Trump talk: HOW MUCH for that inauguration?

[PerkingFaintly]

We can start whole new threads for less than $26,000,000.

This one only cost 23p I found down the back of the sofa:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3171217-Trump-Talk-or-Lift-every-voice-and-sing?pg=1

Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
Melania Trump has parted ways with adviser Stephanie Winston Wolkoff after news broke about Wolkoff’s firm reaping $26,000,000 in payments to help plan Trump’s inauguration, NYT reports.
www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/us/politics/melania-trump-inauguration-adviser.html

It would help if I posted the link, I suppose!

datadrivenjournalism.net/news_and_analysis/do_we_believe_everything_that_we_read_about_donald_trump

How come when people kill themselves with drugs it's the drug dealers' fault, but when they kill themselves with guns it's not the gun dealers' fault?

And sorry again - I didn’t make this clear - the above article is about us. Not people curating articles as a whole, but us directly.

theclaws

It’s very strange reading that. For all the articles that have been posted on this thread that have analysed social media/fake news, it’s bizarre to be the subject of such a study!

It chimed with my experience of these threads - though when they started off my talking about fire and fury, I did want to say that we’d been critical of the book on these threads and that I think the general view was that it was entertainment but probably not accurate, though in fairness they didn’t actually attribute any particular stance on F&F to us.

I think the conclusions they reached are fair and reflective of my thoughts on threads.

Gosh, that article Claws!

We're in an official study and the gist of it is... we're doin' alright! And you're right Claws, we've never had to 'police' our threads, we're very well behaved

I love this...
'We found a slick and careful operation where participants crowd-sourced, checked and counter-checked news sources. Sources were discussed carefully, with potential weakness or bias pointed out. Participants often attempted to find other sources that either supported or disproved a news item. Overall, our participants demonstrated a determination to weigh up the validity of each source and to search for evidence for or against its arguments'

That's us!

I feel we are pretty good at fact checking if we possibly can. I've posted stuff before and been asked for a verifiable source for what I say and I'm perfectly happy with that.

Thanks for that article Mini, go Sally!

They didn’t really analyse whether what we posted turned out to be true or not. They discussed biases and self awareness about not wanting to be in a “liberal bubble” but didn’t really seem to drill into whether what was being posted should be believed!

I was also surprised that YouTube was the second most cited sources. I know we have a lot of Colbert videos but wouldn’t have thought YouTube would have topped other sources. Unless if it was because being the first four threads there were all those “America first, “other country” second” videos being posted? There’s randy rainbow, snl, Seth meyers etc but it’s more entertainment than sources, I’d argue. For it to be the second most cited sources seems odd (but I haven’t conducted a study analysing 4000 posts so am basing that on the impression I have from remembering the threads rather than hard, analysed numbers obviously, which aren’t comparable metrics!).

They picked four threads after the Inauguration and I can barely remember back then as this has all been relentless! Surprised at the youtube source being so prevelant too, but if it were straight after the inauguration there was a lot to look at from the day so perhaps that was it...

It’s hilarious that our threads have been the subject of academic research.

I’d be interested to see how our sources have varied and diversified over time. I do think we have matured as a group and learned along the way. For example, I have cast some of my Twitter sources into the background as they proved to be not quite as reliable as I thought.

Just picking up up from the end.
First, .
Then .

Youtube is not a source. Many news media post on YouTube. Some will be CNN, others MSNBC, even FOX.

I did think that lweji but as far as I can remember, I think most people tend to post videos directly from MSNBC, CNN etc sites. Or to videos embedded in other articles or twitter threads. I don't think I've seen much of actual news channels footage being posted on here via youtube (though again this is relying on my impressions and failing memory).

That's us.

I am surprised by the YouTube too. I think I've posted comments a couple of times on these threads about how the trolls and Trumpers fill up the comments on YouTube whenever a video of a woman is posted. Those whose names are mentioned in relation to running for office and challenging Trump in some way are subject to the usual misogynistic right wing vitriol. (Yates; Harris spring to mind here).

Colbert and SNL might explain it though.

It would be interesting to see how the stats add up overall--those were the earliest threads. I usually post from the same sources but am glad when I find different sites. If I cannot find information about a new source and its status I will usually say so ...

