When you post unverified, unsourced speculation here at DU...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

...and pass it off as news, you are doing a huge disservice to everyone in the media—affiliated and independent—who is performing due diligence in attempting to get the truth out about this administration.

Please, please, please....no unsubstantiated “crisis actor” bullshit coming from anonymous Twitter accounts. Leave that to Alex Jones and company.

We should all have a duty here to protect the truth, because right now that is all that we have.

[jberryhill]

1. It's sad, really

[riversedge]

2. I agree as much as I distrust anything coming only from the WH as the pics were.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. Good point.

And we should be aware of Surkovian tactics, named for one of Putin’s closest advisors who specializes in mixing truth with fiction in order to confuse the public.

Right now I trust those members of the media who make it a vow to report the truth and to do so in the most responsible manner possible.

[Hortensis]

70. SOP for most propagandists because it works so well.

The Republicans really did investigate the Clintons intensively, and practically continuously, for corruption, rape, murder, vandalism, etc., for over 30 years. That was true.

[LanternWaste]

4. Hence, the existence of the Breaking News forum.

GD allows for benign speculation, editorial, and unsupported opinions.

Much like your allegations about our duties.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

5. GD doesn't allow for fringe content.

Which “crisis actor” speculation without any factual support falls into.

[SCVDem]

60. I promise never to spread

Russian or any anti-Democratic propaganda.

That's what the Fox viewers et al are doing.

We need to nip it in the bud!

If it sounds too good or bad, it's probably setting off my bullshit alarm and I need multiple sourcing, like Rachel and Shep ?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

61. That's good.

But we also need to self-police.

More than once I've seen this graphic posted in Facebook by one of my left-leaning friends, and sadly I have to tell them that it's not an actual quote:



Even though this actually is a real quote, and expresses the same basic idea:

[SCVDem]

63. No social media for me!

I consider twit and FB to be career killers.

The orange ass would have been fired from most anywhere for his ranting hatred.

[aggiesal]

78. Is this image a real quote? ...

Thanks!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

79. Very funny. nt

[aggiesal]

80. I'm not trying to be funny ...

I just want to know if Dolt45 actually made this quote.

Do you know if this is an actual quote?

Thanks

[Tommy_Carcetti]

82. No, it's not.

Here's the Snopes link debunking it:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1998-trump-people-quote/

Like I said, it matches up well with his very much real Fifth Avenue quote, but it's not actually a real quote of his.

[aggiesal]

84. Thanks n/t

[Hortensis]

10. Breaking News is not the Fake News forum.

Big no to posting possible lies as just as good or better than truth until disproved, and maybe even then. There are other social media sites for that.

[SidDithers]

43. We also have Creative Speculation for wilder speculation...

like "they're not real nurses!!1!1"

Sid

[PA Democrat]

6. Agreed. There is so much material that is substantiated and appropriately sourced

with which to go after Trump. We should not be trafficking in unfounded twitter rumors. We are better than that.

[cwydro]

7. Rec. I completely agree.

Not to mention it shows how very gullible many here seem to be.

[Crabby Appleton]

8. I agree

[True Dough]

9. I agree, mostly, but the key phrase is "pass it off as news"

I saw your back-and-forth in another thread on Dayton hospital photos and that poster didn't attempt to "pass it off as news." He/she made clear what the sources were, and they're not the most credible.

That said, I try to discern for myself what level of trust sources deserve. During the Mueller investigation there were numerous rumors emanating from or being spread by individuals known as T-Pain and Louise Mensch on Twitter. In the early days, I was hopeful that these individuals were breaking news and that what they were "reporting" would turn out to be true. Almost always, it proved to be B.S.
So when I saw other threads pop up citing T-Pain or Mensch, I ignored them or I pointed out that those two have often been wrong.

I don't mind the odd speculative thread showing up here on the DU. I just expect that the source be made clear -- as it was in the Dayton photos thread -- and I can judge for myself whether to give the allegations any credence.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

12. My problem there was it was paired with a legitimate WaPo story

Which diminishes the value of that careful and truthfully supported story.

