The New York Times tweeted a photo comparing White House photos showing many less in 2017's photo of the New England Patriots compared to the 2015's photo when Barak Obama was president.
The message was clear: Trump is hated; Obama beloved by the football team.
It was re-tweeted by CNN.
Question for analysis: Did Jason Stallman do it intentionally or unintentionally?
The New England Patriots, seeing the false narrative, sent out a message stating that many personnel were seated on the lawn.
A recent study showed that 89% of media, in the first 100 days of the Trump presidency, was decidedly negative. The negativity ranged from comparisons to Adolph Hitler, the orchestrator of the Holocaust where more than 6 million Jews were killed, in a war where estimates run from 50 million to 80 million dead. One MSNBC contributor called for the bombing of Trump Tower, while others routinely report "white supremacy, racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny, homophobia, hatred" and so on. This was the message of main stream media throughout the entire election year.
When caught promoting a false narrative, New York Times Jason Stallman made this statement:
“Bad tweet by me. Terrible tweet. I wish I could say it’s complicated, but no, this one is pretty straightforward: I’m an idiot. It was my idea, it was my execution, it was my blunder. I made a decision in about four minutes that clearly warranted much more time. Once we learned more, we tried to fix everything as much as possible as swiftly as possible and as transparently as possible. Of course, at that point the damage was done. I just needed to own it.”
Does he take responsibility for political propaganda in false news reporting?
“Bad tweet by me. Terrible tweet.
Note that it does not begin with the pronoun "I." Is this because it is a statement without "I"? We note that he goes from "bad" to "terrible", which now follows with the pronoun "I", allowing for an uptick in reliability, as he psychologically enters the statement:
I wish I could say it’s complicated, but no, this one is pretty straightforward: I’m an idiot.
He tells us what he "wishes" he "could" say. This now brings him, himself, into the statement, and he tells us he is limited in what he can say. He uses the pronoun "I" three times in this one statement.
The message that it is not complicated is not openly stated, but he uses the word "but" in comparison. It would be interesting to hear him explain why this picture, sans context, is "complicated."
The New England Patriot's "uncomplicated" it with 23 words. Remember, the subject is employed as a journalist.
It was my idea, it was my execution, it was my blunder. I made a decision in about four minutes that clearly warranted much more time.
Here we see personal ownership regarding;
He stated that it "warranted much more time."
He does not tell us what would warrant more time. This is a critical point in the statement because it is where he no longer wishes to be "alone" in the statement:
Once we learned more, we tried to fix everything as much as possible as swiftly as possible and as transparently as possible.
At this point, he is caught promoting a false narrative against the president, and he makes a dramatic change. No longer is it "me, "I" and "my" but now he moves into the plural use of "we."
a. "we tried to fix everything"
b. "as much as possible"
c. "as swiftly as possible"
d. "as transparently as possible"
This is a key change from "I" to "we" that is analyzed.
Please note that "fixing" is what is done when something is broken. If this was an "accident", it would need to be "fixed", rather than owned.
Question for analysis: Was it unintentional? (if so, it is a mistake that needs to be fixed).
a. "we tried to fix everything"
Note that "tried" means attempted but not completed.
This is, however, heavily qualified.
Please note that he would need to tell us what "everything" is. He could have said, "others were seated on the lawn."
With "tried" attempting but not completion, what is the qualifications added?
*as much as possible
This is to state that there would be some things outside his ability to fix.
What would this be?
*as swiftly as possible" introduces the element of time.
This is his third use of time.
1. four minutes
2. warranted more time
3. swiftly as possible
It is interesting to see him touch upon time these three times when we note that this statement was made while the tweet was still posted.
All of this qualification is now under "plural" ("we") where he, himself, is no longer alone.
b. "as transparently as possible"
Here he introduces not only transparency (truth), but he puts a limit upon transparency.
He is telling us that he has concealed information.
The context of this concealed information is in the "fixing" of which he has placed both conditions and limitations upon.
Of course, at that point the damage was done. I just needed to own it.”
Here we see the conclusion of the matter: "the damage was done", of which he distances himself from it ("that point").
The anti-Trump message was deliberately designed to promote a narrative and his ownership is made weak by his change from singular to plural, and his both qualifying and limitation of it.
He does not own his "mea culpa" and uses self-deprecating words to emotionally impact his audience. If he believed he was an "idiot" he would resign from his position as it would be too challenging for him.
He is deceptive.
Transparency is very sensitive to him. This is likely a projection of his own deceptive narrative, thinly veiled, and not owned.
Would a sports journalist be need a 'safe space' if the conclusion is that he did not "man up" here?