not smart, if done unintentionally. And really irresponsible if done intentionally to push a narrative that demeans the President by propagating a half-truth pre-edited video. As a reporter, there should be some expectation that due diligence be done regarding their sources before reporting something publicly using their employers name. Otherwise, they should not be employed as a representative of a news organization.

What about trump tweets about Obama taping him and the tweeting out of context being mean to the London Mayor after bridge attack ?

That was essentially ...fake news, right?

www.cnn.com...

That is irrelevant and orthogonal to this conversation, now isn't it? That could be construed as trying to deflect the conversation.......

its not irrelevant bc they are both lies that were tweeted

I beg to differ. It is a false equivalency argument. An attempt to merely defray any negative implications toward another situation. Again, it is a form of deflection, and I was hoping better of you.

Sad really.

its exactly the same...both tweeted fake news, except you cannot find any fault in don bc you are brainwashed.

One person, the reporter, is hired to present news, facts, and gets paid to do so.

The other, not so much.

As for your accusation of my reasoning, you fail yet again.

I am not a registered Republican, nor did I vote or Donald Trump. However, that too is totally irrelevant to this conversation. So, more deflection on your part.

Keep it up, you are demonstrating the liberal mindset that admitting fault within your own "tribe" is something that is totally foreign a concept. Once you realize this is one of the reasons most of the political elections resulted in Democrats losing seats, you will be in a place to rectify that.

Until then, admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

I wish you luck....I really do.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
I am now waiting to see if CNN also attack the Polish President for putting journalists at risk...

We can always photo shop Ivan Putski's head onto the Polish President and let him and Trump tag team CNN.

I remember him!Polish Power!lol

has this been mentioned in that last 20 pages?.....the polish leader has complete control over the polish media, he now has no problem with the media

The video wasn't edited. It was cut short of showing she in fact did shake Trump's hand. I never took it to mean she refused to shake his hand. Admittedly I did not read any articles telling me how to interpret the tweet, and I wouldn't be surprised if those did emphasize the act as some sort of women's stand against Trump or some such horse manure. But it is still a funny clip to see the president have an awkward moment! It's not OMGOMGOMGOMG funny to me, but I don't have a senpai infatuation with Trump. I'm not one to defend CNN but that tweet alone is innocent. It's the idiot leftist with no expectation of journalistic integrity that pushed it to the level of 'fake news'. That said, Duda isn't wrong. He saw it first hand standing next to Trump in a press conference.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: veracity

IMO, it is not a "far stretch" at all. He was representing them in that tweet due to his employ there and the twitter handle he chose to use for that tweet. In effect, it was CNN tweeting that story, in a legal sense.

Whether he is a "crackhead" for doing that is not for me to say. It sure is not smart, if done unintentionally. And really irresponsible if done intentionally to push a narrative that demeans the President by propagating a half-truth pre-edited video. As a reporter, there should be some expectation that due diligence be done regarding their sources before reporting something publicly using their employers name. Otherwise, they should not be employed as a representative of a news organization.

What about trump tweets about Obama taping him and the tweeting out of context being mean to the London Mayor after bridge attack ?

That was essentially ...fake news, right?

www.cnn.com...

That is irrelevant and orthogonal to this conversation, now isn't it? That could be construed as trying to deflect the conversation.......

its not irrelevant bc they are both lies that were tweeted

I beg to differ. It is a false equivalency argument. An attempt to merely defray any negative implications toward another situation. Again, it is a form of deflection, and I was hoping better of you.

Sad really.

its exactly the same...both tweeted fake news, except you cannot find any fault in don bc you are brainwashed.

One person, the reporter, is hired to present news, facts, and gets paid to do so.

The other, not so much.

As for your accusation of my reasoning, you fail yet again.

I am not a registered Republican, nor did I vote or Donald Trump. However, that too is totally irrelevant to this conversation. So, more deflection on your part.

Keep it up, you are demonstrating the liberal mindset that admitting fault within your own "tribe" is something that is totally foreign a concept. Once you realize this is one of the reasons most of the political elections resulted in Democrats losing seats, you will be in a place to rectify that.

Until then, admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

I wish you luck....I really do.

I would say our presidents job is to give us news.

Look, my point is...both tweeted before they thought, both are idiots. However, a nobody CNN reporter is ok to be an idiot, nothing he has no means to wreck my life. The President of the United States shouldnt be an idiot. He can make decisions to wreck my life, everyone's life. And he reminds us that he is an idiot...over ....and over...and over...again.

Freaking out over this stupid little tweet is over-reacting. This is NOT melt-down material. However, if the president of the united states tweets fake news...pretty serious.

a reply to: veracity


The role of a news reporter is to "give us news". And, for the record, the role of the President of the United States is NOT to "give us news", it is to run the country and engage in foreign policy to protect the nation and its citizens. News has nothing to do with that role, wow....you are deluded and misinformed aren't you?

