Fake news - iconic crying girl never separated from mom

southernbubby

Fri, Jun 22 2018, 3:04 pm

One reason that people are skeptical about Breitbart is the proliferation of conspiracy theories such as:

During the 2016 presidential election, Breitbart News promoted conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton and her staff, including the debunked[183][184][185] Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which alleged that high-ranking members of the Democratic Party were involved a child relations ring.[186] Roger Stone, an outside adviser to Trump's campaign and frequent promoter of fringe-right conspiracy theories, regularly publishes pieces in Breitbart.[187] A June 2016 Breitbart article presented Stone's conspiracy theory that Clinton aide Huma Abedin was involved with terrorism.[188] (Wikapedia)

33055

Fri, Jun 22 2018, 3:37 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

So, to summarize:

Over 2000 children have been separated from their parents or custodians at the border.

A photographer took a photo of a crying child at the border.

Media used the photo, but made clear in the accompanying articles that they don't know if the child was actually separated from her mother.

It turns out that she, unlike 2000 others, was not.

This demonstrates that the media lied, because they truthfully said that they didn't know if she was separated, but, well, its terrible that they actually said they didn't know, so its all fake news, and you can't trust them because they told the truth, but we don't really want to think that they told the truth and ... darn it, we just don't like them!

Sorry. I read articles about this girl being torn from her mother. Maybe they just copied the other articles. But right now, that picture is the lead picture in an article on children being united from forced separations.

Credit for this article is "By Associated Press and Dailymail.com Reporter". Shame on the Associated Press.

In case you think perhaps the paper and The Associated Press might not be aware of the truth, there is another article close by this one with the headline of the phoney story that reads the father said the girl was never separated.

amother

Mint

Fri, Jun 22 2018, 4:12 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Parents who are released from detention seem to be going to court to get their children released:

https://nypost.com/2018/06/22/.....nter/

I would have thought that release for the parent automatically meant release for the children but apparently not. Any explanations for this?

https://www.reuters.com/articl.....JF39I

southernbubby

Fri, Jun 22 2018, 4:28 pm

amother wrote:

Every person is entitled to due process.

But getting the child free is a separate process from getting the parent free and one doesn't necessarily guarantee the other and it could take time even if there is an eventual guarantee.

Laiya

Fri, Jun 22 2018, 4:33 pm

amother wrote:

I'm waiting for the retractions. Any minute now...

I was going to say that they wouldn't retract; they would claim that the essence of the story is true, or could have been true, yadda yadda.

And then I read Time's statement, which pretty much says exactly that.

Fox

Fri, Jun 22 2018, 4:35 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

So, to summarize:

Over 2000 children have been separated from their parents or custodians at the border.

A photographer took a photo of a crying child at the border.

Media used the photo, but made clear in the accompanying articles that they don't know if the child was actually separated from her mother.

It turns out that she, unlike 2000 others, was not.

This demonstrates that the media lied, because they
No, to summarize, the media used atruthfully said that they didn't know if she was separated, but, well, its terrible that they actually said they didn't know, so its all fake news, and you can't trust them because they told the truth, but we don't really want to think that they told the truth and ... darn it, we just don't like them!

No, to summarize, the MSM ran a picture of a child whom everyone agrees wasn't separated to illustrate endless histrionic essays about how upset they are and how awful they find Trump. No new or illuminating information. No active reporting. Just more sobbing children and sobbing journalists. And there seem to be more sobbing journalists than sobbing children at this point.

Out of 2000+ children separated, they couldn't find a single picture of a child who'd actually been separated? So they ran another child's picture, admitted that it was "illustrative" and headed off to Starbuck's.

Illustrate your essays any way you want; just don't call it journalism.

southernbubby

Fri, Jun 22 2018, 4:37 pm

Fox wrote:

Once they are in custody, maybe it is against privacy laws to photograph and interview them.

amother

Blonde

Fri, Jun 22 2018, 4:40 pm

So basically, we have a whole group of women patting themselves on the back for finding an instance where the “liberal” media made a slight mistake in their journalism, while conveniently ignoring the hordes of fake news articles coming out of the conservative right media every single day.
I follow the fact checking and the ratio of fake news for right vs. left seems to be around 10:2. But yeah, you got them liberals now. Rolling Eyes

Fox

Fri, Jun 22 2018, 4:46 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Please don't rely on Wikipedia for this stuff. Covering or discussing something doesn't constitute "promoting" it. Each of these examples is deliberately misleading. Alex Marlowe has been very careful not to let things slip into aluminum foil hat territory.

