If it was so clear, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because I disagree. Like I said, even all that context doesn’t actually give any context because nothing Trump says really has any meaning. When he says something happened “in the past”, it could mean it happened at literally any time previously, it could mean he expects it to happen soon and as such is an inevitability so he just says it already happened, it could mean it never happened and never will. But even taking him at his word, nothing from that “context” makes me any less likely to believe he found out what Nvidia was minutes before taking the stage. And even if he did know what Nvidia was “in the past”, he did try to break it up without knowing what it was, so where’s the contradiction? I don’t see how that headline is implying any kind of timeframe, inaccurate or otherwise.
It’s not unreasonable to simply dismiss what Trump says entirely, but it’s a different matter to assign it a meaning other than the meaning that can be inferred from context. You’re just putting words in his mouth at that point.
Given all the possible context, I still don’t see the headline as misleading 🤷♂️ idk what to tell y’all. Typically “breaking” news headlines are written in present tense “Trump threatens…”, so any headline that starts “Trump threatened…” I just automatically assume to have happened sometime in the last 10 or 15 years, while bearing at least a semblance of relevance to current events. Like this one. It’s definitely a nothingstory, but it doesn’t read to me as a decrease in journalistic quality.
This is reductive. Why report on anything he says then? But for the sake of argument let’s go with that.
When he says something happened “in the past”, it could mean it happened at literally any time previously, it could mean he expects it to happen soon and as such is an inevitability so he just says it already happened
So how do you go from that to concluding:
othing from that “context” makes me any less likely to believe he found out what Nvidia was minutes before taking the stage
You’re not making any sense. You’re saying “nothing Trump says really has any meaning,” effectively refuting his whole quote, while somehow holding up the conclusion that he “found out what Nvidia was minutes before taking the stage” with, per your own standards you just emphasized, zero evidence, out of thin air.
You very conveniently left out the “But taking him at his word” part of my comment, which kind of negates everything you’re complaining about. See, that’s a good example of taking a quote out of context and changing the meaning, unlike this headline. I do agree that we shouldn’t report onanything he says though, just report on the administration’s actions.
If it was so clear, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because I disagree. Like I said, even all that context doesn’t actually give any context because nothing Trump says really has any meaning. When he says something happened “in the past”, it could mean it happened at literally any time previously, it could mean he expects it to happen soon and as such is an inevitability so he just says it already happened, it could mean it never happened and never will. But even taking him at his word, nothing from that “context” makes me any less likely to believe he found out what Nvidia was minutes before taking the stage. And even if he did know what Nvidia was “in the past”, he did try to break it up without knowing what it was, so where’s the contradiction? I don’t see how that headline is implying any kind of timeframe, inaccurate or otherwise.
It’s not unreasonable to simply dismiss what Trump says entirely, but it’s a different matter to assign it a meaning other than the meaning that can be inferred from context. You’re just putting words in his mouth at that point.
Given all the possible context, I still don’t see the headline as misleading 🤷♂️ idk what to tell y’all. Typically “breaking” news headlines are written in present tense “Trump threatens…”, so any headline that starts “Trump threatened…” I just automatically assume to have happened sometime in the last 10 or 15 years, while bearing at least a semblance of relevance to current events. Like this one. It’s definitely a nothingstory, but it doesn’t read to me as a decrease in journalistic quality.
This is reductive. Why report on anything he says then? But for the sake of argument let’s go with that.
So how do you go from that to concluding:
You’re not making any sense. You’re saying “nothing Trump says really has any meaning,” effectively refuting his whole quote, while somehow holding up the conclusion that he “found out what Nvidia was minutes before taking the stage” with, per your own standards you just emphasized, zero evidence, out of thin air.
So which is it? Is his whole quote invalid?
You very conveniently left out the “But taking him at his word” part of my comment, which kind of negates everything you’re complaining about. See, that’s a good example of taking a quote out of context and changing the meaning, unlike this headline. I do agree that we shouldn’t report onanything he says though, just report on the administration’s actions.