[True Dough]

20. Not the best pairing, I'll grant you that

The Philip Rucker tweet has nothing to do with what the other account is speculating.

[RVN VET71]

57. But the dispute post made very clear that the allegation about the "staff" photo

had not been vetted and were to be taken with a shaker of salt until further information was surfaced.

Has any more information surfaced about the people who are shown smiling with Donald in that photo?

(Regardless, the photo of people smiling happily with "thumbs up" Donny seems almost gruesomely inappropriate, considering the circumstances of the visit.)

[Tommy_Carcetti]

58. The last observation of your post underscores the real problem here.

Yesterday was a disaster for Trump's image--he came off narcissistic, callous, petty and unfeeling.

People at the White House not named Donald Trump, heart of hearts, know this for a fact.

The problem is, if we go off on wild and crazy "crisis actor" tangents that only serve to delegitimize us, we'll lose the real story of what happened yesterday.

Bush Administration's 9-11 Response, Redux.

[Arkansas Granny]

17. I feel much the same. As long as the source is identified and rumors are not being posted

as real news, I'm ok with a little speculation.

[kentuck]

11. Was this the tweet from Phillip Rucker of the WashPost?

He is usually a very credible source.

What is the latest word on the story?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

13. The Rucker story was true

The other story alleging nurses in the pictures were “crisis actors” came from an anonymous unverified Twitter account with no linked sources.

Your justifiable response illustrates the danger of this.

[kentuck]

14. Did the Washington Post report them as "crisis actors"?

I assumed they were just Trump supporters.

Maybe they were called to volunteer to meet their President?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

15. No.

That part came from the BS Twitter feed.

[cwydro]

18. No, WAPO reported that the EL PASO patients would not meet with him, which is true.

Then the OP paired that verified tweet with what has been pointed out by another poster as a probable twitterbot account alleging the Dayton photos are fake.

[kentuck]

31. Sometimes it's hard to see thru all the smoke.

Obviously, the White House did not get the story they wanted.

[Maeve]

45. Actually...I think they did

The story they wanted was "I am loved and Democrats are mean" and so they created it themselves.

Nevermind that the mayor and Sen. Brown were nice, nevermind that the staff was selected (self-selected, most-like, but limited to folks who WANT to be seen with the jerk). The plan was to keep the real media out and make a campaign-style photo-op. Which they did.

[boston bean]

16. I am watching CNN right now and they are stating the pics are propaganda photos.

[cwydro]

22. Of course they're released as propaganda - that doesn't make them fake.

CNN reported that the El Paso patients refused to meet with him. I’m watching now too.

[boston bean]

27. The post this OP is lamenting did not say a damn thing about crisis actors.

It said they may not have worked at the hospital and that that was twitter mill going.

Go fight it out in the thread where others had the wrong impression. Including the poster here lamenting something not said in an OP.

[cwydro]

30. I've commented on that thread, and I have no interest in bumping it further.

As others have said, we should be better than posting stories based on unconfirmed twitter bots.

[boston bean]

32. In the face of the trump shitshow I could give a fuck less about something making Trump out to be a

Major ass more than he already has shown himself to be. But that is just me.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

46. Here's the problem with that thinking. I call it the "Hitler was a cannibal" theory.

Say someone makes a claim, without any factual support, alleging that Adolph Hitler was a cannibal; that he not only killed millions of Jews and other groups, but he actually ate their meat. Personally.

Now, there's no evidence to support this theory at all. None whatsoever.

On the other hand, it's Hitler, so we're not talking about defamation of character here.

Still, if I were to point out that there was no factual basis to support the theory that Hitler was a cannibal, does that mean that I am defending Hitler and somehow giving support to everything horrible that he did?

Of course not. It only means I'm supporting objective truth, and the objective truth is that Hitler--as horrific a man that he was--was many things, but not a cannibal.

And we should never be afraid to advocate for objective truth.

The further problem with advocating spreading lies and unsubstantiated information about undesirable people is that it opens a door.

So if one side says, I'm okay with calling Hitler a cannibal even though I don't believe it, the other side will see that and realize that truth no longer matters. And they'll use it for justification of their own crazy theories. Like claiming the Holocaust never happened.

