My thoughts: I think it's a good correction because this is the same type of "journalism" we would point to when talking about how liberal rags are full of shit.
Trump, himself, has been the target of such dishonest reports and his supporters should know that.
I have no idea how it works so well but every Twitter community note I've seen was illuminating, even a couple times where it went contrary to what I wanted to think.
The way I see it, fake news makes the side pushing it look bad, and whatever helps us our side to limit the propagation of fake news is to our benefit.
Again, "Trump War Room" isn't pushing out news. It's obviously going to be biased. It's stupid shit talking and mud slinging. There's no reason to believe anything that any candidate says about any other candidate, and there's only about a 5% chance that you can trust anything they say about themselves.
Are we just going to ignore the almost certainly biased Never Back Down tweet? I don't even know (or care) who they are but I'd be willing to bet a lot of money on that being an uncharitable characterization of what happened.
I don't get why people are so fucking worked up about mud slinging during the primaries. Nobody but obsessive weirdos pay attention to this stuff, and plenty of it goes in every direction so focusing on specific instances is stupid.
I don't even know (or care) who they are but I'd be willing to bet a lot of money on that being an uncharitable characterization of what happened.
I'm not sure about the best way of handling it. The tweet was unprofessional, but it did explain what was going on and had a visual aid in the picture.
If someone wrote an article debunking it, posting the link to that article would've been more professional. But I doubt something like that would be enough to justify an article.
My thoughts: I think it's a good correction because this is the same type of "journalism" we would point to when talking about how liberal rags are full of shit.
Trump, himself, has been the target of such dishonest reports and his supporters should know that.
I have no idea how it works so well but every Twitter community note I've seen was illuminating, even a couple times where it went contrary to what I wanted to think.
The way I see it, fake news makes the side pushing it look bad, and whatever helps us our side to limit the propagation of fake news is to our benefit.
Again, "Trump War Room" isn't pushing out news. It's obviously going to be biased. It's stupid shit talking and mud slinging. There's no reason to believe anything that any candidate says about any other candidate, and there's only about a 5% chance that you can trust anything they say about themselves.
Are we just going to ignore the almost certainly biased Never Back Down tweet? I don't even know (or care) who they are but I'd be willing to bet a lot of money on that being an uncharitable characterization of what happened.
I don't get why people are so fucking worked up about mud slinging during the primaries. Nobody but obsessive weirdos pay attention to this stuff, and plenty of it goes in every direction so focusing on specific instances is stupid.
I'm not sure about the best way of handling it. The tweet was unprofessional, but it did explain what was going on and had a visual aid in the picture.
If someone wrote an article debunking it, posting the link to that article would've been more professional. But I doubt something like that would be enough to justify an article.
Tweet: https://nitter.nl/TrumpWarRoom/status/1665396257265680385
This is where the debate took place (Twitter Space):
https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1OdKrzqNZpAKX?s=20
The conversation about the tweet begins around the 18min mark