I'm Not Crazy! Press is Gaslighting Us

Forum for off topic and general discussion.

I'm Not Crazy! Press is Gaslighting Us

Postby TotalyMeow » Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:05 pm

A few weeks ago, I mentioned a WP article that headlined something like "Trump picked a guy who once prayed for rain for his cabinet", and proceeded later in the article to make fun of the guy for being Christian, because the press oddly hates Christianity. I was later mocked for this because the article had a completely different headline and a different text from what I remembered, but the article contained no edits or retractions.

But a recent AP article has been more widely distributed, so this time there's proof that the media are changing their articles, headlines, text, completely rewriting them and leaving no edit or retraction tags behind to show it. Just pretending that the new article is the original. This is extremely disturbing.

First, the AP article as it is now can be found here.

Current text in Spoiler:

AP Exclusive: DHS weighed Nat Guard for immigration roundups
By GARANCE BURKE
Feb. 18, 2017

The White House distanced itself Friday from a Department of Homeland Security draft proposal to use the National Guard to round up unauthorized immigrants, but lawmakers said the document offers insight into the Trump administration's internal efforts to enact its promised crackdown on illegal immigration.

Administration officials said the proposal, which called for mobilizing up to 100,000 troops in 11 states, was rejected, and would not be part of plans to carry out President Donald Trump's aggressive immigration policy.

If implemented, the National Guard idea, contained in an 11-page memo (http://apne.ws/2l1Dj0k ) obtained by The Associated Press, could have led to enforcement action against millions of immigrants living nowhere near the Mexican border. Four states that border on Mexico were included in the proposal — California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas — but it also encompassed seven states contiguous to those four — Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.

Despite the AP's public release of the document, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said there was "no effort at all to utilize the National Guard to round up unauthorized immigrants." A DHS official described the document as a very early draft that was not seriously considered and never brought to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly for approval.

However, DHS staffers said Thursday that they had been told by colleagues in two DHS departments that the proposal was still being considered as recently as Feb. 10. DHS spokeswoman Gillian Christensen declined to say who wrote the memo, how long it had been under consideration or when it had been rejected.

The pushback from administration officials did little to quell outrage over the draft plan. Three Republican governors spoke out against the proposal and numerous Democratic lawmakers denounced it as an overly aggressive approach to immigration enforcement.

"Regardless of the White House's response, this document is an absolutely accurate description of the disturbing mindset that pervades the Trump administration when it comes to our nation's immigrants," said U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said he would have "concerns about the utilization of National Guard resources for immigration enforcement," believing such a program "would be too much of a strain on our National Guard personnel."

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert would have serious concerns about the constitutional implications and financial impact of activating the National Guard to round up unauthorized immigrants, the governor's office said in a statement.

Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval questioned the legality of the plan described in the draft memo and said it would be an inappropriate use of guard resources.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), said, "This administration's complete disregard for the impact its internal chaos and inability to manage its own message and policy is having on real people's lives is offensive."

The AP had sought comment from the White House beginning Thursday and DHS earlier Friday and had not received a response from either. After the AP released the story, Spicer said the memo was "not a White House document" and said there was "no effort to do what is potentially suggested."

Governors in the 11 states would have had a choice whether to have their guard troops participate, according to the memo, which bears the name of Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general.

At a maximum, approximately 100,000 Army National Guard and Air National Guard personnel would be available for stateside missions in the 11 states, according to statistics and information provided by the National Guard Bureau.

While National Guard personnel have been used to assist with immigration-related missions on the U.S.-Mexico border before, they have never been used as broadly or as far north.

The memo was addressed to the then-acting heads of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It would have served as guidance to implement the wide-ranging executive order on immigration and border security that President Donald Trump signed Jan. 25. Such memos are routinely issued to supplement executive orders.

Also dated Jan. 25, the draft memo says participating troops would be authorized "to perform the functions of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension and detention of aliens in the United States." It describes how the troops would be activated under a revived state-federal partnership program, and states that personnel would be authorized to conduct searches and identify and arrest any unauthorized immigrants.

If implemented, the impact could have been significant. Nearly one-half of the 11.1 million people residing in the U.S. without authorization live in the 11 states, according to Pew Research Center estimates based on 2014 Census data.

___

Read draft memo here: http://apne.ws/2l1Dj0k

AP writers Allison Noon in Carson City, Nevada, Lindsay Whitehurst in Salt Lake City, Utah and Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock, Arkansas, contributed to this report.

The AP National Investigative Team can be reached at investigate@ap.org and https://www.ap.org/tips

Follow Garance Burke on Twitter at @garanceburke


This article is dated Feb 18, yet the original tweet that happened just before the article was published happened on Feb 17, that article was linked by Claeyt on the 17th, and the Daily Wire did an analysis of that article on the 17th. The Daily Wire article, linking to the above link, quotes completely different words from what the article now contains, and a completely different headline from that of the AP article.

