[pfarnsworth]

I DESPISE being in the position to defend Trump, because he is an embarrassment and a buffoon, but the article is filled with half-facts, and is really disappointing, especially for the New York Times.

Trump doesn't "hate Muslims." He banned Muslims from the known terrorist states. He didn't ban Muslims from Indonesia and Malaysia (the two most populous Muslim countries), and Pakistan. So if the author said "Trump hates Middle East Muslims" then that would be more factually correct.

This sort of twisting of words and half-truths are what got us here in the first place, and why both sides don't listen to each other anymore. We need to have honest and truthful conversations, not half-truths that sway the conversation in one's favor. That's not an honest discussion.

EDIT: The article never accuses Trump of hating Muslims, so that's my mistake. The article accuses him of not liking Muslims.

[grzm]

Thanks for taking the time to dig into the piece. A few additional points:

- This is an Op-Ed piece by Roger Cohen in the Opinion section. It's not an article. The NYT has editors of different political persuasions, perhaps not as diverse as some would prefer, but while they're all published in by the NYT, I'm sure they're allowed more latitude as opposed to representing the opinion of the Editorial Board. Of course, that does not justify misrepresenting known facts.

- Nowhere in the piece does the word "hate" appear, much less "hate Muslims", so quoting this is misleading. Cohen does say "The president does not like Muslims" and goes on to support this claim. (Whether or not you think this is justified of course is up to the reader.)

- Cohen also clarifies that the ban does not include all Muslims:

It is obvious now as he attempts to justify a planned suspension of visas for Syrians, Iranians, Iraqis and citizens of four other majority Muslim Middle Eastern and African countries, as well as a temporary ban on almost all refugees.

… “It’s not the Muslim ban,” Trump insisted to Muir. No. It’s just a ban on lots of Muslims.

You're very correct that it's important to maintain the nuance and accuracy of what is actually happening to prevent further polarization, to which we should hold the press, and each other.

[pfarnsworth]

You're correct, as I read it, my mind must have misremembered the quote. I'll add an edit noting what you said.

[masonic]

  This is an Op-Ed piece by Roger Cohen. It's not an article.

But Cohen is a Times employee; an editor, in fact. This is not the work of some random partisan think tank writer merely carried by the Times.

These two elements go well beyond the pale of any sense of journalism:

1) "... his cavalier trashing of the alliance and union that ushered the the Continent from its darkest hours..."

Um, what? When has he trashed (cavalierly or not) the USA-Britain alliance of WW2? Has the P.M. stated anything of the kind?

2) Cohen's piling-on of personal insults. He has no place diagnosing anyone with "narcissistic personality disorder", let alone claiming that Trump has a "lust for torture... and carnage".

[grzm]

I believe the references to World War II are due to the history of the phrase "America First", which goes back at least to the "America First Committee" which was pro-isolationist and against the US entering the war in Europe during WWII.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee

- https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trump-a...

[mcphage]

> This is an Op-Ed piece by Roger Cohen. It's not an article. But Cohen is a Times employee; an editor, in fact.

Why, it's almost like that would make this piece... an editorial!

[grzm]

Yup. And it's expressing an opinion, as opposed to being a more objective article. As I said above, this doesn't excuse any misrepresentation of fact, but it does allow for more lenient application of perspective and interpretation. And the op-ed pieces do sometimes express partisan or political leanings. This shouldn't be a surprise, or even controversial.

[slacka]

> Trump doesn't "hate Muslims."

He started his campaign with a pledge to "ban all muslims entering the US".[1] He has lied about seeing thousands of New Jerseyans celebrating 911. He has also said he "would certainly implement [a Muslim registry]"[1]. OK if you want to be pedantic, fine. No one but Trump knows if he truly hates Muslims. But his actions surely do encourage hate.

> He didn't ban Muslims from Indonesia and Malaysia (the two most populous Muslim countries), and Pakistan.

This doesn't prove that he doesn't hate. It just proves that his policy is was ill thought-out. The 911 terrorist mostly came from Saudi Arabia and the San Bernardino attacked was carried out by a US citizen of Pakistani descent.[2]

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-muslim-registry/story?i...

