If anyone wants an example of this, look at the coverage of the crowd size at Trump's inauguration. That's still held up as the canonical example of the Trump administration's "alternative facts" (in fact that's when the phrase was coined, I believe). But there's high resolution video of the crowds during the ceremony that clearly contradicts the photos of sparse crowds. I also think the guy is a lying moron, but the fact that that photo is still the cover image for campaigns against him should give people pause...
I'm talking about images like this: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/01/20/us/politics/trump.... You can count the lanes that run across the mall before you see any open space, and the photo on the right was clearly not taken any time near the actual ceremony because my memory of live video and recorded video during the ceremony simply doesn't come close to matching.
I really don't care how it actually compares to Obama, and I really don't see why Trump cared so much, but the fact is the pictures are clearly not "facts" either. Yet disputing them is still held up as a common example of "deniers".
That's a photo by the National Parks Service, timestamped 11:51AM, according to the Washington Post. Frankly I trust high-resolution photographic evidence vetted by the National Parks Service and the Washington Post reporting staff, over your memory of unnamed, unsourced live video. But yeah both sides, totally.
Yea that picture definitely reinforces the original Parks Service one. You can see all the empty space and people milling around, not that far in the background. The Obama inauguration was shoulder to shoulder standing room only.
They're using an increasingly popular derailment technique called the common ground fallacy.
The parent is asserting that the truth is merely a compromise between two different opinions, when in reality there's evidence enough to assert the truth, without making it a matter of 'right' or 'left' opinion. Their inability to provide their credible sources ("high def video") is because their opinion doesn't align with the reality of the situation.
And that photo is from the opposite direction, focuses on a different part of the crowd, and in no way contradicts the smaller crowd shown in the other picture.
You know you can rotate the image, right? There are clear landmarks along the mall, countable rows of people, and but a single section where it even comes close to matching up.
Of course I rotated it. And my point stands. The perspective is still different. The rows of people are countable, and looking at some of the further sections there is no way I would be able to count as many rows as at the other. There are 2 sections filled with people at the Obama one that are completely blocked off on the Trump one. That can't be argued with at all.
There are people who are good at estimating crowd sizes and I'll let them do their job. But, once again, this picture in no way contradicts the others.
Great example. FB is becoming a tool to assault rationality of gullible people ( mind you, I am an engineer, good exposure to various news sources, etc and I too have fallen for certain news articles), its extremely effective at nudging people into a fantasy comfort zone, and hold them there. The strength of its algorithm increases as a person is nudged further.
Can you share this 'high resolution video'? AFAIK, those videos were debunked as fake news because the National Park Services photos showed sparse crowds during the ceremony.
Yeah - see the CNN Gigapixel linked to in another reply. I was watching ABC's live feed, which is 8 hours on YouTube I don't feel like sifting through. Much of the debate is over whether or not it was bigger than Obama's, which I really couldn't care less about, and I'm hardly defending Trump's obsession with the comparison, but there's reliable sources matching Trump at the podium with a good view of a very different looking crowd. It's just hardly the case I would make about how it's all just "alternative facts".
The Gigapixel is a 360 of the stage so you can see which politicians attended, and not of the crowds in attendance, which the National Park Service's drones captured.
You said 'high resolution video' which the gigapixel is not. Can you link these reliable sources you keep eluding to?
Nah I'm done commenting on this. There's clear imagery from both ABC and CNN I've referred to elsewhere in this thread. And it's a bloody 360 image - how hard is that?. If you want to pretend those sources are right-leaning and pretend this is actually a clear-cut case of people being willfully ignorant, whatever.
If you're going to claim something is fake news and elude to 'high def video' proving it, then why can't you provide that video when someone asks for it?
I'm beginning to agree with you about this being "a clear-cut case of people being willfully ignorant."
Edit: The video you linked in your edit does not show the crowds. Why did you edit that video link in? Where is the high-def video you eluded to proving the NPS photos were fake news?
