• @forrcaho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    333 months ago

    For people asking what this is about, I didn’t look at the NYT because of the paywall, but here’s an article that’s very similar in tone from NPR.

    Although they do state

    The dozen Harris statements lacking in context are far less in comparison to 162 misstatements, exaggerations and outright lies that NPR found from Trump’s hour-long news conference Aug. 8.

    the following items are really nit-picky. It’s laid out as a list of misleading statements, but reading the details of each makes me think “ok, so basically true, then”.

    • @ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      163 months ago

      I feel like some loud conservatives made NPR freak out and now they’re trying to sprinkle in stories like this.

      Because the moment conservatives run things again, they’ll absolutely continue gutting public radio.

          • @lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            6
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            ^ To any bystanders, observe this weirdo spamming across numerous communities this link that he thinks is some gotcha in an obvious attempt to wedge-drive the left to further the gains of Trump (who, by the way, is worse in every way on the topic of Gaza).

            They already got banned on one community today for spam lol.

            Bonus: I issued a CAPTCHA check of sorts to check if this was a hexbear CCP tankie knockoff and lo and behold they absolutely would not say anything bad about the CCP. They:

            • Could not acknowledge the tiananmen square massacre.

            • Were incapable of copying the 4th paragraph of the tiananmen square massacre Wikipedia page.

            • Downplayed the CCP’s actions in other topics as well.

    • @Narwhalrus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      83 months ago

      Some of the “misleading” statements were Harris neglecting to enumerate the reasons why a stated policy goal might not succeed, which would be incredibly unusual to include in a speech of this nature.

      I guess the point the author was trying to make was that saying you “will” do something in office is a promise, and if you don’t have the ability to guarantee that promise can be kept you shouldn’t say that thing at all? I love me some NPR but they’re really bending over backwards with some of these…