Member of The Internet Defense League

Revealing: Wall St. Journal Editor Explains His Hesitancy to Use the Word ‘Lie’ When It Comes to Trump


[Reuse options]
Click here for reuse options!


"I'd be careful using the word 'lie'… It implies a deliberate intent to mislead."


Much like the New York Times and the Washington Post, President-elect Donald Trump targeted the Wall Street Journal on the campaign trail.

“I'm not a believer of the Wall Street Journal, I think it's a piece of garbage, it's going to lose a fortune, don't work,” Trump said on February 19, 2016 at a rally in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

“Don't worry, it'll be out of business like all the rest of them very soon,” Trump added.

Wall Street Journal Editor-in-Chief Gerard Baker is used to Trump's attacks by now, or as he calls it, “strange, tough love.”

“He'd attack our reporters individually, anything we'd done, anything he didn't like, and then at the same time you also know how much he actually reads the newspaper or watches TV,” Baker told MSNBC's Chuck Todd about Trump. But Baker is still hesitant to call out Trump's lies. Here's why: “I’d be careful using the word ‘lie’,” Baker told Todd.

“Lie implies much more than just saying something that’s false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead.”

Baker would prefer to investigate Trump's outlandish claims and gave the example of Trump's lie regarding “thousands” of American Muslims being seen celebrating 9/11. Otherwise, he feels the publication risks objectivity.

“I think if you start ascribing a moral intent, as it were, to someone by saying that they’ve lied,” Baker said. “I think you run the risk that you look like you are — like you’re not being objective.”

Baker wants the reader to be trusted to make up his or her own mind while reading the Wall Street Journal and their writers' social media posts.

“If our readers see that you're saying scathing things about Donald Trump on Twitter or they see you on TV saying things in a commentary way, that appear to be very critical and hostile to Donald Trump, they're not going to trust you.”

“I was very concerned that we be seen to be fair.. to all candidates,” Baker concluded.

“Imagine a Sane Donald Trump,” read one Wall Street Journal headline two weeks before the election, followed by the question: “You know he’s a nut. What if he weren’t?”

Here PolitiFact rates 69% of Trump’s public statements as Mostly False, and just 4% as True.

Watch:


[Reuse options]Click here for reuse options!



 

Related Stories

from AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed http://ift.tt/2j0pxLz
via IFTTT


Revealing: Wall St. Journal Editor Explains His Hesitancy to Use the Word ‘Lie’ When It Comes to Trump


[Reuse options]
Click here for reuse options!


"I'd be careful using the word 'lie'… It implies a deliberate intent to mislead."


Much like the New York Times and the Washington Post, President-elect Donald Trump targeted the Wall Street Journal on the campaign trail.

“I'm not a believer of the Wall Street Journal, I think it's a piece of garbage, it's going to lose a fortune, don't work,” Trump said on February 19, 2016 at a rally in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

“Don't worry, it'll be out of business like all the rest of them very soon,” Trump added.

Wall Street Journal Editor-in-Chief Gerard Baker is used to Trump's attacks by now, or as he calls it, “strange, tough love.”

“He'd attack our reporters individually, anything we'd done, anything he didn't like, and then at the same time you also know how much he actually reads the newspaper or watches TV,” Baker told MSNBC's Chuck Todd about Trump. But Baker is still hesitant to call out Trump's lies. Here's why: “I’d be careful using the word ‘lie’,” Baker told Todd.

“Lie implies much more than just saying something that’s false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead.”

Baker would prefer to investigate Trump's outlandish claims and gave the example of Trump's lie regarding “thousands” of American Muslims being seen celebrating 9/11. Otherwise, he feels the publication risks objectivity.

“I think if you start ascribing a moral intent, as it were, to someone by saying that they’ve lied,” Baker said. “I think you run the risk that you look like you are — like you’re not being objective.”

Baker wants the reader to be trusted to make up his or her own mind while reading the Wall Street Journal and their writers' social media posts.

“If our readers see that you're saying scathing things about Donald Trump on Twitter or they see you on TV saying things in a commentary way, that appear to be very critical and hostile to Donald Trump, they're not going to trust you.”

“I was very concerned that we be seen to be fair.. to all candidates,” Baker concluded.

“Imagine a Sane Donald Trump,” read one Wall Street Journal headline two weeks before the election, followed by the question: “You know he’s a nut. What if he weren’t?”

Here PolitiFact rates 69% of Trump’s public statements as Mostly False, and just 4% as True.

Watch:


[Reuse options]Click here for reuse options!



 

Related Stories

from AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed http://ift.tt/2j0pxLz
via IFTTT


Coal country afraid Trump will repeal black lung benefits with Obamacare

Coal country afraid Trump will repeal black lung benefits with Obamacare submitted by /u/loremipsumchecksum
[link] [comments]

from Politics http://ift.tt/2hHQezi
via IFTTT


Crowley: Trump doesn’t ‘understand’ government processes

Crowley: Trump doesn't 'understand' government processes submitted by /u/loremipsumchecksum
[link] [comments]

from Politics http://ift.tt/2hKbYQe
via IFTTT


Facebook Partners With Data Brokers For More Information On Users

Since 2012, Facebook has been working with data brokers to acquire even more information on its users. According to a report from ProPublica, this information can include a user’s income, restaurant habits, and credit card activities.