So, what did the AP article say originally? Well unlike the previous WP article, this one went viral. It has long been a practice of smaller news outlets to run articles and news clips from larger outlets and that helps us here, because the AP might have stealth changed their article and removed the original from their website, but they couldn't remove it from other people's websites. The original text and headline of the article can be found on many small news sites like this one or this one.

So, the original text is this:

Trump weighs mobilizing National Guard for immigration roundups
The Trump administration is considering a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops
Garance Burke, Associated Press

Topics: american immigration lawyers association, border wall, Donald Trump, From the Wires, Mexico, News, Politics News

Trump weighs mobilizing National Guard for immigration roundups
Picture FILE
Caption - In this Feb. 24, 2015, file photo, members of the National Guard patrol along the Rio Grande at the Texas-Mexico border in Rio Grande City, Texas. The Trump administration is considering a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, including millions living nowhere near the Mexico border, according to a draft memo obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)(Credit: AP)

The Trump administration is considering a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, including millions living nowhere near the Mexico border, according to a draft memo obtained by The Associated Press.

The 11-page document calls for the unprecedented militarization of immigration enforcement as far north as Portland, Oregon, and as far east as New Orleans, Louisiana.

Four states that border on Mexico are included in the proposal — California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas — but it also encompasses seven states contiguous to those four — Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.

Governors in the 11 states would have a choice whether to have their guard troops participate, according to the memo, written by U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general.

While National Guard personnel have been used to assist with immigration-related missions on the U.S.-Mexico border before, they have never been used as broadly or as far north.

The memo is addressed to the then-acting heads of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It would serve as guidance to implement the wide-ranging executive order on immigration and border security that President Donald Trump signed Jan. 25. Such memos are routinely issued to supplement executive orders.

Also dated Jan. 25, the draft memo says participating troops would be authorized “to perform the functions of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension and detention of aliens in the United States.” It describes how the troops would be activated under a revived state-federal partnership program, and states that personnel would be authorized to conduct searches and identify and arrest any unauthorized immigrants.

Requests to the White House and the Department of Homeland Security for comment and a status report on the proposal were not answered.

The draft document has circulated among DHS staff over the last two weeks. As recently as Friday, staffers in several different offices reported discussions were underway.

If implemented, the impact could be significant. Nearly one-half of the 11.1 million people residing in the U.S. without authorization live in the 11 states, according to Pew Research Center estimates based on 2014 Census data.

Use of National Guard troops would greatly increase the number of immigrants targeted in one of Trump’s executive orders last month, which expanded the definition of who could be considered a criminal and therefore a potential target for deportation. That order also allows immigration agents to prioritize removing anyone who has “committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense.”

Under current rules, even if the proposal is implemented, there would not be immediate mass deportations. Those with existing deportation orders could be sent back to their countries of origin without additional court proceedings. But deportation orders generally would be needed for most other unauthorized immigrants.

The troops would not be nationalized, remaining under state control.

Spokespeople for the governors of Arizona, Utah, Nevada, California, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oregon and New Mexico said they were unaware of the proposal, and either declined to comment or said it was premature to discuss whether they would participate. The other three states did not immediately respond to the AP.

The proposal would extend the federal-local partnership program that President Barack Obama’s administration began scaling back in 2012 to address complaints that it promoted racial profiling.

The 287(g) program, which Trump included in his immigration executive order, gives local police, sheriff’s deputies and state troopers the authority to assist in the detection of immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally as a regular part of their law enforcement duties on the streets and in jails.

The draft memo also mentions other items included in Trump’s executive order, including the hiring of an additional 5,000 border agents, which needs financing from Congress, and his campaign promise to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

The signed order contained no mention of the possible use of state National Guard troops.

According to the draft memo, the militarization effort would be proactive, specifically empowering Guard troops to solely carry out immigration enforcement, not as an add-on the way local law enforcement is used in the program.

Allowing Guard troops to operate inside non-border states also would go far beyond past deployments.

In addition to responding to natural or man-made disasters or for military protection of the population or critical infrastructure, state Guard forces have been used to assist with immigration-related tasks on the U.S.-Mexico border, including the construction of fences.

In the mid-2000s, President George W. Bush twice deployed Guard troops on the border to focus on non-law enforcement duties to help augment the Border Patrol as it bolstered its ranks. And in 2010, then-Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced a border security plan that included Guard reconnaissance, aerial patrolling and military exercises.

