Simply asserting that something is so without a supporting argument is play-ground stuff on the level of "My dog is smarter!" .
The media does often "gets it" wrong. A famous case was the headline, "DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN!". Another set of wrongly gotten events would be the sure bet on Hillery Clinton in 3016 and the equally incorrect sure bet on President Trump in 2020. And of course everyone seems to have gotten everything wrong during the so-called pandemic. The same folks missed the serious degradation of President Biden's health over those four years. as ell. . . .and many now dimwit in their post administration writings.
Historical reporting is different from news reporting. The history of ancient Egypt has been settled for a few centuries. But today, there are new discoveries in Egypt nd in Turkey that is changing the way that history is looked t.
The history of the Islamic expansion during the 7th century is also being looked st in a new light as differing original texts are being compared and new satellite imagery revises onsite archeology.
I recall the stir that was made when the full extent of the plot to assonate President Lincoln was revealed in the 1960s.
Historical research continues long after current events are rep[orted. Historiens individually may "get it" wrong, but collectively , in the long run, the truth is out there.
Again: Just saying so does not make it so. It is quite likely that much of what President Trump is attempting to rebuild or refurbish will be viewed as a part of his presidential legacy for decades. It is my belief that making these changes are strategic decisions on his part or exactly that reason.
Originally Posted by ICU 812
Nowadays, the media does not "often get it wrong." Any news outlet that often got stuff wrong would be out of business. A good news organization reports accurately, most likely on the Internet in addition to whatever other medium they use, and if something is found to be incorrect, it's corrected in real-time.
"DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN!" was an admitted mistake, but one based upon an educated guess made with the most recent data available. The paper relied on its veteran Washington correspondent and political analyst Arthur Sears Henning, who had predicted the winner in four of the five presidential contests since 1928. As conventional wisdom, supported by various polls, was almost unanimous that Dewey would win by a landslide, the first (one-star) edition of the Tribune therefore went to press with the banner headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN".
The Tribune had also switched to a method by which copy was composed on typewriters, photographed, then engraved onto printing plates. This required the paper to go to press several hours earlier than had been usual.
Not only did the Tribune not have the timely access to data news organizations now have, it was static and needed hours of lead-time to print. It wasn't a matter of just "getting it wrong." News is now published in seconds and published corrections are just as fast.
You can't compare history pre-Internet to now. Information is now gathered and transmitted 24/7. Articles are published throughout the day, rather than once a day or once week. Everyone has a camera and events that will become historical are captured by multiple people from multiple angles.
You reference items mainly from pre-recorded history. History is now something recorded as we go---in writing, in video recordings, in audio recordings, and photography. People take indelible notes as they go. Texts and emails cannot really be deleted. All this makes revisionist history virtually impossible, no matter how many websites are changed or folks in the media do 180s on their stories. We also have the Wayback Machine website.
If Lincoln was assassinated today, the odds of unraveling the whole plot taking a hundred years would be very low. If JFK were assassinated today, it would most likely not have nearly as many conspiracy stories behind it. Not that conspiracy thinking will ever stop, but there's more evidence now to debunk it.
If your comment was in reference to my post, I didn't write it without any support. I included the articles in which I found the information I passed along.
The ABC story referenced "sources" and because neither The White House, nor Schumer's office commented, I wrote, "Trump
apparently tried to get Chuck Schumer to change the name of Penn Station and Dulles Airport". Some folks may call ABC News "Fake News", but that doesn't make it true. Fake news is incorrect news.
If ABC News reported incorrect news, I think they would be easily disproven and go out of business. If I didn't trust ABC News, I would have written "might have tried." : )
The story in The Hill contains direct quotes from Donald Trump captured on video. Like I pointed out above, that's now history. I also watched that video clip before I read the story, so I essentially witnessed it.
You're absolutely correct when you write, "Just saying so does not make it so." That's exactly why I don't watch any opinion shows or networks, left or right.
Trump will definitely leave a lasting legacy He has to be the most documented President, yet, so historians will have plenty of documented and recorded information to analyze.
I also wholeheartedly agree with you when you write, "Simply asserting that something is so without a supporting argument is play-ground stuff on the level of 'My dog is smarter!'".
Again, that is why I don't watch opinion shows or networks. To me, without supporting arguments, it's a waste of time.
I just wish more people believed the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman
