You very conveniently left out the “But taking him at his word” part of my comment, which kind of negates everything you’re complaining about. See, that’s a good example of taking a quote out of context and changing the meaning, unlike this headline. I do agree that we shouldn’t report onanything he says though, just report on the administration’s actions.
If it was so clear, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because I disagree. Like I said, even all that context doesn’t actually give any context because nothing Trump says really has any meaning. When he says something happened “in the past”, it could mean it happened at literally any time previously, it could mean he expects it to happen soon and as such is an inevitability so he just says it already happened, it could mean it never happened and never will. But even taking him at his word, nothing from that “context” makes me any less likely to believe he found out what Nvidia was minutes before taking the stage. And even if he did know what Nvidia was “in the past”, he did try to break it up without knowing what it was, so where’s the contradiction? I don’t see how that headline is implying any kind of timeframe, inaccurate or otherwise.
Trying to put Trump quotes into context is like trying to read a Pollock, it’s not possible and it’s not supposed to be. Your interpretation really didn’t change any of the meaning for me, and it certainly didn’t contradict the headline.
I just hate their app and refuse to use it
Sounds like a plan!
Feel free!
Maybe if you keep licking the shit out of his ass you might find a Tesla in there
Given all the possible context, I still don’t see the headline as misleading 🤷♂️ idk what to tell y’all. Typically “breaking” news headlines are written in present tense “Trump threatens…”, so any headline that starts “Trump threatened…” I just automatically assume to have happened sometime in the last 10 or 15 years, while bearing at least a semblance of relevance to current events. Like this one. It’s definitely a nothingstory, but it doesn’t read to me as a decrease in journalistic quality.