• just_another_person@lemmy.world
    2·
    2 months ago

    There isn’t even any substantial disagreement with what she’s saying in this very article. Instead, it MORE than disavows things that Trump has specifically said, or tacitly endorsed, like Project 2025. Why in the fuck would you write an article essentially saying “Well, these statements are based in reality and facts, but you can’t just say bad things without seeing it happen first.”

    YES, YOU FUCKING CAN. HE HAS SAID THESE THINGS.

    God damn, NPR. Never thought I’d be downvoting something coming from you.

  • theprogressivist @lemmy.world
    1·
    2 months ago

    Love how this article is trying to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Fuck the media for trying to still normalize him and shame on you OP for posting this bs.

      • Passerby6497@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        Appeal to authority fallacy. Even good sources put out shit content, and it’s hilarious that the main defense of the argument is source not content.

        For good reason, the content is shit coming from a decent source.

  • CoolBurner@lemmy.world
    1·
    2 months ago

    The tolerant left is on full display in the comments XD

    If it were the same title except with “Trump’s RNC speech” at the end, it would have 4567898765456789 upvotes

  • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
    1·
    2 months ago

    Good for NPR, showing us how it’s done. I love to see this kind of holding to account rather than the unquestioning tribalism and sycophantism you get from right wing outlets.

    You can vote for a candidate, and even support them - encouraging others to vote for them, while being critical of them as well. Just have to make sure it’s the right context (not whataboutism or sealioning).

    (Obligatory I’m-not-American disclaimer.)

    • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
      2·
      2 months ago

      Literally the point that the article opens with

      It’s the role of the press to try and hold politicians to account for the accuracy of their statements in a good-faith way. 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.

    • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
      1·
      2 months ago

      It’s because this attempted neutral stance of “equal treatment” from NPR (and Politifact earlier) is massively benefiting Trump. People won’t absorb the nuances between Harris’ statements “lacking in context” and Trump’s outright outrageous lies, they’ll barely even read the article at best. So the effect is only a perpetuation of the sentiment “well, it looks like both sides lie so they’re equally bad” which plays right into Trump’s hands.

      • Fermion@feddit.nl
        1·
        2 months ago

        Did you even read the article? NPR also published the same format about Trump’s convention speech which covered 162 false and misleading statements and is linked in the beginning of this article. Also, if you read the content of this piece, most of the explanations just make Trump look bad.

    • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.worldOP
      1·
      2 months ago

      Yeah. It sure is great watching Democrats turn against the most benign, inoffensive, and liberal-friendly news channel in the country because they attempted the most basic level of neutral journalistic rigor (and even had to explain in their article the concept of neutral journalistic rigor).

      Makes me super-optimistic for the future of democracy.

      I can’t wait for Democrats to accuse NPR of being Russian assets.

  • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
    0·
    2 months ago

    Oh no, better open up the article to see how egregious the lies are:

    Harris says that her administration wants to pass laws. But she did not mention that laws have to be passed by Congress! How dare she mislead people like that!

    …