Yes, and yet you still referred to drinking bleach as a "perfect remembering" of what the media reported, which is irreconcilable with the acknowledgement above.
I don't give a shit about all these other facile excuses for why you still consider the reporting misleading and malicious. The reasons you've given so far have been frankly kind of pathetic-- "these two separate true statements could be misleading if blah-de-blah", "they shouldn't call a suggestion a suggestion", "they shouldn't warn people about genuine dangers if it could make the President look bad". All just so weak, circumstantial and speculatory partisan waffle, as you dance around the fact that nothing they said was actually wrong, and you described it in a way that was factually wrong.
If the news actively associates Trump's comments with drinking bleach, and you remember that association, it is remembering what you were told. This is not that complicated.
The media actively associates Trump's comments with drinking bleach -> People think Trump told people to drink bleach
Did the media make that association? Yes, and you are well aware of it. Did people think that? Yes, that's how all this started. You understand the cause, you understand the effect, you're not even actually disputing the cause and effect relationship, your only point is "they didn't literally say that, so you told a lie" even though I never say they literally said that.
I'm a little worried right now about your ability to process context. Not only can't you seem to see the implication putting a giant picture of bleach before talking about Trump's comments, you also don't seem to have understood at all why I said "perfect remembering". Agema attempted to say that people thought Trump said to drink bleach because they have "imperfect, human memories", suggesting someone just forgot what was said over time. My point about "perfect remembering" wasn't that people memorized the headlines perfectly, but that the idea of Trump telling people to drink bleach didn't happen after a long period to forget the details, it came out within days of that press conference. It's not a situation where people just forgot what was said over time, it's a situation where they accurately recalled what they believed when it happened. And I showed a multitude of things that would create that false narrative that were published within a week of his statement.
The weird irony is that Trump's stupidity probably helped reduce bleach poisonings in the medium-long term, because it drove a huge campaign to warn people to take more care. It doesn't, however, make Trump's stupidity any less stupid.
It's not a weird irony, it's a deliberate outcome on the part of the news. Put 2+2 together!
The media makes money through attracting people's attention. Tying accidental poisonings to Trump's comments makes it controversial, which attracts a lot of attention. They did it on purpose, it's literally what their business is. They aren't paid based on being honest, they aren't paid based on informing people of dangerous practices, they are paid based on audience size, so they did the thing they got them an audience. They don't care if people take away the wrong message, they did what made it as big of a headline as possible.
www.spectator.co.uk
