We should fact-check lies AND distortions, use platforms everywhere to expose them. But I believe we should also say what may have started a lie, but no longer applies, e.g. years ago a preservative in some vaccines was suspected of contributing to an increase in autism rates, But many investigations, much research, showed that was totally false now--maybe ever.
This method shows we are listening and can give an inkling of credence where deserved, But how, over time or with more research, the charge was proven false and it's no longer valid.
Every time I hear Trump say other countries ripped us off in trading, I know that's probably based on either no or very shaky evidence, and it's blurry because there are many other countries involved and many policies. Blanket charges are both easy to make and usually wrong, but there must be a kernel of truth in there somewhere.
There are histories we can look up--trade policies of the past against the US. Were these significant? What part of these charges can we believe, if any--one or two countries involved and only for a few years? Too far in the past to matter? Or...what?
Let's improve our messaging to counter and usually refute Trump's stream of nonsense. We'll get more traction that way.
We should fact-check lies AND distortions, use platforms everywhere to expose them. But I believe we should also say what may have started a lie, but no longer applies, e.g. years ago a preservative in some vaccines was suspected of contributing to an increase in autism rates, But many investigations, much research, showed that was totally false now--maybe ever.
This method shows we are listening and can give an inkling of credence where deserved, But how, over time or with more research, the charge was proven false and it's no longer valid.
Every time I hear Trump say other countries ripped us off in trading, I know that's probably based on either no or very shaky evidence, and it's blurry because there are many other countries involved and many policies. Blanket charges are both easy to make and usually wrong, but there must be a kernel of truth in there somewhere.
There are histories we can look up--trade policies of the past against the US. Were these significant? What part of these charges can we believe, if any--one or two countries involved and only for a few years? Too far in the past to matter? Or...what?
Let's improve our messaging to counter and usually refute Trump's stream of nonsense. We'll get more traction that way.
Helen, Santa Rosa, CA