"Alternative Facts"

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What picture do you think I was talking about when I said "doubling from shaky cam" and mentioning the speaker scaffolding? Holy crap dude, actually read the posts before you just barf something out.

The first three in context of when I made the original post to you?

 

That's the one with the speaker scalings

[VCR_CAT]

The first three in context of when I made the original post to you?

 

That's the one with the speaker scalings

 

 

 

As well, 2D images have a poor sense of depth (compare the CNN shot to the other shot you just posted; how close to the scaffolding towers holding the speakers are in comparison to each other in either photo) and you'll see that a different angle of perspective can really change how something can look.

 

What does this mean to you? Again, did you even read my post?

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Yall mother funkers ready for some arts and crafts?

 

[spoiler=aerial shot]

 

 

 

[spoiler=forced perspective is a hell of a drug]

 

 

 

Unfortunately, I ran out of straws to cut up, so I don't have quite as many "people" and my phone lacks an optical zoom so I can't funk with the FOV quite like the original photographer did. Even so, the effect achieved is abundantly clear. As VCR has said, it is a matter of forced perspective.

[Wahrheit]

That's probably the most effort anyone has ever put into a YCM post. You probably deserve an award.

[vla1ne]

“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, around the globe,”

there we go. now Spicer's telling the truth. happy everybody?

[Wahrheit]

That depends on your definition of witness, but it also wasn't what he said. The point is he lied. I know you conservatives are big fans of "alternative facts," but that's just not what happened.

[vla1ne]

That depends on your definition of witness, but it also wasn't what he said. The point is he lied. I know you conservatives are big fans of "alternative facts," but that's just not what happened.

which is why i corrected his words. he was half wrong/alt-right, so i cut out the wrong part. you seem to hate giving the benefit of the doubt to those you do not like, so i removed the doubt, and left the benefit.

 

also, i define witness as somebody who took the time to watch any respectable margin of trump's inauguration (10-12 minutes is a decent portion as far as i'm concerned, people have lives, can't all be glued to the computer/TV/ going in person).

[Tentacruel]

You guys actually arguing about this sheet?  It doesn't even matter.

 

Obama's election was prolific.  The amount of hype behind him was unreal, of course there wasn't as many people. 

 

This is petty hyper-partisan whining.

[a bad post]

which is why i corrected his words. he was half wrong/alt-right, so i cut out the wrong part. you seem to hate giving the benefit of the doubt to those you do not like, so i removed the doubt, and left the benefit.

 

also, i define witness as somebody who took the time to watch any respectable margin of trump's inauguration (10-12 minutes is a decent portion as far as i'm concerned, people have lives, can't all be glued to the computer/TV/ going in person).

You really don't seem to get it, do you? The problem is it is literally an unimportant minute little fact that he lied about when he didn't have to. If the administration is willing to lie about something this small then what are we to expect in the future when it comes to things that actually matter. That's the problem the precedent this sets.

 

Vice Versa, it really ate into the coverage of the Woman's March

Freedom of the Press does not imply freedom to lie VCR, holy s***. Anyway Chavez is a user on YCM that you addressed. 

 

 

Is this a better shot for you?

 

Kellyanne was wrong, Spicer was wrong, Media was wrong, I was right, there were a s*** ton of people there.

 

Trump isn't going far enough though, he needs to bait the media into a high-profile slander case, then use that as a springboard to take this abomination out

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

 

We need some accountability in this industry finally, and for once the dems agree with me thanks to their recent fake news b****ing spree

Jesus for someone who wants to b**** constantly about the media lying you don't really seem all that enraged that Kellyanne and Spicer just want to lie their asses off do you?

 

You guys actually arguing about this s***?  It doesn't even matter.

 

Obama's election was prolific.  The amount of hype behind him was unreal, of course there wasn't as many people. 

 

This is petty hyper-partisan whining.

You literally do not have to come to this section. If this debate bothers you then ignore it.

[Wahrheit]

You guys actually arguing about this sheet?  It doesn't even matter.

 

Obama's election was prolific.  The amount of hype behind him was unreal, of course there wasn't as many people. 

 

This is petty hyper-partisan whining.

The White House blatantly lying and refusing reporter questions is, actually, "a big deal" and a strong departure from established norms.