We've never really been challenged by a pro-Trump poster who has properly engaged with the issues--the insults have usually come first.

I like to glory in my subjectivity.

That struck me from the study lion

It is also clear that there was a limited amount of primary information gathering from right-wing American sources, including the President and his office. Again, however, such sources were only used to support the overall argument of the threads rather than to present an alternative point of view. Participants were conscious of the subjective nature of their discussion, but were satisfied with this state of affairs

When the President and his administration is shown to be lying (biggest crowd and alternative facts from the very first week!) then I think trying to use them as primary sources for facts would be misguided. Document whether what they're saying stacks up and the scale of how truthful they're being, sure, but to rely on them for first-hand information when they clearly don't feel beholden to telling the truth seems bizarre. And it's been documented by established and credible news organisations just how much lying has taken place this past year so does that not validate the approach? Or is that my liberal bias showing again?

Yes, I have too Claws. LM is one that springs to mind although I was always a little bit about her.

Trump has also taken me into the realms of legal discourse, which is fascinating and often mind-boggling in equal measure.

I think this also misses the other point about these threads which is that we are living through an extraordinary period in US history and politics. It involves genuine shock and sometimes fear and despair. The threads help to alleviate that sense of threat because posting feels like doing something and because solidarity is a big thing.

I am grateful to all those who post here.

You're probably right about youtube.
I think I still posted some presidential addresses then.

@PainInTheEar

Exactly what I was thinking about "bias".

I am very greateful too, to all who post here. There are some very well informed posters and I've learnt a lot as I've gone on. I agree lion it just does feel like we are doing something, however small.

The big news sources have also been called to account for their attempts at 'even handedness' and neutrality when it comes to Trump coverage (the NYT especially). I think it was someone from CNN who said only yesterday it was a mistake to broadcast so many of the Trump rallies.

I think this is something that Christiane Amanpour took from her experiences in Bosnia and is the reason she uses Truthful Not Neutral as her tag. She was criticised at the time for impartiality and for her emotional involvement in the news she was reporting. But she will defend her position and is clear about how what she learnt from that time continues to shape her role as a reporter, and rightly so.

The bots and trolls and social media obviously make for a very different landscape when it comes to information and knowledge.

The dangers are real.

What I've found these threads to be particularly useful for (but in an alarming way) is in now spotting how the political environment and discourse in America is being mirrored here in the UK. I think having discussed/dissected what's been happening over there has been really helpful in spotting similarities when it's been happening in the UK, which I might have not been so quick to think of as problematic if we hadn't just seen how quickly these things escalate.

Though the Westminstenders threads would've countered any misplaced feelings of optimism and "it couldn't happen here" thoughts I suppose!

And yes, I have immensely appreciated the solidarity aspect

www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/09/trump-kim-jong-un-believe-winning-risks-epic-analysis

Well, that's quite fascinating - the microscope turned back on us.

I wonder how we would have fared had the analysis had taken place during threads where any attempt at discussion was promptly hijacked by a couple of prolific 'pro the people - fuck everything to do with the establishment' posters. It was extremely challenging to put coherent thoughts together.

We did use a lot of youtube in the beginning, looking at Trumps rallies and 'debates'. We also linked a fair bit to SNL. (I still get the giggles at remembering the SNL clip showing Trump stalking behind Clinton during a debate)

Now the interesting thing will be, will the knowledge of the existence of that analysis influence how we post in the future?

Fame at last, fame at last!
Those first 4 threads were very fast moving and I think Pain is correct in remembering that there were a lot of YouTube videos about America First, Holland second etc., snippets from the Inaugaration ceremony and it's "well attended" parade and, of course, the Women's March.
I do think we've all become more savvy in finding and assessing sources. I have stumbled upon researched publications and articles from an amazingly diverse range of sources that I had no idea existed!

Actually just realised if our threads started in Autumn 2016 then the Inaugaration and Women's March wouldn't have happened during first 4 threads - sorry!

Interesting, OYBBK. I don’t think it will. These threads were always meant to be read by others. It will make us more ‘self-aware’, but that may just prompt us to take greater care in our use of sources, that’s all.