Combine third party data with what Facebook already knows about its users from using the social network and it is hard to think of any piece of information the company doesn’t have about a person.

While there are theoretically ways to op-out of letting Facebook use third party information, most users don’t know about them and Facebook told ProPublica the company feels no particular obligation to tell users because it is merely buying information available to anyone:

“Our approach to controls for third-party categories is somewhat different than our approach for Facebook-specific categories,” said Steve Satterfield, a Facebook manager of privacy and public policy. “This is because the data providers we work with generally make their categories available across many different ad platforms, not just on Facebook.

But can you actually opt-out of the third-party categories/data broker system itself? Not really.

You can ask to be removed from a data broker company’s database, which often requires submitting a written request to the company with a copy of a driver’s license or some other official identification. But a detailed case study revealed even that did not work with a majority of data brokers.

The data broker industry is somewhat regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which occasionally brings actions against companies if they get caught doing particularly egregious things. But for the most part, data brokers are free to do as they will because few laws exist to rein them in.

In 2014, the FTC made a detailed proposal for Congress to write laws to regulate the new industry. The FTC claimed data brokers “operate with a fundamental lack of transparency.”

People regularly ask how Facebook, with its massive data management costs, can offer its service for free. The answer is simple, the product is you.

The post Facebook Partners With Data Brokers For More Information On Users appeared first on Shadowproof.

from Shadowproof http://ift.tt/2hKBi6W
via IFTTT


Revealing: Wall St. Journal Editor Explains His Hesitancy to Use the Word ‘Lie’ When It Comes to Trump


[Reuse options]
Click here for reuse options!


"I'd be careful using the word 'lie'… It implies a deliberate intent to mislead."


Much like the New York Times and the Washington Post, President-elect Donald Trump targeted the Wall Street Journal on the campaign trail.

“I'm not a believer of the Wall Street Journal, I think it's a piece of garbage, it's going to lose a fortune, don't work,” Trump said on February 19, 2016 at a rally in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

“Don't worry, it'll be out of business like all the rest of them very soon,” Trump added.

Wall Street Journal Editor-in-Chief Gerard Baker is used to Trump's attacks by now, or as he calls it, “strange, tough love.”

“He'd attack our reporters individually, anything we'd done, anything he didn't like, and then at the same time you also know how much he actually reads the newspaper or watches TV,” Baker told MSNBC's Chuck Todd about Trump. But Baker is still hesitant to call out Trump's lies. Here's why: “I’d be careful using the word ‘lie’,” Baker told Todd.

“Lie implies much more than just saying something that’s false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead.”

Baker would prefer to investigate Trump's outlandish claims and gave the example of Trump's lie regarding “thousands” of American Muslims being seen celebrating 9/11. Otherwise, he feels the publication risks objectivity.

“I think if you start ascribing a moral intent, as it were, to someone by saying that they’ve lied,” Baker said. “I think you run the risk that you look like you are — like you’re not being objective.”

Baker wants the reader to be trusted to make up his or her own mind while reading the Wall Street Journal and their writers' social media posts.

“If our readers see that you're saying scathing things about Donald Trump on Twitter or they see you on TV saying things in a commentary way, that appear to be very critical and hostile to Donald Trump, they're not going to trust you.”

“I was very concerned that we be seen to be fair.. to all candidates,” Baker concluded.

“Imagine a Sane Donald Trump,” read one Wall Street Journal headline two weeks before the election, followed by the question: “You know he’s a nut. What if he weren’t?”

Here PolitiFact rates 69% of Trump’s public statements as Mostly False, and just 4% as True.

Watch:


[Reuse options]Click here for reuse options!



 

Related Stories

from AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed http://ift.tt/2j0pxLz
via IFTTT


Facebook Partners With Data Brokers For More Information On Users

Since 2012, Facebook has been working with data brokers to acquire even more information on its users. According to a report from ProPublica, this information can include a user’s income, restaurant habits, and credit card activities.

Combine third party data with what Facebook already knows about its users from using the social network and it is hard to think of any piece of information the company doesn’t have about a person.

While there are theoretically ways to op-out of letting Facebook use third party information, most users don’t know about them and Facebook told ProPublica the company feels no particular obligation to tell users because it is merely buying information available to anyone:

“Our approach to controls for third-party categories is somewhat different than our approach for Facebook-specific categories,” said Steve Satterfield, a Facebook manager of privacy and public policy. “This is because the data providers we work with generally make their categories available across many different ad platforms, not just on Facebook.

But can you actually opt-out of the third-party categories/data broker system itself? Not really.

You can ask to be removed from a data broker company’s database, which often requires submitting a written request to the company with a copy of a driver’s license or some other official identification. But a detailed case study revealed even that did not work with a majority of data brokers.

The data broker industry is somewhat regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which occasionally brings actions against companies if they get caught doing particularly egregious things. But for the most part, data brokers are free to do as they will because few laws exist to rein them in.

In 2014, the FTC made a detailed proposal for Congress to write laws to regulate the new industry. The FTC claimed data brokers “operate with a fundamental lack of transparency.”

People regularly ask how Facebook, with its massive data management costs, can offer its service for free. The answer is simple, the product is you.

The post Facebook Partners With Data Brokers For More Information On Users appeared first on Shadowproof.

from Shadowproof http://ift.tt/2hKBi6W
via IFTTT