[vla1ne]

You really don't seem to get it, do you? The problem is it is literally an unimportant minute little fact that he lied about when he didn't have to. If the administration is willing to lie about something this small then what are we to expect in the future when it comes to things that actually matter. That's the problem the precedent this sets.

 

 

You literally do not have to come to this section. If this debate bothers you then ignore it.

as for the part directed at me, i was having a bit of fun pointing out how small the issue is. as you said, it is a minute fact, basically three (four if you want to be technical) words of this basic sentence are what caused him to be wrong, had they not been there, he'd be correct all the way. yet look at what it sparks when he makes light of this tiny, in your own words, minute sentence. seems you're the one who does not get it. it is irrelevant that he was half wrong, this is literally a nitpick blown out of proportion.

 

winter can defend his own point as he likes, but personally, i see no reason for him to be outraged over it, considering the 'lie' was half true, and is closer to a mistake than an outright lie, and the only part of the statement getting any attention at all is the debatable false part. but we'll have the numbers to that soon enough, so i see no reason to argue. definitely smaller than 08 obama in person, but 2012? yeah, i too expect a win in presence for trump there.

 

as for the part directed at tentacruel, is he wrong? is this not whining? it is literally a thread dedicated to a mistake and a brush-off of said mistake. entire articles and broadcast news stories, about this minor issue. do you not find it to be petty?

[Flame Dragon]

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2017/nearly-31-million-americans-watch-president-donald-trumps-inauguration.html

 

Pretty sure no one has shared this, so I'll do it since I like numbers and it was brought up. Nielsen's website has Trump's inauguration is the 5th most watched. The ones ahead of him are

 

Reagan (1st term): 41.8 M

Obama (1st term): 37.8 M

Carter (1st/only): 34.1 M

Nixon (2nd term): 33.0 M

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

A communicative breakdown and a rough start for the Trump administration's press relations, to be sure.

 

I feel the semantics are important here in determining how this happened. Sean Spicer gave a false statement, I think it is safe to say that much. Whether it is a lie or not depends on whether the statement was intentionally false. If he knew his statement to be false, he is indeed lying to the press and should step down. If he didn't know his statements to be false, then he wasn't properly informed and is misinforming the press as a result. I wouldn't assume Spicer himself is responsible for approximating the crowd's size. He is there to be a mouthpiece, to iterate what is given to him to the press. I think it is reasonable to conclude that somebody funked up along the way of that message getting to Spicer, though I can't tell whether it was a rookie mistake or sabotage.  

 

Chuck Todd's question to Kellyanne Conway regarding Spicer was "Why did the President send out his Press Secretary-who's not just the spokesperson for Donald Trump, he also speaks for all of the country at times-why put him out there for the very first time, in front of that podium, to utter a provable falsehood." (This question has the problem of assuming Trump knowingly put Spicer out there to utter a provable statement when Trump is no more responsible for approximating the crowd numbers than Spicer.) 

 

A falsehood is a false statement, not necessarily a lie. It can be something that is incorrect. A fact however, has to be true.

 

Kellyanne Conway's response was initially to evade Todd's question. Todd called her on it and had to reiterate the question, putting Conway under pressure. In her answer, Conway stated "you're saying it's a falsehood, and they're giving-Sean Spicer, our Press Secretary-gave alternative facts to that."

 

Alternative facts means "other facts", which could include supplementary facts given by Spicer outside the press conference to explain what happened. That said, given the way Conway handled the question it looked like she cracked under pressure and misspoke. She garbles her speech when she says "they're giving-Sean Spicer our Press Secretary" and didn't appear prepared for the question.

 

tl;dr With regards to Spicer, people are shooting the messenger. Conway was played by a skilled interviewer in Todd whose job is to do that. Mistakes were made on multiple fronts. They'll have to regroup. 

[vla1ne]

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2017/nearly-31-million-americans-watch-president-donald-trumps-inauguration.html

 

Pretty sure no one has shared this, so I'll do it since I like numbers and it was brought up. Nielsen's website has Trump's inauguration is the 5th most watched. The ones ahead of him are

 

Reagan (1st term): 41.8 M

Obama (1st term): 37.8 M

Carter (1st/only): 34.1 M

Nixon (2nd term): 33.0 M

well, then, that's still not a bad record, to say the least. he's still wrong, but so far as attendance goes, making it to the spot of fifth most watched presidency in america, is still nothing to be ashamed of as president.

