I really don't care how it actually compares to Obama, and I really don't see why Trump cared so much, but the fact is the pictures are clearly not "facts" either. Yet disputing them is still held up as a common example of "deniers".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/03/06/...
Really - there are stronger arguments against Trump.
And yet the parent seems to believe that pointing out optical perspective differences means we're calling those pictures "right-leaning".
The parent is asserting that the truth is merely a compromise between two different opinions, when in reality there's evidence enough to assert the truth, without making it a matter of 'right' or 'left' opinion. Their inability to provide their credible sources ("high def video") is because their opinion doesn't align with the reality of the situation.
There are people who are good at estimating crowd sizes and I'll let them do their job. But, once again, this picture in no way contradicts the others.
You said 'high resolution video' which the gigapixel is not. Can you link these reliable sources you keep eluding to?
edit: knock yourself out then if you really couldn't find it from all my other comments on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nieiu8tmLIM.
I'm beginning to agree with you about this being "a clear-cut case of people being willfully ignorant."
Edit: The video you linked in your edit does not show the crowds. Why did you edit that video link in? Where is the high-def video you eluded to proving the NPS photos were fake news?
'Candidate X comes out as gay.' 'Secret photos reveal candidate X at KKK lynching.' Are both rather over the top, but also the kind of lies that influence elections.
So you're saying that we should let these organizations lie as much as they want, because people lie in your day-to-day life? The people you meet in your day-to-day life and lie to your face are much more limited in the number of people they can influence with lies.
Why shouldn't we make enormously more powerful institutions more accountable for lies?
The tragedy now is that there are sites that aren't neatly packaged as entirely false but are. The Internet has empowered people like Alex Jones and other people spouting pure falsehoods.
PS: There is a huge difference between blowing things that actually happened out of proportion to support an argument and saying anything that someone might believe.
Thankfully we have a word for that, and it even has a relatively well agreed upon meaning: lies.
The problem with the label "fake news" is, as has been pointed out, that it can mean different things to different people.
Weekly world news can have 'Batboy returns' as a headline and sure it's false. But, bookstores also have fiction sections...
This isn't new.
People, whole communities of people believe, non-sense today. Not small groups like Flat-earthers or chemtrail theorists who number in the hundreds or thousands (per their website/forums sign-ups). There will always be some people on the fringe.
We avoided truly ridiculous ideas for decades. Things like "911 was an inside job" or "Obama was born in Kenya" are believed by tens of millions of people. This is a new thing in my life at least. The last issue this big and this false was prevalent was McCarthyism.
Yes, some stuff is arguable, mostly when it involves politics, but there is a ton of stuff on facebook like "Bolivia expels McDonalds and Coca-Cola", or "check this video on why positive ions released by salt lamps can cure cancer".