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

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
This kind of attempt to jump on a story to report it (or retweet it, in this case) before the story has a chance to be corroborated is a symptom of this strange need to get digs in against the president. Yeah -- he's an easy target, and he makes himself an easy target, but that still does not make it right.

It's actually worse, the reporter said he knew the story was fake and knew she shook his hand but retweeted it anyways because he thought it was funny.

you are allowed to tweet or retweet things that you think are funny

I think it's OK for "@ChrisCillizza" -- as a person, and one who didn't work for CNN -- to think it's funny enough to retweet something that might know to be untrue (although many other people on that twet seemed to think she really did refuse to shake his hand)...

However, it's not OK for "@CillizzaCNN" to do so, tweeting under the CNN name. For a CNN reporter to use the CNN name in a tweet of a story he knows is untrue, but others think IS true, is reckless and poor judgement.

I mean really. Let's take President Trump out of the equation here. Let's say this is a tweet from a stupid "birther" and the tweet was a funny tweet about President Obama that questioned his country of Birth and included false information (and I'm sure some birther out there could have come up with a funny tweet about the birther argument). Would it be OK for "@JoeReporterFOXNews" to retweet the joke and the false information?

I for one would think it would be in poor judgement to do that, especially considering how outrageously dumb the whole birther dispute was.

I dislike President Trump, too. However, I'm not letting that dislike cloud my idea of fair and unfair, and what is good journalism and what is poor journalistic judgement.

This poor journalistic judgement should not get a pass because "it was about Trump, and it was funny". The bottom line is Chris Cillizza damaged the credibility of CNN by repeating (and using the CNN name to do so) a story that was untrue.

a reply to: UKTruth

What is CNN doing lately?! Wow. Maybe they figure they're too far gone and might as well go full bore after Kardashian-watcher types?

And the correspondent seemingly wetting his pants with excitement in his Twitter...tweet? I mean it's getting to the point where they're just pwning themselves constantly.

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
This kind of attempt to jump on a story to report it (or retweet it, in this case) before the story has a chance to be corroborated is a symptom of this strange need to get digs in against the president. Yeah -- he's an easy target, and he makes himself an easy target, but that still does not make it right.

It's actually worse, the reporter said he knew the story was fake and knew she shook his hand but retweeted it anyways because he thought it was funny.

you are allowed to tweet or retweet things that you think are funny

LMFAO!

Did you forget how the whole "meme war" started already.

I have literally read every post in this thread. I started reading it to see people's responses, then it became so damn laughable watching a few of the members squirm, deflect and obfuscate the entire premise. Now, it just saddens me. You guys actually vote.
You know how we're always pointing out stupid people in politics and asking how tf they stay in office? I know why now.

It's sad watching so many people actually deny reality.

a reply to: essentialtremors

What? Am I not right? I will stand by it...You are allowed to tweet & retweet funny things. Freedom of speech, right?

However, there is this thing called consequences but...I'm right

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: essentialtremors

What? Am I not right? I will stand by it...You are allowed to tweet & retweet funny things. Freedom of speech, right?

However, there is this thing called consequences but...I'm right

"Freedom of speech" in the first amendment only protects people from government laws against speaking freely -- i.e., it means that the government cannot make it unlawful to speak freely.

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

However, that does not make all free speech "a right" that it "can always be said without any consequence". For example, you would be allowed to shout me down so I'm not heard if I was saying something in a demonstration. There is no specific law stopping you from stopping me from speaking. If you don't like what I'm saying, you are free to stop me from being heard (stopping me in an otherwise lawful manner)

Another example would be if I said something that cast my employer in a bad light, my employer would have the right to fire me with cause. Granted, my right to free speech means that I cannot be arrested for my free speech, but it would be within my boss's rights to fire me.

And by that last example, I'm not saying that the CNN reporter should be fired by CNN -- I'm just making the point that "Freedom of Speech" only means that my free speech cannot get me arrested (i.e. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech")

So it's meaningless to bring up "Freedom of Speech" here. I'm not saying what this CNN reporter did was against the law; I said it showed bad journalistic judgement. I think there is a environment in the U.S. media now that encourages the media to analyze every single thing associated with this president, and throw the little thing out there for public consumption.

President Trump may be an easy target for stories criticizing his presidency (many of them rightfully so). However, it becomes a feeding frenzy in which the media tries to pile on -- and they end up stumbling over themselves, like this CNN reporter in the OP who repeated this story under the CNN name-- a story that turned out to be not only false, but intentionally fake.

No...it isn't against the law (Freedom of Speech and all that), but it is bad judgement for a journalist.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

so we are on the same page with this

We see one truly solid takeaway from the story of the day

always fake news...

The EU is launching a renovated and pointless campaign of fake news yet again! The absolute complete 100% defeat in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq has sent the whole Eurobozos into the theater of the absurd.

Any attempt is futile and will result in increased economical political and other damage against the EUROidiots.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

A CNN journalist retweeted a video that showed an edited video to make it look as though there was no handshake. The rather ridiculous 'OHMYGOD' schoolgirl tweet by a supposed journalist is obvious in it's intent.

And all he said was Ohmygod, over and over. That only implies shock, not intent on pushing a false narrative.

So, no, it's not my claim. CNN decided to spread this fake news and they have been caught once again.

Again, false. The Polish President does not reference CNN and CNN did not claim no handshake took place.

What exactly are you trying to prove here? You keep saying its no big deal, yet you contradict yourself repeatedly with nitpicking like this. Clearly, it's enough of a big deal that you feel the need to resort to semantics to perpetuate an argument for it.

If someone publishes an edited video clearly showing the wife passing over the offered hand of the POTUS and instead shakes his own wife's hand, and that someone captions the link to that deliberately edited footage with "OHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGOD", it's pretty obvious that the someone did it to garner maximum attention to that edited footage...which leaves out the rest of what actually transpired. It does not take much brain power to then realize that this was done deliberately to push a narrative in which the POTUS was being purposefully snubbed by the Polish first lady.

Why? Because without the rest of the footage, that's exactly what it looks like happened. And it looked that way to an awfully large number of people who took it as fact because it came from a news personality, with the CNN identifier attached to his name right there in bold font on his twitter page. He knew exactly what he was doing, and so do you.

The polish president doesn't have to mention CNN directly. Since the footage came out via a CNN personality, it doesn't need to be pointed out that it was CNN. And anyone who reposted it on other media outlets, and who also reported it as a factual occurrence, fit perfectly within his statement as well, so singling out CNN would serve no purpose other than stating what is already obvious to a great number of people.

If it's no big deal, then why are you scrambling so to defend it, to the point of pettiness? All that accomplishes is making yourself look like you think it's perfectly acceptable for things like this to get reported out. And if that's the case, my respect for you will take a significant nosedive, because I don't think that crap is acceptable no matter who the target happens to be.


I'm not a fan of Trump myself as a person, but I'm even less of a fan of big fat lying liars who do nothing but lie out of their lying liar holes, like the pendejo in question here. He represents his employer, very publicly, and if they weren't on board with his deception, they would have made that publicly clear...and as far as I can tell, they haven't.

He tweeted that footage so that he and his corrupt employer could start an ugly, childish rumor and bamboozle the American public into believing that one thing happened when it actually was only a cherry picked slice of the real story, period. He is a liar and an instigator, period. And so is his employer. Period. All the deflection in the world will not change those simple facts.

No worries about depopulation in Ukrain for Poland ... The only ones who have to pay for WW2 damages to Poland is Germany. That means the current German regime.