 

i find it somewhat funny that nixon got a more popular second term viewing, especially considering how his streak ended.

[Dad]

Spicer was the small part of the problem.

 

Conway is the big one.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2017/nearly-31-million-americans-watch-president-donald-trumps-inauguration.htmlPretty sure no one has shared this, so I'll do it since I like numbers and it was brought up. Nielsen's website has Trump's inauguration is the 5th most watched. The ones ahead of him areReagan (1st term): 41.8 MObama (1st term): 37.8 MCarter (1st/only): 34.1 MNixon (2nd term): 33.0 M

What about these numbers?

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN15600S?client=safari

 

I thought we were talking views not approval

Yall mother funkers ready for some arts and crafts?

[spoiler=aerial shot]

 

[spoiler=forced perspective is a hell of a drug]

Unfortunately, I ran out of straws to cut up, so I don't have quite as many "people" and my phone lacks an optical zoom so I can't funk with the FOV quite like the original photographer did. Even so, the effect achieved is abundantly clear. As VCR has said, it is a matter of forced perspective.

Jesus. Look at the damn picture. It's taken from the highrisen the senators are on. So while there would be a slight covering angle, it wouldn't be nearly as drastic as the one you've made out here

 

Yours was taken nearly at ground level with the lil green things and even then you can tell there's spaces. How are you suppose to hide 2-3 empty tarmats at a upward 70 degree angle

[vla1ne]

Spicer was the small part of the problem.

 

Conway is the big one.

her fluster does show that she's got a ways to go as a spokesperson of the party. can't let em stump you that easily. besides, the question itself was something that she honestly should have been prepared for. it's not like they weren't going to try and nail him on it, so it does make me wonder how she screwed up on such a simple shot. 

[Flame Dragon]

What about these numbers?

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN15600S?client=safari

 

I thought we were talking views not approval

Aren't those the exact same numbers I listed? Like, almost exactly? Not sure what your hoping to accomplish with that.

 

My overall point is this, Trump's TV views aren't anything special. When compared to the 7 previous President's 1st inaugurations 3 drew higher numbers on their first inauguration and 2 others had highly comparable numbers (30.6 vs 29, 29.7) and Nixon's first isn't that far off either at 27. The only one that had a noticeable gap for 1st term viewing is Bush Sr. at 23.3. Yes he has had 3rd highest views in the past 36 years (counting the 81' inauguration for Reagan), but if you go back to when the data was first being collected (because why stop at 81' Reagan) he is 5th.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Trump's total was greater than both swearing-ins of Democrat Bill Clinton - 29.7 million and 21.6 million - and the second inauguration of Obama, who drew an average audience of over 20.5 million in 2013, Nielsen said.


Again we were talking views, not rating

 

Flame is right, I only started looking post Reagan w/o realizing Nixon and Carter were up there

[ihop]

I'm not sure why this discussion places so much emphasis on the importance of a big attendance for Trump because that's not the point. Spicer literally stood in front of the press and said the attendance was "the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe", right after saying there was no way to quantify how big the crowds were. It's pretty non-negotiable based off all possible evidence that this isn't true, and it needs a pretty special level of denial to disagree with this, yet when pressed on it Conway's excuse was that Spicer was using "alternative facts", which is pretty much a lie.

 

The concerning thing is the precedent here. I don't really give a sheet about how many people watched Trump's inauguration, but what has happened here is that a Trump representative has claimed the truth was impossible to work out, immediately afterwards claimed his lie was the truth, and it was defended by another representative as "alternative facts" which is just a way of giving credibility to what is a lie. This might be ok when talking about something as banal as this, but there's a lot of pretty scary things one can say while claiming to be giving "alternative facts", and the fact that people are considering this to be ok worries me because it seems like a slippery slope to me.

[Flame Dragon]

Trump's total was greater than both swearing-ins of Democrat Bill Clinton - 29.7 million and 21.6 million - and the second inauguration of Obama, who drew an average audience of over 20.5 million in 2013, Nielsen said.

