Btw. We will see if the WaPo starts "fact checking" Biden. I'm betting, no.This is the example of the Washington Post definition of Trump's "lie".
4/17/19 “Since we passed our historic tax cuts and reforms just over one year ago, wages are rising fast, and they’re rising most quickly for the lowest-income Americans.” WaPo "explanation": Wages grew at an annual rate of 3.2% in December, but wage growth was consistently higher before 2009. Still, Goldman Sachs found that for the first during an economic recovery that began in mid-2009 that the bottom half of earners are benefiting more than the top half. Whether that can be attributed to the tax cut is unclear.
You think Trump was telling the truth there?This is the example of the Washington Post definition of Trump's "lie".
4/17/19 “Since we passed our historic tax cuts and reforms just over one year ago, wages are rising fast, and they’re rising most quickly for the lowest-income Americans.” WaPo "explanation": Wages grew at an annual rate of 3.2% in December, but wage growth was consistently higher before 2009. Still, Goldman Sachs found that for the first during an economic recovery that began in mid-2009 that the bottom half of earners are benefiting more than the top half. Whether that can be attributed to the tax cut is unclear.
I think his argument is that it is inappropriate to call it a lie, since Trump never said it was caused directly by the tax cuts and since the Post can't prove it was or wasn't. It's at best an ambiguous or misleading statement.You think Trump was telling the truth there?
So in this case the jcpro himself came up with a false or misleading statement when said the WP called it a 'lie'.I think his argument is that it is inappropriate to call it a lie, since Trump never said it was caused directly by the tax cuts and since the Post can't prove it was or wasn't. It's at best an ambiguous or misleading statement.
I am not paying for a Post subscription, so I can't weigh in further on how they are classifying it. The headline includes "misleading" so it sounds like it would qualify, but opening things to "misleading" in that way expands the playing field a lot.
No. The GS agreed that the bottom benefited more, but were UNCERTAIN about the cause. That's nowhere approaching a lie. And I can give you tons of these examples. It's fucking partisanship masquerading as journalism. Neither will they "fact check" Biden nor did they "fact check" Obama and he told some whoppers. The assertion that Trump told 21 verifiable untruths per day is one of the reason the journalism of today has the level of trust afforded the used car salesmen.I think his argument is that it is inappropriate to call it a lie, since Trump never said it was caused directly by the tax cuts and since the Post can't prove it was or wasn't. It's at best an ambiguous or misleading statement.
I am not paying for a Post subscription, so I can't weigh in further on how they are classifying it. The headline includes "misleading" so it sounds like it would qualify, but opening things to "misleading" in that way expands the playing field a lot.
I see, so Trump lies 20 time a day and that means that journalism isn't trustworthy.No. The GS agreed that the bottom benefited more, but were UNCERTAIN about the cause. That's nowhere approaching a lie. And I can give you tons of these examples. It's fucking partisanship masquerading as journalism. Neither will they "fact check" Biden nor did they "fact check" Obama and he told some whoppers. The assertion that Trump told 21 verifiable untruths per day is one of the reason the journalism of today has the level of trust afforded the used car salesmen.
The media fact-checks all presidents...Trump brought dishonesty to another level.Btw. We will see if the WaPo starts "fact checking" Biden. I'm betting, no.
Like they did the debates, they caught Biden on a few misleading statements.The media fact-checks all presidents...Trump brought dishonesty to another level.