Trump claim of FAKE NEWS is.... FAKE.

[WVex-pat in GA]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...by-the-new-york-times/?utm_term=.9d5a89aec860

It turns out there is a simple explanation for why the newspaper in Trump's hand did not reflect his conversation with Xi: The paper was printed before the White House told the media about the phone call. A snowstorm that battered the Northeast Thursday prevented a more up-to-date edition from reaching the president's desk.

“The original story published [online] at 9:03 last night,” the Times explained in a statement. “The story was updated at 11:35, after the White House readout on the call came at 11:04. The first national edition (delivered in D.C.) went to print before the update, and there was not a second national edition last night because of the snowstorm. The city editions (in New York) did have the updated story. And the updated story has obviously been online since 11:35 last night.”

 

[WVPATX]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...by-the-new-york-times/?utm_term=.9d5a89aec860

It turns out there is a simple explanation for why the newspaper in Trump's hand did not reflect his conversation with Xi: The paper was printed before the White House told the media about the phone call. A snowstorm that battered the Northeast Thursday prevented a more up-to-date edition from reaching the president's desk.

“The original story published [online] at 9:03 last night,” the Times explained in a statement. “The story was updated at 11:35, after the White House readout on the call came at 11:04. The first national edition (delivered in D.C.) went to print before the update, and there was not a second national edition last night because of the snowstorm. The city editions (in New York) did have the updated story. And the updated story has obviously been online since 11:35 last night.”

This is BS. Who cares about the newspaper in Trump's hand. That is not the point. The Times did not even engage in basic journalism by checking with the subject of the article (in this case, the White House). They printed the story claiming no White House phone call with the Chinese President since November. They did not verify that simple fact with the White House. They published the story claiming no call. The reporter did not call the White House to verify. The editor did not call to verify. Once they learned the call took place, they updated the story about 2 hours after the original and wrong story went out.

This was all done to make Trump look like a bumbling fool. Write a letter but do not call to discuss.

 

[PriddyBoy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...by-the-new-york-times/?utm_term=.9d5a89aec860

It turns out there is a simple explanation for why the newspaper in Trump's hand did not reflect his conversation with Xi: The paper was printed before the White House told the media about the phone call. A snowstorm that battered the Northeast Thursday prevented a more up-to-date edition from reaching the president's desk.

“The original story published [online] at 9:03 last night,” the Times explained in a statement. “The story was updated at 11:35, after the White House readout on the call came at 11:04. The first national edition (delivered in D.C.) went to print before the update, and there was not a second national edition last night because of the snowstorm. The city editions (in New York) did have the updated story. And the updated story has obviously been online since 11:35 last night.”

Your post supports WVPATX's, IMO. Is the White House supposed to notify the NYT when they make a phone call?

 

[TarHeelEer]

Is the White House supposed to notify the NYT when they make a phone call?

^^ this

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

The paper was printed before the White House told the media about the phone call.

I guess in addition to Journalism 101 you should also have to take honors level ESP.

 

[Boomboom521]

At the time of the story being written, wasn't the reported facts correct?

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

This is BS. Who cares about the newspaper in Trump's hand. That is not the point. The Times did not even engage in basic journalism by checking with the subject of the article (in this case, the White House). They printed the story claiming no White House phone call with the Chinese President since November. They did not verify that simple fact with the White House. They published the story claiming no call. The reporter did not call the White House to verify. The editor did not call to verify. Once they learned the call took place, they updated the story about 2 hours after the original and wrong story went out.

This was all done to make Trump look like a bumbling fool. Write a letter but do not call to discuss.

I know you're upset to be proven wrong on this, but if you view this as a learning experience I know we'll all be the better for it.

 

[WVPATX]

I guess in addition to Journalism 101 you should also have to take honors level ESP.

I posted Reuters basic journalistic principles. You can read my post. In point number two it says all you need to know.

It essentially states that basic journalistic practices requires the publication to contact the subject of the article before publishing.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

I posted Reuters basic journalistic principles. You can read my post. In point number two it says all you need to know.

It essentially states that basic journalistic practices requires the publication to contact the subject of the article before publishing.

Spicer did not say anything about a phone call with Xi, however. Perhaps it had not been scheduled yet. But because the White House provided no notice, the Times did not know when it published its original report that the call would happen.

Had Trump considered the circumstances, he might have realized why his print edition contained outdated information. Or maybe he would have accused the Times of publishing fake news, anyway. After all, ripping the Times is one of his favorite hobbies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...by-the-new-york-times/?utm_term=.9d5a89aec860

Maybe DJT should vet his Tweets more closely.

 

[PriddyBoy]

At the time of the story being written, wasn't the reported facts correct?

Who the hell on this forum would know?

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

I posted Reuters basic journalistic principles. You can read my post. In point number two it says all you need to know.

It essentially states that basic journalistic practices requires the publication to contact the subject of the article before publishing.

I studied at WVU under Kearns and Atkins, two of the toughest, hard-nosed journalist you could find in their day. I know fully well about the corroboration of a news story. I also know about publication times and deadlines and also that when writing about something that is a past event (a past-tense article) that the original statements are valid at that time.

Ask your daughter, she'll fill you in.

 

[WVPATX]

Spicer did not say anything about a phone call with Xi, however. Perhaps it had not been scheduled yet. But because the White House provided no notice, the Times did not know when it published its original report that the call would happen.

Had Trump considered the circumstances, he might have realized why his print edition contained outdated information. Or maybe he would have accused the Times of publishing fake news, anyway. After all, ripping the Times is one of his favorite hobbies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...by-the-new-york-times/?utm_term=.9d5a89aec860

Maybe DJT should vet his Tweets more closely.

This is even more laughable. Because Spicer did not mention it in his daily press briefings, they assumed it did not happen or was not scheduled? Again incredible journalistic malpractice. Make the damn call. But neither the reporter nor the editor chose to do so. This was not by accident.

Do yourself a favor and read the basic journalistic principles that I posted from Reuters. In fact read only one of the points, point number two.

 

[WVPATX]

I studied at WVU under Kearns and Atkins, two of the toughest, hard-nosed journalist you could find in their day. I know fully well about the corroboration of a news story. I also know about publication times and deadlines and also that when writing about something that is a past event (a past-tense article) that the original statements are valid at that time.

Ask your daughter, she'll fill you in.

Then those professors were idiots if they did not tell you to contact the subject of the article before publication.

Either that, or Cronkite is simply a much better journalism school.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Then those professors were idiots if they did not tell you to contact the subject of the article before publication.

You sir, know nothing.

 

[WVPATX]

You sir, know nothing.

There were no past statements and you call me an idiot? They did not contact the White House. Let me repeat they did not contact the White House. I would imagine if you were to talk to those two journalism professor's they would tell you that you must contact the subject of the article. The White House has an entire media center set up for us just such inquiries.

Either that or the Reuters principles that I linked to are irrelevant to your two professors.

 

[moe]

This is BS. Who cares about the newspaper in Trump's hand. That is not the point. The Times did not even engage in basic journalism by checking with the subject of the article (in this case, the White House). They printed the story claiming no White House phone call with the Chinese President since November. They did not verify that simple fact with the White House. They published the story claiming no call. The reporter did not call the White House to verify. The editor did not call to verify. Once they learned the call took place, they updated the story about 2 hours after the original and wrong story went out.

This was all done to make Trump look like a bumbling fool. Write a letter but do not call to discuss.

 

[atlkvb]

There were no past statements and you call me an idiot? They did not contact the White House. Let me repeat they did not contact the White House. I would imagine if you were to talk to those two journalism professor's they would tell you that you must contact the subject of the article. The White House has an entire media center set up for us just such inquiries.

Either that or the Reuters principles that I linked to are irrelevant to your two professors.

I too studied under Cremer, Atkins, Ours, Kearns and Stewart. Nothing is reported until confirmed and corroborated from at least one credible source, and preferably backed up by another who confirms the original source.

Anything less is sloppy, unprofessional, and incomplete sourcing of material.

 

[WVPATX]

I too studied under Cremer, Atkins, Ours, Kearns and Stewart. Nothing is reported until confirmed and corroborated from at least one credible source, and preferably backed up by another who confirms the original source.

Anything less is sloppy, unprofessional, and incomplete sourcing of material.

It seems like the two of you had the same professors but heard very different things. Frankly, you are exactly correct.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

“The original story published [online] at 9:03 last night,” the Times explained in a statement. “The story was updated at 11:35, after the White House readout on the call came at 11:04. The first national edition (delivered in D.C.) went to print before the update, and there was not a second national edition last night because of the snowstorm.

Difference of 31 minutes between the the announcement of the call and the updated story, but too late for the early national edition to contain the correction. This is the issue Trump got, no second edition because of the snow storm.

This is BS. Who cares about the newspaper in Trump's hand.

Because this is the edition that Trump referenced in his tweet, the early national edition that contained the updated original story without the correction; the second edition not delivered that day because of the snow storm. The tweet was 10 hours after the corrected edition was available on-line and in other editions. You would think the WH staff would have made other editions available, even if they had to print the on-line edition.

At the time of the story being written, wasn't the reported facts correct?

Correct, at 9:03pm Thursday, after the WH briefing contained no phone call info on China, the NYT published the original story, an update from a past story on the same subject (Thursday AM), on-line and in the early edition of the print paper; only to be corrected within 2.5 hours, 31 minutes after WH notification of the call. From the WH briefing Thursday: Later today, the President will speak with the Emir of Kuwait and the Prime Minister of Iraq. He will provide readouts -- or we will provide readouts of those calls moving towards the conclusion of them. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...riefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-292017-11

Nothing is reported until confirmed and corroborated from at least one credible source, and preferably backed up by another who confirms the original source.

The website NewsDiffs shows the Times reported on a letter sent from Trump to Xi wishing him a happy Chinese New Year, published early Thursday morning. An update to the story was published at 9:30 p.m. revealing Trump and Xi had not spoken since Nov. 14.

Essentially, Sean Spicer confirmed during the Thursday press briefing that no call was scheduled with China. The story published for the early Friday edition, which is what Trump tweeted about, was an update to a "past story" published on Thursday morning containing the same information about the greeting letter and the information from the daily press briefing. I think even Bob Ours would be good with this.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...t-call-with-chinese-president/article/2614482

Spicer did not say anything about a phone call with Xi, however. Perhaps it had not been scheduled yet. But because the White House provided no notice, the Times did not know when it published its original report that the call would happen.

After the briefing, which concluded about 3pm, the readouts from the scheduled calls with the Emir of Kuwait and the Prime Minister of Iraq were not made available until Friday, 2/10/17, presumably in the morning. However, the readout of the unannounced call with President Xi was released late Thursday night, well after the updated original story from the early edition of the NYT had hit the streets. Conspiracy Theorists will have a field day with this. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-and-releases

I don't know if the WH intentionally didn't notify of the call during the press briefing, although it certainly would have made very positive news for them to have done so. Looking at the timing of events for that day it is understandable that the single early national edition could contain the error; corrected for all other editions, but not in DC due to the snow storm that blanketed the area on Thursday night.

 

[atlkvb]

Difference of 31 minutes between the the announcement of the call and the updated story, but too late for the early national edition to contain the correction. This is the issue Trump got, no second edition because of the snow storm.



Because this is the edition that Trump referenced in his tweet, the early national edition that contained the updated original story without the correction; the second edition not delivered that day because of the snow storm. The tweet was 10 hours after the corrected edition was available on-line and in other editions. You would think the WH staff would have made other editions available, even if they had to print the on-line edition.



Correct, at 9:03pm Thursday, after the WH briefing contained no phone call info on China, the NYT published the original story, an update from a past story on the same subject (Thursday AM), on-line and in the early edition of the print paper; only to be corrected within 2.5 hours, 31 minutes after WH notification of the call. From the WH briefing Thursday: Later today, the President will speak with the Emir of Kuwait and the Prime Minister of Iraq. He will provide readouts -- or we will provide readouts of those calls moving towards the conclusion of them. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...riefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-292017-11



The website NewsDiffs shows the Times reported on a letter sent from Trump to Xi wishing him a happy Chinese New Year, published early Thursday morning. An update to the story was published at 9:30 p.m. revealing Trump and Xi had not spoken since Nov. 14.

Essentially, Sean Spicer confirmed during the Thursday press briefing that no call was scheduled with China. The story published for the early Friday edition, which is what Trump tweeted about, was an update to a "past story" published on Thursday morning containing the same information about the greeting letter and the information from the daily press briefing. I think even Bob Ours would be good with this.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...t-call-with-chinese-president/article/2614482



After the briefing, which concluded about 3pm, the readouts from the scheduled calls with the Emir of Kuwait and the Prime Minister of Iraq were not made available until Friday, 2/10/17, presumably in the morning. However, the readout of the unannounced call with President Xi was released late Thursday night, well after the updated original story from the early edition of the NYT had hit the streets. Conspiracy Theorists will have a field day with this. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-and-releases

I don't know if the WH intentionally didn't notify of the call during the press briefing, although it certainly would have made very positive news for them to have done so. Looking at the timing of events for that day it is understandable that the single early national edition could contain the error; corrected for all other editions, but not in DC due to the snow storm that blanketed the area on Thursday night.

Perhaps. I'm not exactly sure of the chronology you lay out here, all I know is after the fact something was reported that was not checked or verified even though circumstances and new information was available that was contrary to what was being reported.

A simple phone call was all that was needed to get the story both accurate and chronologically correct.

Ours, Cremer, Kearns, Atkins all stressed accuracy above all else.

What the media reported was not accurate no matter how the exact chronology played out.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Perhaps. I'm not exactly sure of the chronology you lay out here, all I know is after the fact something was reported that was not checked or verified even though circumstances and new information was available that was contrary to what was being reported.

A simple phone call was all that was needed to get the story both accurate and chronologically correct.

Ours, Cremer, Kearns, Atkins all stressed accuracy above all else.

What the media reported was not accurate no matter how the exact chronology played out.

atlkvb, I would disagree in that the press briefing held just that afternoon confirmed no talks/calls were scheduled with China. Also, since the story for the Friday early edition was an update to a previous story (Thursday), which no one contested (not that it maters, just for the sake of this argument)I can see why the writer would believe he had his corroboration from the press secretary at the press briefing.

We also don't know what other discussions the writer had with others from the WH press staff. Did the writer in fact make an inquiry about any upcoming calls? On the way out from the press briefing to file the story, did the writer seek an update from a WH staffer? Perhaps he/she did or perhaps not, it is the piece we can't know.

You see, and you would agree I'm sure; our accuracy should count for something as well. To throw the writer and the NYT under the bus in this particular instance would be flawed.

Thanks you for being civil in this discussion, unlike some others. But I think you may find agreement in the fact that due to the circumstances of this particular incident, the timelines, lack of announcement from the WH or perhaps in another discussion with the writer, the weather circumstances and the fact that the NYT DID in fact make a correction to the story that the accusations of the original issue in the other post of fake news/media bias may not be accurate either.

I think Atkins, Cremer, Kearns and Ours would have a field day with this discussion. And with smiles on their faces all!

 

[atlkvb]

atlkvb, I would disagree in that the press briefing held just that afternoon confirmed no talks/calls were scheduled with China. Also, since the story for the Friday early edition was an update to a previous story (Thursday), which no one contested (not that it maters, just for the sake of this argument)I can see why the writer would believe he had his corroboration from the press secretary at the press briefing.

We also don't know what other discussions the writer had with others from the WH press staff. Did the writer in fact make an inquiry about any upcoming calls? On the way out from the press briefing to file the story, did the writer seek an update from a WH staffer? Perhaps he/she did or perhaps not, it is the piece we can't know.

You see, and you would agree I'm sure; our accuracy should count for something as well. To throw the writer and the NYT under the bus in this particular instance would be flawed.

Thanks you for being civil in this discussion, unlike some others. But I think you may find agreement in the fact that due to the circumstances of this particular incident, the timelines, lack of announcement from the WH or perhaps in another discussion with the writer, the weather circumstances and the fact that the NYT DID in fact make a correction to the story that the accusations of the original issue in the other post of fake news/media bias may not be accurate either.

I think Atkins, Cremer, Kearns and Ours would have a field day with this discussion. And with smiles on their faces all!

Again, it's about the actual chronology which I agree we do not have all of the details.

If the facts subsequent to publishing weren't corroborated, why publish?

If everything was checked out ahead of time, publish known facts, but then don't come back later saying what you first published wasn't true.

Issue a retraction or correct the known record, don't change the story.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Issue a retraction or correct the known record, don't change the story.

That was done with subsequent editions, the snow storm in DC on that night preventing that edition from being distributed. The on-line edition did contain a corrected and updated story. Here is the later edition's on-line article (11:35 pm Thursday), which also appeared in the Friday print edition everywhere except DC due to the snow storm.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/world/asia/donald-trump-china-xi-jinping-letter.html

I'm having a hard time calling this fake news and media bias because of a major snow storm.

 

[atlkvb]

That was done with subsequent editions, the snow storm in DC on that night preventing that edition from being distributed. The on-line edition did contain a corrected and updated story. Here is the later edition's on-line article (11:35 pm Thursday), which also appeared in the Friday print edition everywhere except DC due to the snow storm.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/world/asia/donald-trump-china-xi-jinping-letter.html

I'm having a hard time calling this fake news and media bias because of a major snow storm.

I can accept that as long as they made the first effort to get it right.

I'm still not sure they did. They did correct it, but after the damage was done and not until alternate facts countering their original reporting emerged.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

I can accept that as long as they made the first effort to get it right.

I'm still not sure they did. They did correct it, but after the damage was done and not until alternate facts countering their original reporting emerged.

They (The NYT reporters) called a source inside the White House and emailed the PressSec/Dir of Comms. They (WH source, Sean Spicer) either did not know of the impending call or they chose not to tell the NY Times. The Times immediately updated the story once new details arrived. What else should they have done? I get the sense the Times may not be getting a ton of responses from this administration.

 

[atlkvb]

They (The NYT reporters) called a source inside the White House and emailed the PressSec/Dir of Comms. They (WH source, Sean Spicer) either did not know of the impending call or they chose not to tell the NY Times. The Times immediately updated the story once new details arrived. What else should they have done? I get the sense the Times may not be getting a ton of responses from this administration.

Fair point. What did they (NYT) know and when did they know it?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I've long since filed this one under the "I don't give a flying ****" bin.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Fair point. What did they (NYT) know and when did they know it?

Yes, can you share a link on that please?

 

[atlkvb]

Yes, can you share a link on that please?

Honestly WVex-pat in GA. I don't have a clue.

I generally mistrust or distrust almost everything that paper publishes. They just have very little credibility with me. I'm sorry to say.

I hope what you posted about their desire to get the story correct is true, but I am just skeptical of both their reporting and intentions simply based on my experience with them and my observed history of their bias and open hostility towards Trump.

They have perfected "lying with the Truth"...I don't read them or trust anything they say even if it's half way true which is usually the best you'll ever get out of them.

Half Truths.

I'll take what you say, but with a heavy grain of salt.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Honestly WVex-pat in GA. I don't have a clue.

I generally mistrust or distrust almost everything that paper publishes. They just have very little credibility with me. I'm sorry to say.

I hope what you posted about their desire to get the story correct is true, but I am just skeptical of both their reporting and intentions simply based on my experience with them and my observed history of their bias and open hostility towards Trump.

They have perfected "lying with the Truth"...I don't read them or trust anything they say even if it's half way true which is usually the best you'll ever get out of them.

Half Truths.

I'll take what you say, but with a heavy grain of salt.

Actually should have directed the original question to COOP who posted the explanation, but I agree with "lying with the truth"; unacceptable.

However, it's the "truth built on a lie" that really makes me mad. I'll go out of my way to prove it wrong regardless of which side of the aisle it comes from.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

They (The NYT reporters) called a source inside the White House and emailed the PressSec/Dir of Comms. They (WH source, Sean Spicer) either did not know of the impending call or they chose not to tell the NY Times. The Times immediately updated the story once new details arrived. What else should they have done? I get the sense the Times may not be getting a ton of responses from this administration.

COOP, can you share a link on this?

 

[WVUCOOPER]

COOP, can you share a link on this?

Hey what am I, Google?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump...-new-york-times-for-fake-news/article/2006793

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Hey what am I, Google?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump...-new-york-times-for-fake-news/article/2006793

You're better than Google. Thanks!

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

So it is clear that the NYT made multiple attempts to verify details for the story.

By Thursday morning, the phone call was scheduled for Thursday night, Washington time, at 8:30 p.m. The Times reported that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson "met with officials at the White House to discuss issuing a statement about relations with China." It's unclear how much more involved Tillerson and the State Department were in setting up the call; a State Department spokesperson referred all questions about the conversation to the White House.

Meanwhile, the Times had begun working on a piece about U.S.-China relations. Reporter Mark Landler had emailed the White House Wednesday to alert them the Times was preparing a story, and his colleague Maggie Haberman called a White House source on Thursday afternoon just before 4:00 pm. Neither was informed by the White House that the call with Xi would occur later on Thursday evening. Landler sent an email at 7:14 p.m., just over an hour before the phone call, to the White House asking about the administration's position One China. But Landler received no response, and so the Times published a story online at 9:00 p.m. that began with this:

When the White House announced this week that President Donald Trump had sent President Xi Jinping of China a letter wishing him a happy Chinese New Year, it did not disclose a major reason for the friendly gesture: Xi has not gotten on the phone with Trump.

Trump, the article went on to say, had not spoken with Xi since November 14. That wasn't true, since Trump had just begun his call with Trump half an hour before the Times story ran. But the call with Xi had not been made public, so the story ran with this detail. It was only after the administration released a readout of the call at 11:04 p.m.—two hours after the initial Times story ran—that the paper updated the article online. At least one version of the print edition of Friday's Times had the original lead, which may have prompted President Trump to tweet this Friday morning:


So, to recap: The New York Times began inquiring at the White House about a story on U.S.-Chinese relations on Wednesday, just as efforts by the administration to coordinate a call between Trump and Xi were underway. By Thursday, the call with Xi had been scheduled, and the Times made a final contact with the White House before running its story. No one in the White House tipped off the Times that the call would occur Thursday night. And even after the online version had been corrected to reflect newly obtained facts, President Trump accused the paper of "fake news" for an incomplete story that ran in its early print edition.