 

 

Again we were talking views, not rating

You are literally repeating what I said. I literally used that exact 29.7 number.

 

Of the past 13 inaugurates (the only ones we have data on) Trump is 5th. If you only look at 1st term inaugurations (any new incoming president will draw a large crowd than the second) he is 4th of 8 and both 5 and 6 have highly comparable numbers with 7 not that far behind. From a historic perspective the viewer count wasn't much different from most the first term ingratiations.

 

And I've never said anything about rating. At all. The data was in the link I gave, but I never brought it up. But since you brought it up. Trump is 9th in terms of ratings and only JUST edges out Bush Sr. by .1%.

 

And since I'm now talking about both views and ratings it is interesting to note that while Nixon's second inauguration had almost 6 million more views, the ratings share was down 5%. My guess is that different is due to more people owning TVs during the second inauguration.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You are literally repeating what I said. I literally used that exact 29.7 number.Of the past 13 inaugurates (the only ones we have data on) Trump is 5th. If you only look at 1st term inaugurations (any new incoming president will draw a large crowd than the second) he is 4th of 8 and both 5 and 6 have highly comparable numbers with 7 not that far behind. From a historic perspective the viewer count wasn't much different from most the first term ingratiations.And I've never said anything about rating. At all. The data was in the link I gave, but I never brought it up. But since you brought it up. Trump is 9th in terms of ratings and only JUST edges out Bush Sr. by .1%.And since I'm now talking about both views and ratings it is interesting to note that while Nixon's second inauguration had almost 6 million more views, the ratings share was down 5%. My guess is that different is due to more people owning TVs during the second inauguration.

I'm confused how you got 5th cause that website says Reagan and Obama 09 and 80 beat him

 

NVM I got it, Carter and and Nixon two beat him. Fair enough. My apologies 

 

 

I'm not sure why this discussion places so much emphasis on the importance of a big attendance for Trump because that's not the point. Spicer literally stood in front of the press and said the attendance was "the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe", right after saying there was no way to quantify how big the crowds were. It's pretty non-negotiable based off all possible evidence that this isn't true, and it needs a pretty special level of denial to disagree with this, yet when pressed on it Conway's excuse was that Spicer was using "alternative facts", which is pretty much a lie.

 

The concerning thing is the precedent here. I don't really give a sheet about how many people watched Trump's inauguration, but what has happened here is that a Trump representative has claimed the truth was impossible to work out, immediately afterwards claimed his lie was the truth, and it was defended by another representative as "alternative facts" which is just a way of giving credibility to what is a lie. This might be ok when talking about something as banal as this, but there's a lot of pretty scary things one can say while claiming to be giving "alternative facts", and the fact that people are considering this to be ok worries me because it seems like a slippery slope to me.

No it's not OK, but we've been living in a pretty post-truth reality for a while now. It's not abnormal. It's hard to find the silver line in spicer's comment, but he could be right on the world numbers. Remember 350 K pounds to the NHS?

 

Why do people care in general? Because the same media that said crowd sizes don't matter in the election are now using this as a way to delegitimize President Trump 

[Wahrheit]

I'm confused how you got 5th cause that website says Reagan and Obama 09 and 80 beat him

 

NVM I got it, Carter and and Nixon two beat him. Fair enough. My apologies 

 

 

No it's not OK, but we've been living in a pretty post-truth reality for a while now. It's not abnormal. It's hard to find the silver line in spicer's comment, but he could be right on the world numbers. Remember 350 K pounds to the NHS?

 

Why do people care in general? Because the same media that said crowd sizes don't matter in the election are now using this as a way to delegitimize President Trump 

Remember like every page of this thread where we said it wasn't about the crowd size, but the fact that Spicer lied? What crowd sizes mean is a different, less clear conversation.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Remember like every page of this thread where we said it wasn't about the crowd size, but the fact that Spicer lied? What crowd sizes mean is a different, less clear conversation.

Yeah, but you're not the media; CNN and MSNBC were the first ones to mock the crowd size. It's not ok that Spice lied, but it's understandable why he would have to

[Wahrheit]

Yeah, but you're not the media; CNN and MSNBC were the first ones to mock the crowd size. It's not ok that Spice lied, but it's understandable why he would have to

This is a new low.