Vous pouvez ajouter des informations de localisation à vos Tweets, comme votre ville ou votre localisation précise, depuis le Web et via des applications tierces. Vous avez toujours la possibilité de supprimer l'historique de localisation de vos Tweets. En savoir plus
OK. We disagree. When a person in power makes a claim that is both false and outside the realm of law, what journalists should NOT do is accept that premise as true. Doing so only makes the reporter a party to the original lie.
I think we do disagree. If a president makes a threat, or says things that suggest he is ready to take actions outside the law, reporters need to determine whether he intends to do so. Can also challenge his premise. But failing to do the 1st is not doing the job.
Well, let's look at what happened. Everyone reported this 1) as if he came up with the idea of prosecuting it (he didn't) 2) as if it was reasonable. There's a reason Trump gets away with telling lies. Apparently part of the problem is no one is ever questioning his premise.
Add into the fact his known behavior: he says something outlandish. Sycophants don't challenge it. So he acts on that outlandish behavior, and is given ... more press for it. Rinse and repeat. No wonder his threats are getting worse. He's being rewarded for it.
Always amazes me when people who are basically on the same side shoot at each other. One explanation that fits both your goals is that reporters should be permitted to ask simple open-ended questions in the hope that a notorious blabbermouth will say something damning.
That’s baiting, not reporting.
“Can also challenge his premise” - so depressing to read this from a NYT reporter. There was a day when questioning the premise of something illegal was one of the highest callings of a political reporter.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.