Of course there was that conspiracy theory about high-level FBI agents having affairs with one another and texting their desires to overturn the results of an election. Oh, wait . . .

I am perfectly content to label Breitbart "far-right" if we also routinely refer to the NYT, et. al., as "far-left."

OBnursemom

Fri, Jun 22 2018, 4:49 pm

amother wrote:

Just read the interview with the border patrol who was the one who checked the mother.
Said he apologized to the mother and the mother said the child is just tired and thirsty - it was 10 pm at night. The whole thing took 2 minutes and then she picked up her daughter and she stopped crying.

but obviously the entire thing is a human rights violation. Teh picture has also been used on a go fund me page to raise millions.

this women was also deported from the United States once before. Her husband claims to have a good job. He is upset his baby was taken from him and she left behind 3 children, one of them 6.

I am semi suspicious of a man who would give an interview to international media making his wife look like a liar. My husband wouldn’t give such an interview about me. No one has anyway of knowing if they’re divorcing, if he’s abusive, or if he’s keeping her from seeing her children. This happens all over the world. No reason it couldn’t happen there.

amother

Saddlebrown

Fri, Jun 22 2018, 4:49 pm

amother wrote:

It wasn't a mistake and it wasn't reporting. It was promoting an agenda. Which is inexcusable for journalists.

amother

Blonde

Fri, Jun 22 2018, 4:53 pm

amother wrote:

It wasn't a mistake and it wasn't reporting. It was promoting an agenda. Which is inexcusable for journalists.

Do you hold the same standards for conservative journalists, or are they always above any kind of reproach?

Fox

Fri, Jun 22 2018, 4:58 pm

amother wrote:

I follow the fact checking and the ratio of fake news for right vs. left seems to be around 10:2. But yeah, you got them liberals now. Rolling Eyes

Check who's funding your fact-checkers -- and what facts they're choosing to check.

There was little interest, for example, in "fact-checking" the racism of NY Daily News columnist Linda Stasi, who suggested in a tweet that a Puerto Rican Fox News commentator "should be picking grapes." The woman, who is not involved in reporting, made the mistake of dating Don Trump, Jr.

Unlike Roseanne, Stasi has kept her job.

But what's to check, really? It's obviously okay to use slurs against Hispanics if you're doing it to attack the Trump family, right?

33055

Fri, Jun 22 2018, 5:00 pm

OBnursemom wrote:

This wife deserted him more than once and stole his daughter and deserted her own 6 year old child. She was not happy where she was.

Who knows how much money he was paid for the interview?

SixOfWands

Fri, Jun 22 2018, 5:04 pm

Fox wrote:

"Reporting" on crazy conspiracy theories as if they have some basis is problematic. "Pizzagate" was aluminum hat territory.

And the NY Times is not "far left." Its left, not far left. Slate is far left.

And do you really interpret emails prior to the election saying that Trump won't become president, "we'll stop it" as an FBI plot to overturn the election that hadn't even happened yet? That's pretty much aluminum hat territory.

amother

Purple

Fri, Jun 22 2018, 5:06 pm

Some symbol. She ran away with a child without telling her child's father or their three other children. Regardless they were not separated at the border. And thats the point. Anyway this is old news President Trump already remedied what the previous administration did not and no more separations at the border -- where are the calls of celebration? of praise?
The much lamented situation has been solved.

amother

Blonde

Fri, Jun 22 2018, 5:08 pm

amother wrote:

Uh, no it has not been resolved. The entire operation is now in chaos, with no one knowing how or what to do. Some resolution.

Fox

Fri, Jun 22 2018, 5:09 pm

amother wrote:

Do you hold the same standards for conservative journalists, or are they always above any kind of reproach?

Virtually every conservative media outlet acknowledges -- advertises, in fact -- that they are selecting stories based on particular values.

The problem is not that the MSM reports from a left-of-center perspective; it's that the steadfastly deny doing so.

That's why I used to like Mother Jones. They had an unapologetic socialist/progressive agenda, and that agenda directed them toward some excellent reporting. But they were upfront about that agenda and bias, and I didn't feel manipulated. Not so with many of the MSM outlets.