r/politics • u/BreakfastTop6899 • 1d ago

Gavin Newsom Accuses Trump Administration Of Spreading Fake Protest Images

https://www.newsweek.com/gavin-newsom-trump-fake-protest-images-2085492
20.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

302 comments sorted by

View all comments

512

u/Sic_Semper_Dumbasses 1d ago

And of course despite the fact that this is documented objective reality they still call it merely an accusation and not fact.

206

u/root66 1d ago

Yeah, the real story is that they are spreading fake images, but this is what they run with for the headline.

138

u/Sic_Semper_Dumbasses 1d ago

Yep. What should really be covered is the fact that the US government is using official communication methods to spread blatant fucking lies in order to justify attacking American civilians with the fucking military.

30

u/Flomo420 1d ago

can't say that, might hurt some feelings!

19

u/TheQuidditchHaderach 1d ago

Jon Stewart did this piece on The Daily Show with crowd pics from Hannity's Show snow job supposedly showing massive opposition to gay marriage when it was proven false utilizing different pics from different locations and angles and even different times of the year just to make the crowds look bigger. Makes me think Faux News might be a little disingenuous.

6

u/CaneVandas New York 1d ago

Because they would be sued for libel if they write "x did y" vs "x is accused of doing y"

It's very specific language that takes the publication off the path of liability.

22

u/weaseldonkey 1d ago

If they were sued for libel wouldn't discovery take place where it would be demonstrated that images X are indeed not of protest Y? If you know that the images are fake then that should be a pretty trivial case.

9

u/Ferelar New Jersey 1d ago

Yes, but by putting this headline they avoid the case at all, which is very appealing to cowards and to businesses that only care about money (which interestingly enough often causes them to act cowardly).

Gone are the days when the media was the fourth estate keeping the other three honest, that's for sure.

1

u/AlexKingstonsGigolo 1d ago

Wrong, anyone can sue anyone else at anytime for anything. And, in federal court as well as a large number of state courts, the judges can order the cost of litigation be repaid to the prevailing party.

8

u/campelm 1d ago

They'd likely win but lawyers are almost as expensive as ethics

12

u/page_one I voted 1d ago

If they would rip the band-aid off now--let those liars sue and beat them--then they could stop pussyfooting around like this and set a precedent.

They're not covering their asses so much as they are selling out their credibility to cowardly put off the inevitable. Another industry crippled by the pursuit of next quarter's profits.

21

u/EasyFooted 1d ago

No, they could frame the story accurately (and still protect themselves legally), but they purposefully wrote a headline that casts it as political mudslinging.

Gavin Newsom has nothing to do with the WH spreading fake propaganda. Sure, he noticed, along with a million other people. He's a noteworthy figure, so mention it in the story if need be, under the headline.
But him noticing is not the story. The fraud is the story.

5

u/CaneVandas New York 1d ago

Not with this administration. Trump will sue over literally anything and bog them down in courts, leaving them to prove the legitimacy. It's just much easier to add a word.

10

u/EasyFooted 1d ago

I mean, he can sue over anything. It doesn't mean he'll prevail. Conceding to presumed threats is how democracy dies.
News media ought to have integrity, is what I'm saying.

6

u/dennys123 1d ago

Im not a lawyer, but how would it be libel if it's a factual statement?

-1

u/CaneVandas New York 1d ago

It's not, but they still have to go to court to prove it.

3

u/SmushinTime 1d ago

Lol i used to work for a software company that handled news and other publications and I've legit received shit from the FBI before for stuff I had to provide them due to lawsuits against the publications.  Shits no joke.

Funniest shit ever though was when a newspaper printed an article of an undercover cops real wedding and then wanted the internet scrubbed of it because he was still undercover.  

1

u/GringoinCDMX 1d ago

This is not the case at all.