Truth matters. Truth always, always matters, no matter what situation you are in.

[boston bean]

49. Listen, Tommy, the post you are referring to here was not a news story. It was an op on du.

Many times things flush out. I have at times posted bullshit unknowing at the time. I have also posted speculation that turned out to be true. You are taking this to a level it doesn’t need to be taken to. Chill a little and duke it out in the thread instead of trying to make something out of something it wasn’t. It was not an attempt to mislead. It was a discussion on twitter. That can be posted here. And there were plenty of qualifiers.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

52. It was tied together with a legitimate news story and that was the true danger.

For a little while, "fake news" was a term that actually referred to a real phenomenon--False stories, usually meant to boost Trump or hurt Democrats, posing as news and designed to spread virally for maximum effect over social media. This was done by both foreign and domestic actors and was intended to sway the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump.

Problem was, the term quickly became co-opted by Trump and the right to refer to any news story that is not flattering or supportive of Donald Trump, even if it is well sourced, documented and by all objective means, true.

So, if you go onto DU, and you post a legitimate, well-sourced story like the Phil Rucker Washington Post piece, correctly framing it as news....but you then immediately tie it to some reckless, completely speculative and unsupported claim by an anonymous Twitter account, it brings down the ship.

Because we'll hear, "Oh, those liberals at DU. They'll believe anything." And "anything" to them will not only be referring to the Twitter BS, but also the legitimate Post story. They'll lump them together, all one in the same, because someone here was foolish to do the same thing.

We need the media to be encouraged as much as possible to accurately report stories as a means to counter the propaganda being put out by the Trump administration. When you dilute that with bullshit, it only hurts our cause greatly.

[MGKrebs]

62. Maybe you should just stick to reading LBN then.

GD is EXACTLY where we can consider things that don't qualify for LBN. That is why it is here. And who gives a fuck what some people think about DU? You're worried about DU's reputation? Do you even read EarlG's pic of the moment?

To me, it's more of a problem that people can't be satisfied with continuing a conversation in the relevant thread and feel like they need to start their own thread because, I guess, fame.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

64. But that's not the problem here.

In GD we can discuss opinion and punditry and explore beyond what goes beyond the printed word. And that's great and I love doing that.

I mean, if you go to Seth Abramson's Twitter feed--which gets posted a lot here--that's all that he does. He's not objectively reporting, but he's not pulling bullshit out of thin air, either, like a lot more sketchy accounts on Twitter do. He's hypothesizing and drawing connections between known facts, posting his sources in the process.

We should all do that. That's solid critical thinking.

What we shouldn't be doing is pulling off rampant speculation from the dark corners of the internets even though there's nothing to logical to support what's behind posted. No sources, no educated conclusions, just pure shot in the dark claims without any support whatsoever.

We can't do anything like that simply because you like what you read. That's the opposite of critical thinking. And that's the problem that's infected much of the right. But we can't go down that same road.

[MGKrebs]

73. Reposting sketchy stuff from elsewhere isn't a lack of critical thinking,

it's speculation and cause for further questioning (if you care to).

[Tommy_Carcetti]

75. So.....Flat Earthers? 9-11 Truthers?

QAnon?

Are people espousing those beliefs appropriate sources for citing on GD?

I understand we have to be open minded, but if something is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, there should be some degree of credibility attached.

[MGKrebs]

76. I saw plenty of stuff here in the years following 9-11 questioning what happened.

Maybe it didn't turn out to be true, but who really knew at the time?

I think arguing with flat-earthers would be fun. Not sure that would actually qualify for GD though. Might have to do that in the Lounge or one of the Topic groups.

I mean, there is already a well developed set of criteria for this site defining what can and cannot be posted and where. If you are going to try to police things that lack "critical thinking", well, good luck with that.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

77. Here you go, buddy.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135

Knock yourself out.

[cwydro]

59. Well said.

[cwydro]

48. I couldn't care less either, but we don't need false rumors to make him look bad.

Posting things that are likely not true makes US look bad.

