Bonespurs OP ED in USA Today

[ZiprHead]

Here's the OP ED.

Here's WaPo's Fact Check.

President Trump wrote an opinion article for USA Today on Oct. 10 regarding proposals to expand Medicare to all Americans — known as Medicare-for-All — in which almost every sentence contained a misleading statement or a falsehood.

Here's my surprised face.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It just doesn't seem to matter. Alternative facts is the new normal. He can say anything and get away with it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Doesn’t USA Today have journalistic standards? They don’t fact check what what people write before they print the article?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Doesn’t USA Today have journalistic standards? They don’t fact check what what people write before they print the article?

They were hoping someone other than hotels and McDonalds would buy a copy, and when I say "buy" I mean actually pay for it, not free distribution in hopes that advertisers believe people read their ads in it.

 

[phands]

There is no way the tangerine shitgibbon wrote that. It is far too long for his attention span, has grammatical structure, even if wall-to-wall lies are the content, and has more different words than he knows.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Doesn’t USA Today have journalistic standards? They don’t fact check what what people write before they print the article?

For op-eds? No. They fact check what their journalists write, and hopefully anything written by journalists outside their organization that they reprint. But "fact-checking" an opinion piece would only lead to charges of censorship.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Doesn’t USA Today have journalistic standards? They don’t fact check what what people write before they print the article?

For op-eds? No. They fact check what their journalists write, and hopefully anything written by journalists outside their organization that they reprint. But "fact-checking" an opinion piece would only lead to charges of censorship.

No. There's a vast and unbridgeable gulf between censoring opinions and not allowing people to use their paper to write outright lies. When opinion pieces include easily verifiable claims the verification discovers that they're false, they can't fall back on the claim "Well, that's just somebody's opinion and we're not judging" and still refer to themselves as a newspaper because they printed it in Section A instead of Section B.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Doesn’t USA Today have journalistic standards? They don’t fact check what what people write before they print the article?

For op-eds? No. They fact check what their journalists write, and hopefully anything written by journalists outside their organization that they reprint. But "fact-checking" an opinion piece would only lead to charges of censorship.

The editor can modify an Op-Ed if they want.

 

[Elixir]

Doesn’t USA Today have journalistic standards? They don’t fact check what what people write before they print the article?

For op-eds? No. They fact check what their journalists write, and hopefully anything written by journalists outside their organization that they reprint. But "fact-checking" an opinion piece would only lead to charges of censorship.

The editor can modify an Op-Ed if they want.

So maybe the editor wrote that compendium of lies?

 

[ZiprHead]

Doesn’t USA Today have journalistic standards? They don’t fact check what what people write before they print the article?

There is actually some questioning of that.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/10/media/usa-today-donald-trump-op-ed/index.html

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Doesn’t USA Today have journalistic standards? They don’t fact check what what people write before they print the article?

There is actually some questioning of that.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/10/media/usa-today-donald-trump-op-ed/index.html

Some as in most of the media, with the exception of Fox News who kind of ignored it existed... as it does with things that are embarrassing to Trump.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You know, we do give Trump a bunch of trouble for all of his stupidity and tricks and hate, but we must give him his due. He wrote this in the first person.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You know, we do give Trump a bunch of trouble for all of his stupidity and tricks and hate, but we must give him his due. He wrote this in the first person.

So, your claim is that Trump not only knows what the word "eviscerate" means but also used "likewise" correctly in a sentence? I have trouble accepting the validity of that clam.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's the worst part of the article:

Donald J. Trump is the president of the United States

That's some scary shit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You know, we do give Trump a bunch of trouble for all of his stupidity and tricks and hate, but we must give him his due. He wrote this in the first person.

So, your claim is that Trump not only knows what the word "eviscerate" means but also used "likewise" correctly in a sentence? I have trouble accepting the validity of that clam.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's the worst part of the article:

Donald J. Trump is the president of the United States

That's some scary shit.

Fine, someone else wrote it in his likeliness, but it was still noted as being from the Oval Office, which in the Trump Dictionary, that is about as honest as he gets.

 

[RavenSky]

You know, we do give Trump a bunch of trouble for all of his stupidity and tricks and hate, but we must give him his due. He wrote this in the first person.

He didn't write it.

 

[untermensche]

The for-profit corporate system is the entire problem.

Damn right we want to demolish that primitive monstrosity that does nothing but suck money out of the health care system and give it to assholes.