• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Size Envy: A Sad Sad Story

Here is a timelapse of the minimal "crowd" at the inauguration. So small they could call it an unauguration.

 
Well, the folks that went to the inauguration (these most ardent Trump supporters) must have gotten a sense of the size of the crowd they were in and then compared that to Spicer's comments. They must have, right? Are they literally denying their eyes? When you walk into a porta-potty and even it isn't full of shit, surely something must click! Porta-potty don't lie.
 
Elixir said:
Here is a timelapse of the minimal "crowd" at the inauguration. So small they could call it an unauguration.

Click to expand...


Wow, that is so amazing. I'm in awe. I see the error of my belief that Trump is not as popular as he thinks. I've never seen so much of humanity come together at once. This must be a defining moment in human history.
 
I think that the only answer is for the press to just stop showing up. Could be interesting.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
repoman said:
I think that the only answer is for the press to just stop showing up. Could be interesting.
Click to expand...

Right because not having press ask questions has always worked out well.
Click to expand...

Loren Pechtel said:
repoman said:
I think that the only answer is for the press to just stop showing up. Could be interesting.
Click to expand...

That would just encourage more dirty deeds.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. I've been reading some articles from journalists themselves who had said that boycotting the spoon-fed lies in favor of genuine investigative journalism would be a good thing for the American public with this administration.
 
RavenSky said:
Maybe, maybe not. I've been reading some articles from journalists themselves who had said that boycotting the spoon-fed lies in favor of genuine investigative journalism would be a good thing for the American public with this administration.
Click to expand...

This morning at least one outlet was proclaiming that news agencies were beefing up their investigative units... They seem to have no other choice unless they want to unthinkingly lap up and repeat the "alternative facts" fabricated by the Trump regime.
 
Elixir said:
RavenSky said:
Maybe, maybe not. I've been reading some articles from journalists themselves who had said that boycotting the spoon-fed lies in favor of genuine investigative journalism would be a good thing for the American public with this administration.
Click to expand...

This morning at least one outlet was proclaiming that news agencies were beefing up their investigative units... They seem to have no other choice unless they want to unthinkingly lap up and repeat the "alternative facts" fabricated by the Trump regime.
Click to expand...

Is there much investigative journalism in the USA?
 
whichphilosophy said:
Elixir said:
This morning at least one outlet was proclaiming that news agencies were beefing up their investigative units... They seem to have no other choice unless they want to unthinkingly lap up and repeat the "alternative facts" fabricated by the Trump regime.
Click to expand...

Is there much investigative journalism in the USA?
Click to expand...

Stupid question. Define "much" and "investigative".
However "much" there is now, I believe there will soon be more. Most outlets are well aware that they will have to find things out for themselves from now on because anything coming out of Trump or his parrots can reliably be taken as lies unless supported by investigation.
 
repoman said:
I think that the only answer is for the press to just stop showing up. Could be interesting.
Click to expand...

I won't be watching any more interviews with Kelleyanne Conway after Sunday's Meet the Press. Chuck Todd kept going after her to answer why they had Sean Spicer make patently false statements on his first briefing. It was like trying to grab hold of a catfish. It's getting old very fast and the press will soon lose their willingness to play nice because they're being made to play the fool.
 
Elixir said:
whichphilosophy said:
Is there much investigative journalism in the USA?
Click to expand...

Stupid question. Define "much" and "investigative".
However "much" there is now, I believe there will soon be more. Most outlets are well aware that they will have to find things out for themselves from now on because anything coming out of Trump or his parrots can reliably be taken as lies unless supported by investigation.
Click to expand...

Here we go:
The investigator will examine the date in detail the structure of the given data and tries to find patterns and relationships between parts of the data, That is to say he produces a sequence of events that lead to a conclusion and can be show to do so.
He can then remove false information and dead ended lines of investigation and pursue roads which lead to a conclusion.
The formulation of a conclusion can include time of the event, length of the event, how the events took place and locations. There can be forensic evidence, unaltered recordings, documents, photos and sometimes reliable witnesses

Much = a large amount, to a great extent
Let me put it into a sentence
The CIA produced a report on the Russian hacking but clearly did not do much investigation on it because it could not show how the stated hacking was traced from the source to the American public and somehow influenced them (or could have) influence the outcome.
Another sentence:
The CIA and the Washington Post reporters face a common difficulty in carrying out investigative research because they are both unable to find a hooker in a whorehouse.


It seems that if you total the Inauguration figures from 2009, 2013 and 2017 which includes TV and live streaming then Trumps viewing are down from 2009 but up from 2013

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/2017-inauguration-viewership-up-from-2013-down-from-2009/317887

2017 Inauguration Ratings Up From 2013; Down From 2009

Finally, according to Nielsen data, a total of 30.64 million people watched Donald Trump’s inauguration across 12 networks who aired live coverage from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET. That’s +49 percent growth from 2013, but -19 percent from 2009.

20.55 million people tuned in to watch President Obama’s second inauguration on TV on Monday, Jan. 21, 2013. While coverage varied by network that day, 18 networks aired live coverage from approximately 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET.



The Elephant in the room is that TV network viewing is far in excess of persons turning up.

There is a breakdown of the figures.
 
Last edited:
whichphilosophy said:
The Elephant in the room is that TV network viewing is far in excess of persons turning up.
Click to expand...


The elephant in the room - which everyone can see - is that Spicer claimed Trump's inauguration crowd was the biggest ever and broke all records.

This is what most normal people would call a "lie."

Of course most normal people aren't fooled by this sort of thing (or fall for being hooked up to an "e-meter" for self improvement) but apparently accepting bullshit is becoming the new normal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom