A video filmed during Donald Trump's New Jersey rally on Saturday has shown "thousands" of people leaving while the former president was still talking.
This about sums it up. They’re all still going to vote for him. They know he’s a rambling senior citizen without scruples or even a plan, and they will support him regardless because they are as stupid as he is.
THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT
THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT
THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT
THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT
THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT
THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT
THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT
Are you just getting caught up? This ship sadly sailed a while ago. More importantly, Newsweek got you to click, so from their perspective the job is done.
The article states pretty explicitly that this is not unusual. Twice. That line they quoted is a direct line from the article:
Trump is still speaking in Wildwood but much of the crowd has left. It’s cold and he’s been speaking 90 minutes. This whole area was full of people when Trump started," Anderson wrote.
And again:
“You can clearly see that people are leaving while [Trump is] rambling incoherently,” Masterson wrote in another post. “This happens at a lot of rallies, cultists show up thinking he will say something new and profound. Then they get bored and walkout.”
The whole premise of the article is stated right up front. Trump claimed an audience of 100,000, but the evidence shows that audience didn’t hang around for him, undercutting the claim.
Feels like before you complain about journalism ethics you should at least commit to actually reading the articles so you know what you’re complaining about.
I think the headline and first few sentences of the article are purposely misleading. They bank on their audiences only reading the headline or a portion of the article in order to make people jump to conclusions, instead of putting the conclusion or main point in the headline.
Be real; what is the first thing you think of when you read that headline? I think most people would assume people are walking out because he said or did something to make them walk out. Not because of the weather. It’s really news worthy that people left a rally because it was cold? C’mon now.
Yes- it’s on audiences to critically think about what they read, but journalism like this certainly doesn’t help. And they know this.
Obviously subjective, but to me that is unethical journalism.
just wanted to add, according to the article the location can fit about 20000 people. 100000 lol - even the police lies less about crowd sizes at demonstrations, a factor of 5 is brazen.
The point of the article is to challenge Trump’s claims about the audience size during his speech, not to suggest he’s losing support. Mostly just to catch him in more lies.
Both the headline and the first sentence imply that people are walking out on Trump while he’s speaking, as though that is a significant, coordinated event. The overestimated crowd figures are a secondary point in the article, probably because that also isn’t news. Future biographers and historians will have “Trump exaggerated the size of [something]” as autocomplete.
This about sums it up. They’re all still going to vote for him. They know he’s a rambling senior citizen without scruples or even a plan, and they will support him regardless because they are as stupid as he is.
Or, they are as hate-filled as he is. Or both…
Yeah seriously. As much as I would love to think his fans were walking out on him, that is not the case.
Are there no ethical standards for journalism?
There’s no profit in ethical standards.
THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT
it’s newsweek.
Are you just getting caught up? This ship sadly sailed a while ago. More importantly, Newsweek got you to click, so from their perspective the job is done.
Ethi-what for whatsthatnow?
The article states pretty explicitly that this is not unusual. Twice. That line they quoted is a direct line from the article:
And again:
The whole premise of the article is stated right up front. Trump claimed an audience of 100,000, but the evidence shows that audience didn’t hang around for him, undercutting the claim.
Feels like before you complain about journalism ethics you should at least commit to actually reading the articles so you know what you’re complaining about.
I think the headline and first few sentences of the article are purposely misleading. They bank on their audiences only reading the headline or a portion of the article in order to make people jump to conclusions, instead of putting the conclusion or main point in the headline.
Be real; what is the first thing you think of when you read that headline? I think most people would assume people are walking out because he said or did something to make them walk out. Not because of the weather. It’s really news worthy that people left a rally because it was cold? C’mon now.
Yes- it’s on audiences to critically think about what they read, but journalism like this certainly doesn’t help. And they know this.
Obviously subjective, but to me that is unethical journalism.
just wanted to add, according to the article the location can fit about 20000 people. 100000 lol - even the police lies less about crowd sizes at demonstrations, a factor of 5 is brazen.
The point of the article is to challenge Trump’s claims about the audience size during his speech, not to suggest he’s losing support. Mostly just to catch him in more lies.
Both the headline and the first sentence imply that people are walking out on Trump while he’s speaking, as though that is a significant, coordinated event. The overestimated crowd figures are a secondary point in the article, probably because that also isn’t news. Future biographers and historians will have “Trump exaggerated the size of [something]” as autocomplete.
Waste of energy. He’s been lying about his popularity for quite a long time now.