Alternative Facts

[StCapps]

If you use kid gloves and never lie, the media will eat his lunch, he can't remain purely on the defensive, that's a losing strategy. He has no choice but to answer back with some offense if he's going to do his job effectively.

Losing strategy. Nobody is talking about policy and is instead using facts & data to show how the WH is always lying. Terrible strategy.

The electorate doesn't care about policy, they cared about how the candidates made them feel. Just because you claim to care about fact and data, doesn't mean that electorate actually gives a shit, even if they pretend to. It's a great strategy to ignore the facts when they can only hurt you, politically speaking. The electorate doesn't punish that strategy, they reward it.

[MilSpecs]

I don't dispute that Trump had a big crowd. He just didn't have the largest crowd ever, nor larger than Obama's, and his press secretary lied about it. Honestly, why lie and spend capital on something so trivial?

Because the media lied about the crowd size and said it was small. So the press secretary like a good little hack portrayed the opposite narrative and embellished to combat their lies. This isn't rocket surgery.

Again with 'the media' like there was a conspiracy to downplay the inauguration. The first time I heard anything about the inauguration being 'small' was here. If the press secretary hadn't lied I wouldn't have even thought about it.

And I expect embellishment and tweaking and spin. Outright outrageous lies are a different story.

[StCapps]

Again with 'the media' like there was a conspiracy to downplay the inauguration. The first time I heard anything about the inauguration being 'small' was here. If the press secretary hadn't lied I wouldn't have even thought about it.

Then you weren't paying close attention to inauguration coverage, if you had been you would have heard about the media downplaying it. Just because you heard it from us first doesn't mean that we have a faulty impression.

[ssu]

But, don't counter lies with more lies..... that's not a winning strategy.

You say that like most people are capable of telling what the truth is. It is a winning strategy, it worked for Trump all campaign.

We disagree. If the first thing the press secretary says is a lie, he starts out of the gate with no credibility whatsoever. Losing strategy. The media should be spanked, but there are plenty of opportunities to do that without lying.

Wellcome to the new normal.

Now one could think that things will improve, that it's just the start of the administration and they don't have their act together. I don't think it's the case. It will stay like this. Trump won't change, the way how Trump's campaign worked and the way how the Trump transition team worked is likely showing to be just the way the administration is going to work. Yes, there are professionals there, but at the center will be Trump himself, who will endlessly tweet and make things the way they are.

The Press Secretary does not need high levels of credibility, he should be aiming to have more credibility than the press and that is not a difficult task with their behavior as of late. So far the Press Sec is achieving his aim and isn't in any real danger of failure, hence winning strategy. As long as it's a counter lie, it won't hurt him much at all, unprovoked lying will reduce credibility at a much higher rate and that's why the media's credibility is so low in comparison to the Press Sec.

That is as funny as it sounds.

Yes, using facts and telling truth is highly overrated in the post-truth World. Don't have any need for it. Everything is just an opinion. Who can know for sure?

[pineapplemike]

Who is the enemy of my enemy when both of my enemies are dishonest? Can't blame the dishonest WH for trying to get ahead of the dishonest press, but they overplayed their hand, I thought it was incredibly petty when Spicer went after the grass coverings as if they were put there to highlight how small Trump's crowd was.

Or were they... ?

[Okeefenokee]

I don't dispute that Trump had a big crowd. He just didn't have the largest crowd ever, nor larger than Obama's, and his press secretary lied about it. Honestly, why lie and spend capital on something so trivial?

Because the media lied about the crowd size and said it was small. So the press secretary like a good little hack portrayed the opposite narrative and embellished to combat their lies. This isn't rocket surgery.

Again with 'the media' like there was a conspiracy to downplay the inauguration. The first time I heard anything about the inauguration being 'small' was here. If the press secretary hadn't lied I wouldn't have even thought about it.

And I expect embellishment and tweaking and spin. Outright outrageous lies are a different story.

That's where you're wrong. The MHF didn't do this. The media did. There is absolutely a conspiracy. Where have you been?

[StCapps]

That is as funny as it sounds.

Yes, using facts and telling truth is highly overrated in the post-truth World. Don't have any need for it. Everything is just an opinion. Who can know for sure?

We've always been in a post-truth world. Trump merely capitalized on that reality. A post-truth world didn't simply emerge as a new state of affairs that arose as a result of modern communication technology, that merely exacerbated an already existent condition.

[adwinistrator]

But, don't counter lies with more lies..... that's not a winning strategy.

If you think their strategy is to gain the respect of the nation's mainstream media outlets, then it would be considered a terrible move.

I think it's clear this is not their strategy, so you'd have to rethink your judgement of the act, in the context of what their strategy really is.

Their strategy is to have an "us vs them" conflict with the MSM, and to push that to the limit. This allows them to control the media's focus by creating a conflict wherever they choose, instead of allowing the media to control where the focus is.

There are many contentious confirmation hearings currently underway, with many reasons all Americans should be concerned. There is a disturbingly large number of lesser positions that are currently empty, this is a very precarious situation for the American government. The transition of administrations is the story that should be covered right now, and it would not look good for Trump's administration.

So is their strategy successful at this moment? Was this specific act, of the press secretary picking this silly fight, a good strategic move?

Us vs. Them posturing is ratcheted up. Trump supporters trust MSM less, Trump more.
Media focus is controlled, not enough people are focusing on the deficiencies in staffing.

Yes, using facts and telling truth is highly overrated in the post-truth World. Don't have any need for it. Everything is just an opinion. Who can know for sure?

Spot on. The lines have been drawn, the teams have been chosen.

[ssu]

]We've always been in a post-truth world. Trump merely capitalized on that reality. A post-truth world didn't simply emerge as a new state of affairs that arose as a result of modern communication technology, that merely exacerbated an already existent condition.

You might have some point there, I have to admit.

Yet I would say that there have been huge differences just as how post-truth things are. On the global scale, the US has been more to the "truth" side. At least there is an effort to be open, and in reality the US government is in many ways far more transparent than let's say the EU, just to give an example.

[adwinistrator]

]We've always been in a post-truth world. Trump merely capitalized on that reality. A post-truth world didn't simply emerge as a new state of affairs that arose as a result of modern communication technology, that merely exacerbated an already existent condition.

You might have some point there, I have to admit.

Yet I would say that there have been huge differences just as how post-truth things are. On the global scale, the US has been more to the "truth" side. At least there is an effort to be open, and in reality the US government is in many ways far more transparent than let's say the EU, just to give an example.

I think the big shift in the last decade has been an expansion of post-truth into the realm of facts. Different political narratives have always been claimed by each worldview, including different analysis of events, and different explanations of people's motives. Now, we're seeing the same mentality pushing on the basic facts of events that is the foundation of any discussion that can be had.

Post-truth is nothing new, it's just the application of where it begins and ends that has changed.