I do think that is the most ridiculous statement I've have seen here at ATS in a long time.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: veracity


The role of a news reporter is to "give us news". And, for the record, the role of the President of the United States is NOT to "give us news", it is to run the country and engage in foreign policy to protect the nation and its citizens. News has nothing to do with that role, wow....you are deluded and misinformed aren't you?

I do think that is the most ridiculous statement I've have seen here at ATS in a long time.

The role of the media is to give us news, not push false narratives and propaganda

Poland's first lady shook his hand, Duda Duda

CNN pushes more fake news, all the Duda day.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: veracity


The role of a news reporter is to "give us news". And, for the record, the role of the President of the United States is NOT to "give us news", it is to run the country and engage in foreign policy to protect the nation and its citizens. News has nothing to do with that role, wow....you are deluded and misinformed aren't you?

I do think that is the most ridiculous statement I've have seen here at ATS in a long time.

I know it is not the case with the current president, but the role of the president is to make sound and factual news, comments, whatever you want to split hairs and call it...what the president says creates news. So what he said should most likely not be straight up belligerent faux news.

Drumpf is getting by with this bc it's unprecedented and quite frankly, I don't think anyone really knows how to handle his belligerence but you my dear and all the other brainwashed trumpeters can twist, cherry-pick and deflect all you want. And I will point it out and laugh whenever I can 👍🏾

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: veracity


The role of a news reporter is to "give us news". And, for the record, the role of the President of the United States is NOT to "give us news", it is to run the country and engage in foreign policy to protect the nation and its citizens. News has nothing to do with that role, wow....you are deluded and misinformed aren't you?

I do think that is the most ridiculous statement I've have seen here at ATS in a long time.

I know it is not the case with the current president, but the role of the president is to make sound and factual news, comments, whatever you want to split hairs and call it...what the president says creates news. So what he said should most likely not be straight up belligerent faux news.

Drumpf is getting by with this bc it's unprecedented and quite frankly, I don't think anyone really knows how to handle his belligerence but you my dear and all the other brainwashed trumpeters can twist, cherry-pick and deflect all you want. And I will point it out and laugh whenever I can 👍🏾

And the next arrow from the liberal quiver comes out, name calling.

How predictable you lot are.

For your information, and education, I am not a registered Republican, nor did I vote for Donald Trump in the last election. However, you still seem misguided about the real role of the President of the United States. It is not to, as you say, "the role of the president is to make sound and factual news". It is to make decisions and recommend policy based upon the platform which he ran under in order to manage the United States and keep its citizens secure.

Calling him, and me derogatory names is a cheap tactic in a failed attempt to discredit he and I. Too bad you cannot debate the actual issue and need to resort to these slimy tactics.

Sad really.

originally posted by: veracity
its exactly the same...both tweeted fake news, except you cannot find any fault in don bc you are brainwashed.

Says the person typing in Twitter speak.

originally posted by: JAY1980

originally posted by: veracity
its exactly the same...both tweeted fake news, except you cannot find any fault in don bc you are brainwashed.

Says the person typing in Twitter speak.

lofl, what?

Look, i dont know what you are talking about, i dont have a twitter account.

Is this a jab at me?

cause if so, WTF?

a reply to: introvert

Look it up.... You have Google. Demanding something that the president of Poland directly spoke out about. Confused.

Regarding the nonsense in the first pages (mainly introvert's bs attempts at deflection);

Said tweet from Chris Cillizza CNN journalist: Tweet
Obviously cutting out the full part where they did in fact shake hands, the OMGOMGOMG clearly imply his amusement to witness Trump getting "snubbed".
Uncut video

I find it funny how the crux of your argument is that you cannot prove "intent" over OMGOMGOMG.

Regardless, the excited tweet obviously made an uproar in a media battlefield where everyone wants a shot at trump.
A simple google search
A few truthful and non-misleading headlines (not really);

The First Lady of Poland Smoothly Avoided Shaking Donald Trump’s Hand

Poland's First Lady, Agata Kornhauser-Duda, declined to shake President Trump's hand

Donald Trump has suffered another embarrassing handshake moment after being 'snubbed' by the wife of Poland's president.

WATCH: Polish president's wife SNUBS Donald Trump

The First Lady of Poland appeared to snub Trump for a handshake

...

So is that the tactic now? Having individual journalists going mental over the tiniest of things, causing a wave of bs with other news organizations too, then when the gig is up casually say there was no intent and it's our own fake news? Lol.

And you guys wonder why the pendulum swings to the opposite direction of you? The average joe is sick of your lies to the point of mockery. You're outing yourself as a joke, willingly, to defend a false narrative of CNN journalists being innocent of all guilt.
Pathetic attempt actually and it won't help. I suggest cheering up, you've got about another 8 years left, more if you continue down this path.