Red
Well-Known Member
ok lets have a reasonable discusion then!
this "alternative facts" thing started because of the inauguration crowd right?!?!?
do you admit that cnn and others manipulated the video images to show the crowd from before the inauguration started?
"alternative facts" is wrongly used, because what cnn said was not fact, what trumpteam said is also not fact.
so reasonably can you see both sides are at fault? or ar eu just jumping on the anti trump bandwagon? there are reasonable grievances you can take with trump.
but cnn under-exegerate the crowd size. and trump exegerated.
you cant pick on one side in this battle. just call em BOTH OUT!
In this particular instance, no, I don't think the media misrepresented the size of Trump's crowd. I thought a decent analysis can be found here. As noted, the lower angle photos, not the aerial photos, will show a compression of the crowd, and may convey a denser crowd as a result, but I think it's explained better here:
https://www.chicagonow.com/dry-it-i...e-inauguration-crowd-size-and-why-it-matters/
I'm not sure if it's the above article, but I saw an estimate, based maybe on a poll, that 70-80% of Trump supporters believed Spicer, not the media. Which may have been the point, or reason, for slinging the BS by Spicer in the first place. The lie would have forced Trump supporters to chose between what Spicer said and what their eyes told them. The gamble being that most would side with Spicer and reinforce the belief that the mainstream media is "fake news". It also creates doubt over exactly what constitutes fact. If there was a method to the madness here, it may lie in that direction. Because, certainly, on the surface, it's absolutely inconsequential as to who had a bigger crowd.