[2] http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/25/14383316/tr...

[globalbusiness]

This post is contributing to the problem because it is littered with half-truths designed to sway the conversation.

>He started his campaign with a pledge to "ban all muslims entering the US"

Half-truth. Trump isn't calling to "ban all muslims entering the US". Trump is calling for a shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. There is a difference between the two.

>He started his campaign with [this pledge]

Half-truth. Trump started his campaign in June 2015. He made his statements on Muslim immigration in December 2015. This pledge came later.

>He has lied about seeing thousands of New Jerseyans celebrating 911

Half-truth. Lying is “a false statement made with intent to deceive”. Without looking into Donald Trump's head, it's very difficult to show there is intent to deceive. The most likely explanation I've seen floating around, is Trump saw footage of Muslims celebrating the attacks on TV, and mistook those celebrating for being in New Jersey.

NPR elaborates on why it's hard to call this lying here: http://www.spin.com/2017/01/npr-news-wont-call-donald-trumps...

>He has also said he "would certainly implement [a Muslim registry][1]"

Half-truth. In the article you cited, the actual quote is "Oh I would certainly implement that. Absolutely." But in the article you cited, it describes how it's not clear what Trump's "that" refers to. In his earlier answer, he says "There should be a lot of systems, beyond database, we should have a lot of systems, and today you can do it... But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall. And we cannot let what’s happening to this country happen". In Trump's view, his "that" may refer to "a lot of systems, beyond database" plus "a border, [having] strength, [having] a wall". But if "that" refers to the reporter's question 4 sentences earlier, then "that" would refer to "a database that tracks the Muslims in this country".

The article you cited backs up this ambiguity, saying:

"The remarks were made after a rally, and there was speculation by some on social media afterwards that Trump did not hear the entirety of the question, because he refers to the border in his answer."

So really, what "that" refers to is ambiguous.

> the San Bernardino attacked was carried out by a US citizen of Pakistani descent.

Half-truth. The San Bernardino attack was carried out by two people, one of whom was a US citizen of Pakistani descent. The other attacker was born in Pakistan and immigrated on a marriage visa to the U.S.

[malmsteen]

>> The most likely explanation I've seen floating around, is Trump saw footage of Muslims celebrating the attacks on TV, and mistook those celebrating for being in New Jersey.

Yeah sure...

[guildwriter]

The amount of effort it takes these days to build a truthful picture of the situation is exhausting. Depending on the source of the article I have to do anywhere from 3-5 different kinds of searches to confirm if the assertions are actually true. I've taken to flat out ignoring certain sites now due to an established practice of ideological dishonesty. Partisanship is now not a reason alone to disregard a source, everyone is making their biases clearly known.

Add the bitter rancor and the constant ratcheting rhetoric, it actually for the first time makes me not want to listen anymore. I thought things would get better after the election. After about half a year of toxic rhetoric I was looking forward to some respite. If anything things are just getting worse.

Maybe this is the new normal. I really hope it's not.

[jhanschoo]

To be fair, the Trump administration makes it difficult to do reporting agnostic to partisanship. The administration vilifies media outlets that maintain an unfavorable opinion of the administration's policies and interests, even when that opinion is based in fact and good governance. It seems to expect the pseudo-PR relationship the media often has with companies, and has hinted at not entertaining press interviews with media outlets that criticize the administration's policies.

Under such a climate where fact is scarce, it seems that partisanship would only exacerbate.

[grzm]

Thanks for updating your comment to reflect the misquotes. However, even with the edit, it still on the whole misrepresents the editorial, or at least doesn't support its own claims. You've kept in the language regarding "twisting of words and half-truths", but no longer have anything supporting that view in your comment.

Elsewhere on HN you've made many comments regarding others furthering "fake news" by misrepresenting what's been said. If you're sincere about this, you need to do your utmost to do the same yourself. The spirit of wanting to have discussions on difficult topics is one I share, and it's very difficult with the polarizing atmosphere we currently reside in.

A couple of references I find useful to guide how I approach these types of conversations are

- Principle of Charity: http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

- Rapaport's Rules: https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...

I hope you might find something there to take away as well.