Big media can present a factually true but misleading statement and get away with lying if nobody notices. Deception by misleading is an attempt to hide a lie. It will trick the reader to believe something that isn’t true even though the statement itself is factually accurate. An otherwise accurate but irrelevant statement to cast someone in a false light is a vicious lie. It’s vicious because the liar uses a true but misleading statement to hide his deception. It’s a cunning trick.
Here is an example of how Reuters used a factually true but statement to bamboozle the reader into reaching a false conclusion:
WASHINGTON, July 30 (Reuters) – More than half of the Trump administration’s $8.4 billion in trade aid payments to U.S. farmers through April was received by the top 10% of recipients, the country’s biggest and most successful farmers, a study by an advocacy group showed on Tuesday.
Highlighting an uneven distribution of the bailout, which was designed to help offset effects of the U.S.-China trade war, the Environmental Working Group said the top 1% of aid recipients received an average of more than $180,000 while the bottom 80% were paid less than $5,000 in aid.
The EWG, a Washington-based non-profit, said it obtained data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture through Freedom of Information Act requests for its research, the results of which could not be independently verified by Reuters.
The percentages stated above may or may not be true. That’s not the issue.
The bulk of U.S. farm aid may very well have gone to the largest farmers. Reuters wants its readers to conclude that President Trump favors the wealthy farmers over the smaller ones. This will help you believe the canard that Trump’s tax cut went mostly and unfairly to the rich.
Again, because Trump doesn’t care about the little guy. He wants to help the rich get richer. That is not true, that it’s the lie that helps Reuters advance its agenda against Trump and have readers go away with a false impression.
There is a logical explanation of why the big farmers got the bulk of the farm aid. It’s because the aid was meant to compensate farmers for their losses due to the U.S./China trade war. The losses are measured by the amount of farm products sold in which the farmer received a lower price solely due to the trade war. The amount of aid a farmer received for losses are tied directly to the amount of crops he sold.
This is simple arithmetic. Large farmers sold more and therefor lost more money. Small farmers sold less and therefor lost less. If the amount of aid they receive is an offset for losses, those who lost the least get the least amount of aid money. Those who lost the most get the most aid money.
What about the rich getting the biggest tax cut from the Trump tax bill? If the reduction in taxes was say, 5%, then someone with an annual income of $1 million will get a bigger tax cut that someone with an annual income of $100,000. It’s similar to the farm aid in that one who pays taxes on a smaller annual income will see a smaller tax cut measured in dollars, even though both receive the same percentage tax cut.
It’s just arithmetic, not favoritism of one group over another. But the media is famous for stating the facts in a way trying to make you hate Donald Trump. They hate him and they want you to hate him also.
If we need somebody to hate, let’s hate the media for lying to us.