Editors: "Trump Posts Video Calling Netanyahu 'Deep, Dark, Son of a Bitch'." Yet the story says Trump posted a video of SOMEONE ELSE calling Netanyahu a DDSoaB. Didn't you often call out Maureen Dowd (IIRC) for deceptive editing? This is a strike against your integrity.
I stand corrected on a technicality. But I'll add that the way the headline is framed, it isn't actually Trump or any person uttering the slander, it is a VIDEO passing judgment. Kind of like "a car plowed into a crowd of pedestrians." No human involvement is implied. Stoll, who rightfully calls out the NYT (and others) for these deceptions, should know better. But he does great work, so he gets a pass this time.
I agree that Trump's re-posting could be an instance of sloppiness, with no intention of endorsing Sachs' anti-Netanyahu opinion, as I detailed in a separate comment. But this was a good opportunity to make sure that people are aware of the term dowdification, which conveys a distortion of quotes for which we need to be vigilant.
Trump re-posted a post by "Wall Street Apes" that included the Sachs video. The "Wall Street Apes" post was exclusively about Obama and Syria, with no mention of Netanyahu or Iran. So it is plausible that Trump posted the video because of Sachs' derisive comments about President Obama's actions in Syria, and did not mean to amplify Sachs' comments about Netanyahu. Doing so would be sloppy, but it is not as if Trump is never sloppy. Even Elon Musk is occasionally sloppy.
Editors: "Trump Posts Video Calling Netanyahu 'Deep, Dark, Son of a Bitch'." Yet the story says Trump posted a video of SOMEONE ELSE calling Netanyahu a DDSoaB. Didn't you often call out Maureen Dowd (IIRC) for deceptive editing? This is a strike against your integrity.
This does not really meet the criteria for dowdification:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dowdification
The omission of a word or a phrase in order to reframe a quote and alter its meaning.
This is usually done to help an author portray a particular viewpoint and is very common amongst weblogs.
The term is named after the New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd.
I stand corrected on a technicality. But I'll add that the way the headline is framed, it isn't actually Trump or any person uttering the slander, it is a VIDEO passing judgment. Kind of like "a car plowed into a crowd of pedestrians." No human involvement is implied. Stoll, who rightfully calls out the NYT (and others) for these deceptions, should know better. But he does great work, so he gets a pass this time.
I agree that Trump's re-posting could be an instance of sloppiness, with no intention of endorsing Sachs' anti-Netanyahu opinion, as I detailed in a separate comment. But this was a good opportunity to make sure that people are aware of the term dowdification, which conveys a distortion of quotes for which we need to be vigilant.
Trump re-posted a post by "Wall Street Apes" that included the Sachs video. The "Wall Street Apes" post was exclusively about Obama and Syria, with no mention of Netanyahu or Iran. So it is plausible that Trump posted the video because of Sachs' derisive comments about President Obama's actions in Syria, and did not mean to amplify Sachs' comments about Netanyahu. Doing so would be sloppy, but it is not as if Trump is never sloppy. Even Elon Musk is occasionally sloppy.