All you have to do is view the video in another thread in order to see there are more than a few people ready to slobber all over him. One idiot even showed the shitstain his red, white and blue socks. Ugh.

Sickening, and maybe it’s hard for us to believe, but there are people who think he can do no wrong.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

34. The tweet linked to in that OP mentioned "paid actors."

Double check it.

[boston bean]

35. As part of twitter mill. Believe me I can read and comprehended that.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

50. There's a lot of bad junk on Twitter.

And we don't need to fall for the bait.

[boston bean]

51. And a lot of good. You found some amazing stuff on its evil sister site Facebook if I recall

correctly.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

53. I have--and I'm assuming you mean the Konstantin Rykov stuff.

And the thing about Rykov is he was mentored by Vladislav Surkov, who deals specifically in managing perception. So what is said could be true, or it could be false, but it is mixed up in such a confusing way that it just leaves the general public disoriented. And that allows autocrats to move in and do whatever they like.

I've never vouched for the truth of what Rykov has claimed--it could be true or it could be bullshit. Most likely it's a Surkovian cocktail of both. (For example, I'm highly skeptical of his claim that he actually directly communicated with Trump on Election Day 2012. But other parts of his "confession" seem to be supported independently by fact.)

I only posted Rykov not for the truth of his claims, but the fact that his claims existed. And that it seemed to be evidence of a greater something at play, whatever that something might be.

[MGKrebs]

81. That's pretty funny coming from the guy who doesn't want people to post

"what's out there" that is "unverified".

[Tommy_Carcetti]

83. Offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

It's a concept that frequently comes up in legal circles and hearsay statements.

If you are offering something for the purposes of proving a point, you are offering it for the truth of the matter asserted. This is why most hearsay statements are not allowed in court, because the person making the statement is not testifying and instead someone is simply repeating what they heard second hand.

However, if you are offering something not to prove a point, but simply to point out that it was said, that is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

I have never said one should believe everything Konstanin Rykov claimed to have confessed to, but I do think the fact that he made the claims that he has made warrants further introspection.

Of course, even then where I think some of his claims might have truth to him, I've been very careful to back up my statements with independent proof and verification.

[MGKrebs]

85. Well of course this is no court of law, so such a standard is completely beside the point here.

And I think that the "offending" thread that seems to bother you was offered exactly for "further introspection", or perhaps further investigation.

Look, I don't want to keep hassling you, but:

- there is no particular reputation to protect here
- this is not a court of law so applying a legal standard for our discussions is not at all relevant
- this is not just a newsreader site. LBN is kinda like that, but only for the OP. And GD is (almost) wide open.
- The whole point here is to generate discussion
- Vetting some of the info that is floating around out there is a legitimate and worthy function that we can actually do here.
- We already have DU police
- Only repeating already "verified" news stories in GD is not going to improve or enhance DU.

Let's each give $10 to the DSCC!
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/dscc-ads-ga?recurring=1&amount=25&refcode=SEM_E_G_201907_ads_alw_ga_nat_dscc-d2d&gclid=Cj0KCQjwkK_qBRD8ARIsAOteukCMMN7WbSIhXJqQdu49fDJ2rEX9nYKyC9lV4GnpVgZdlGIqnXpAbMwaApGIEALw_wcB

[Tommy_Carcetti]

23. They definitely are.

However that does not mean it was “crisis actors.”

If 25 out of 500 hospital employees want their picture taken with Trump, that’s a small minority...but it still fills up a picture frame nicely.

It’s all about the intended effect.

[underpants]

19. Got a link on that ?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

21. Ha ha.

[underpants]

25. BTW I totally agree with your post

Read that thing about fake hospital workers and had immediate doubts. As inept and unorganized as the Clustertrump is they couldn’t really think they could get away with something like that in this day and age. Of course Trump DID hire people for his escalator ride campaign event.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

29. He did

But reporting on that took time to uncover the truth, and was reported through accurate sources

[Hortensis]

26. +1000. nt

[cwydro]

28. That's a great toon.

So true.