In July 2014, then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry ordered 1,000 National Guard troops to the border when the surge of migrant children fleeing violence in Central America overwhelmed U.S. officials responsible for their care. The Guard troops’ stated role on the border at the time was to provide extra sets of eyes but not make arrests.

Bush initiated the federal 287(g) program — named for a section of a 1996 immigration law — to allow specially trained local law enforcement officials to participate in immigration enforcement on the streets and check whether people held in local jails were in the country illegally. ICE trained and certified roughly 1,600 officers to carry out those checks from 2006 to 2015.

The memo describes the program as a “highly successful force multiplier” that identified more than 402,000 “removable aliens.”

But federal watchdogs were critical of how DHS ran the program, saying it was poorly supervised and provided insufficient training to officers, including on civil rights law. Obama phased out all the arrest power agreements in 2013 to instead focus on deporting recent border crossers and immigrants in the country illegally who posed a safety or national security threat.

Trump’s immigration strategy emerges as detentions at the nation’s southern border are down significantly from levels seen in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Last year, the arrest tally was the fifth-lowest since 1972. Deportations of people living in the U.S. illegally also increased under the Obama administration, though Republicans criticized Obama for setting prosecution guidelines that spared some groups from the threat of deportation, including those brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

Last week, ICE officers arrested more than 680 people around the country in what Kelly said were routine, targeted operations; advocates called the actions stepped-up enforcement under Trump.

___

The AP National Investigative Team can be reached at investigate@ap.org

Follow Garance Burke on Twitter at @garanceburke
More Garance Burke.


This is an incredibly disturbing thing. As Claeyt insisted before, they HAVE to put the retractions and notifications of edits in their articles. And yet, it looks like they've realized that they really don't. Ethically, they must, but if they decide they don't need those ethics anymore, if they just start changing their history as they please because they want to insist they were never wrong or lying, how are we to trust them at all?
Community Manager for Mortal Moments Inc.

Icon wrote:This isn't Farmville with fighting, its Mortal Kombat with corn.
User avatar
TotalyMeow
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3782
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:14 pm

Re: I'm Not Crazy! Press is Gaslighting Us

Postby Forungi » Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:39 pm

We cannot trust most of the public media in any nation on earth, that is the sad truth and it has been that way now for a very long time, even if things are escalating rapidly now.
Arm yourselves and prepare for the worst my brothers and sisters, for the end is nigh and all those who do us wrong shall perish.
Forungi
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 3:31 pm

Re: I'm Not Crazy! Press is Gaslighting Us

Postby Yes » Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:50 pm

Commercial journalism cannot really be a universally reliable source of information nowadays.
(a person who plays online games since the 1980s about salem) laywn wrote:I have never seen anything so down right dirty!
User avatar
Yes
 
Posts: 796
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:53 pm

Re: I'm Not Crazy! Press is Gaslighting Us

Postby DarkNacht » Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:05 pm

Redaction notices existed because you can't edit a physical newspaper or a story on the nightly news yesterday, the press is finally realizing that they operate on the Internet and there for doesn't need them, they have also realized that because they can edit the articles at any time they can publish them unfinished with placeholder titles and edit them later, at some news outlets, to save time and maximize output, the editors don't even bother to read over the article until it is up and gets so many views, this way they don't have to bother with articles that few people will ever see. Is this the ideal for the consumers of news? No. But its is exactly what you would expect from for profit news agencies operating on the Internet and dependent on ad revenue.
DarkNacht
 
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 11:24 am

Re: I'm Not Crazy! Press is Gaslighting Us

Postby Claeyt » Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:53 pm

First off, you are fundamentally misunderstanding this Tmeow.

These are 2 different articles about the same thing. Webpage articles dated for different days or with different titles are considered separate articles for copyright. The AP updated with a different article and more information on the 18th after they learned more and got more comment on it. The original 'Trump Administration' came from the original reporting that it was a response memo from Trump's appointed ICE administrator as to how they might detain so many people. He wrote the memo as a response to a question from the Trump administration (reportedly senior counsel Stephen Miller). Stephen Miller, the DHS and the head of ICE are all part of Trump's administration so I don't know why you're calling this a false headline. This happened on the 17th. This was not wrong information. It came out on the 18th that the DHS had also been part of the life of the memo.

What you're mistakenly pointing out is the AP updating the story in the following days. The webpage isn't supposed to stay static with no changes. The reporting changes and another article is written as more is learned. They haven't been wrong about anything, they've just been adding to it.

For web pages they generally will only add apologies for stories not retractions.