[Takket]

33. Thanks

I expect that crap from QAnon and Freepers. We are supposed to be smarter because we promote facts and real news

[boston bean]

37. It was a twitter reference well qualified.

It was not a claim of truth.

[bucolic_frolic]

36. There is some speculation originating from DU as well

Some are light years ahead of others. I'm all for 1A content, but sometimes it doesn't warrant an independent post.

[CincyDem]

38. Agree completely - let's run the numbers...

Looks like there are about 20 people in that photo - give or take. The hospital employees about 7,500 people. This group represents about 0.25% of the hospital staff.

Respectfully, to those fully convinced that Trump had to find stand-ins for that photo, I think you can find 0.25% of virtually any population in virtually any city under virtually any circumstance to happily join in that pic. Now, the hospital may have posted something inviting those interested in meeting the president to sign up or come to that floor...that's a corporate thing that happens pretty much any time a big wig visits a facility (been there, done that). That is NOT the same as staging the pic out of central casting.

Add to that the fact this pic has gotten a lot of visibility and if any one of those folks worked somewhere else - you can be sure one/many of their co-workers would be blasting it everywhere.

I know this is an administration that pushes the limits on conspiracy theories. I remember a day when the idea that Russia had an active hand in our 2016 election was considered tin foil hat land.

Net - I proclaim, as the final arbiter of all this true and false, that this is a real pic. Ok - maybe not final, note the arbiter, not all things...but other than that...you get the idea.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

42. Exactly my thoughts.

Well put.

[genxlib]

44. You are spot on

I would add that there are plenty of people who would be excited about meeting a President regardless of who he is. It is a good story to tell your grandkids. For the non-political types, it doesn't necessarily mean they support them.

I had a colleague that was considering supporting him back in 2016. He had met Trump through some professional work on one of his golf properties. He was otherwise a reliably Democratic voter type but was intoxicated with the idea of being close to power. I called him on it and he admitted that it was all about the glory of having a personal connection but he would otherwise be a disaster. Not sure what he ended up doing. It is just indicative of the fact that people can lose their better judgement in the spotlight.

[CincyDem]

47. Good point. A lot of apolitical folks likely still think about "The Office of the President". n/t

[SCantiGOP]

39. DU had its share of kooks

Or deliberate trolls, it’s hard to say which.
I used to argue with some, but Ignore and move on is so much easier.

[MGKrebs]

40. I've been here since 2002. We pursued a lot of sketchy info

regarding GWB. You don't always know up front what is legit and what is not.
When you say we shouldn't post stuff until it's verified, well, verified by who? Why not us? We are not the mainstream news here. If something turns out to be BS we will call it out here, and that is good enough for me.

[TygrBright]

41. THANK YOU!

YES on the "don't post stuff from Twitter accounts as news" (unless, of course, it's a tweet from an actual journalist with a link to an actual story in an actual news purveyor, in which case why not just post that?)

Also, PLEASE think twice or three times about posting "news" from sources such as Raw Story, Daily Beast, Huffington Post, etcetera. These are not news organizations. They're largely about aggregation and commentary, with dollops of not-always-well-substantiated reporting thrown in.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing- I read posts or stories from several of those sources, but I'm reading them as discussion, speculation, commentary, opinion, etcetera.

There's nothing wrong with keeping an eye on the rumor pulse, staying aware of what rumors and speculations are obsessing the clicking public, so to speak.

But that's entirely different than saying "See what happened?" as though it were a confirmed, researched, checked and verified news story.

wearily,
Bright

[Coventina]

54. I see from your profile that you weren't here for most of the GWB years.

The thread you are complaining about is pretty small potatoes compared to what was posted about the Bush administration.
Particularly in regards to the WOT.

I say this mostly to make sure you are aware of DU's history on this sort of thing.

[moonseller66]

55. WMD? Smoking Gun?

I wonder how many "jumped on the bandwagon after those stories were posted in the NYT, WaPo and other "credible sources?
I seem to recall a lot of readers ready to enlist to fight those ghosts Bush and Rice and Powell set up.

SO - I guess we need to allow the press or anyone to write whatever they want (to a point) but then wait a long time to see if it's legit - remembering and acknowledging those "credible sources" may not be so credible.

In the meantime, those who wish to gain from the BS do so and the American Public is none the wiser...or stupider.

(Just an opinion...no sources listed!)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

56. I used the phrase "crisis actor" in an nt post (appropriately I think), ironically

Full content:

12. Crisis actors. Hence no press.. . . . nt

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12360122

in thread about the imported workers of some kind from another hospital for the tRump photo op. I chose the phrase as an ironic reference to the RW frequent lying usage of it.

I believe my usage was appropriate.

[mopinko]

65. but that's the beauty of du. there might be a few amens, but

the way we always kick the tires on the news of the day is the reason i come here.

sometimes it is the things they lie about that tells us the most.
passing it off as news? no.
pointing and laughing? all.day.long.

[Amimnoch]

66. I'd rather push for use of critical thinking period.

Always question bias of the source.. especially if it's something you agree with or support.
Always question who benefits the information.. especially if it's something you agree with or support.
Always question who is harmed by the information.. especially if it's something you agree with or support.
Always look at it from opposing, and what would be valid counter-arguments perspective.. especially if it's something you agree with or support.
Always question how truthful this information is .. especially if it's something you agree with or support.
Always question if your acceptance of the information is due to fact or due to your own bias and cultural leanings. ESPECIALLY if it's something you agree with or support.

[Maggiemayhem]

67. He refused to allow the press in

It is all about the victims Trump said and then he made a video about himself. His staff tweeted they were treated like rock stars at the hospital. That is sick. Have you not seen Trump saying the Dayton shooter was a Dem? Worry about that. What about the Dayton dead?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

68. When did I ever say I wasn't infuriated about that?

I was the first to actually post about Scavino's "rock star" tweet yesterday, actually.

[Mosby]

69. What's this about? Nt

[Ligyron]

71. I think a lot of folks just want to be the first to report a story.

Especially if it's real juicy and supports a specific group's narrative. It's just human nature.

Hence the need for qualifiers like "it has been reported that", etc. I don't care for censorship because you never know where a good idea might come from or lead to in the discussion that inevitably follows. It gets messy sometimes, but...

I love DU, even with all its occasional foibles. I have never learned so much both factually and politically than right here. I can't recall exactly how I became aware of this site's existence, but boy am I glad I did!

[GusBob]

72. I couldnt agree more

Screw twitter. Screw “link to tweet”

Link to tweet without comment nor discussion =bullshit

If I wanted to read tweets Id go on twitter

4 times in one week Twitter bullshit was posted here ( ex: the guy who made the fake presidential logo was fired from his job)
When the falsehood was pointed out in the thread no one paid attention. The OP stood and the false story was carried over to another thread

Fucking ignorant as all fuck

[MGKrebs]

94. I take it you don't like twitter.

[Hobo]

74. sounds like some was butt hurt eom

[hughee99]

86. I'm not really religious, but AMEN! Nt

[littlemissmartypants]

87. Bwahhahahaha!! This is rich!!!

From the person who repeatedly posts "Breaking News"



https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211271994

Physician heal thyself.

[SixString]

92. + a dozen.

That is rich.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

93. The fact that you automatically identified my satire/parody marker kind of defeats your point

And you know that my “BREAKING NEWS/Details at 11” posts never contain an actual link to a source purporting to be news, so it is pretty much irrelevant to the point here. If the satire nature of my piece isn’t immediately evident by the title, it should be by the time you are done reading. Or, well, hopefully.

But if I’m posting actual breaking news I usually do so in LBN where a reputable link is required. And if I’m posting something in GD that requires a link, I always try to ensure the source is reputable and not something as highly suspect as an anonymous, unknown and unverified Twitter account.

[Hekate]

88. Thank you, Tommy. I've removed many a Rec from posts that did not hold up...

...to scrutiny, and often it is your scrutiny.

So thanks.

[Joe941]

89. I agree and a awful lot of it is posted here.

[grantcart]

90. What if we attribute it to Ron Burgundy?

[NCLefty]

91. Agreed. I always post sources if I can find them, on all social media.

It's more important now than ever.