Again, nothing that the AP wrote is false, just more.
Last edited by Claeyt on Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Claeyt
 
Posts: 5166
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: I'm Not Crazy! Press is Gaslighting Us

Postby ZoddAlmighty » Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:55 pm

I wish Totally Meow had this much passion for Salem as she has for politics.
ZoddAlmighty
 
Posts: 1078
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:45 pm

Re: I'm Not Crazy! Press is Gaslighting Us

Postby TotalyMeow » Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:07 am

ZoddAlmighty wrote:I wish Totally Meow had this much passion for Salem as she has for politics.


Hey, I'm here on the forums every day. :( If I could work on the code, you know I would.

Claeyt wrote:First off, you are fundamentally misunderstanding this Tmeow.

These are 2 different articles about the same thing. Webpage articles dated for different days or with different titles are considered separate articles for copyright.


Except they're not two different articles. The first article is gone, and the old link points to this new article. Like they want to pretend the first never existed. Which I can understand, the first was an especially large pile of crap, but it's not ethical for them to be doing this.

Claeyt wrote:The AP updated with a different article and more information on the 18th after they learned more and got more comment on it. The original 'Trump Administration' came from the original reporting ... This happened on the 17th. This was not wrong information. It came out on the 18th that the DHS had also been part of the life of the memo.


It wouldn't be a problem if it was a new article with a new link. If the old link still pointed to the first article and the new article got it's own link, that would be fine. If the updated article was appended to the bottom of the first one as an update, that would be fine too. If the old article was completely rewritten with a series of notes saying 'Sorry, this was wrong so we changed it', that would be perfectly alright. But that's not what happened. Read both articles, the second one is completely different in almost every word, but they're pretending it's the original article. That's wrong. You can't make a big stink, print a bunch of lies, create an uproar, and then pretend you didn't do it. What happens when someone cites something like this as a source and when it's checked later, the original information is gone? What happens when someone in the future wants to research what happened and the information just isn't there? How far back can or will they go with this 'editing'?

Claeyt wrote:What you're mistakenly pointing out is the AP updating the story in the following days. The webpage isn't supposed to stay static with no changes. The reporting changes and another article is written as more is learned. They haven't been wrong about anything, they've just been adding to it.


A webpage can change all it likes, but a reported story should remain as is. If they weren't confident enough in their story to stand by it after publication of it, they should have waited until they had enough information to be confident. They didn't add to the story, adding to it would have been fine; they completely changed it so much that it's as if the original article never was.
Community Manager for Mortal Moments Inc.

Icon wrote:This isn't Farmville with fighting, its Mortal Kombat with corn.
User avatar
TotalyMeow
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3782
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:14 pm

Re: I'm Not Crazy! Press is Gaslighting Us

Postby Chrumps » Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:49 am

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

"Updating" press documents was exactly the kind of job the main character of 1984 was doing.
Chrumps
 
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:51 pm
Location: Poland

Re: I'm Not Crazy! Press is Gaslighting Us

Postby Claeyt » Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:58 am

TotalyMeow wrote:A webpage can change all it likes, but a reported story should remain as is. If they weren't confident enough in their story to stand by it after publication of it, they should have waited until they had enough information to be confident. They didn't add to the story, adding to it would have been fine; they completely changed it so much that it's as if the original article never was.


The AP new service is one of, if not the most reliable sources of news in the world. They are one of the most generic and reliable news sources out there. Next time you read your local news's national story, check out who wrote it. I bet it's the AP.

A reported story changes daily. Nothing they reported on the 17th or the 18th is false and the more I read the 2 the more you can see THEY ARE 2 SEPARATE REPORTED STORIES. They have different dates, different facts (all true within them). I mean it's clear from reading the second story that they're incorporating White House and DHS quotes and comments about the memo including the White House denying it is policy or went above ICE or is even still part of administration thinking.

They absolute did add to the story on the second day. A webpage linking to the story is not proof that they are trying to fool you. THEY ARE DIFFERENT STORIES EVEN IF THEY LINK TO THE SAME PAGE. The second story clearly is a follow up with new information. Their main webpage linked to the headline through to the story over a 2 day period. New sources and comments from the DHS, Republican Governors and White House came in and the AP updated the story.

If they said anything false I'm sure they'd post a full correction or story about why they were wrong but they won't because nothing they reported was wrong or fake or false.
User avatar
Claeyt
 
Posts: 5166
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: I'm Not Crazy! Press is Gaslighting Us

Postby Dallane » Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:03 am

Claeyt wrote:Image


I bet the major news networks in Sweden are just as reliable right?
Please click this link for a better salem forum experience

TotalyMeow wrote: Claeyt's perspective of Salem and what it's about is very different from the devs and in many cases is completely the opposite of what we believe.
User avatar
Dallane
Moderator
 
Posts: 15039
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:00 pm

Next

Return to City upon a Hill

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests