News: Fake or Real?

The day I wrote this, Trump and Putin met at the gang of 20 meeting in Hamburg. The spin on that meeting was as widespread as any I've seen. A neutral observer would call it a draw if it were a competition, which is how the media billed it. Actually, it was not a competition, it was a meeting between two heads of state to discuss mutual problems. Each got some of what they wanted. Personally no fan of Trump, I'd have to score him as the winner if I scored it. Note the media spun the story as a competition, like a championship game.

First, Donald kept the meeting to just the two of them, along with their Secretaries of State and two interpreters: six in all. Putin wanted to bring several more. Score one for Trump, though a couple of news sites mentioned it in passing, not one seemed to recognize it as part of the competition. On the contrary, he who sets the ground rules scores big time.

Next, Trump seems to have kicked it off by bringing up the election right off the bat. He moderated it in the eyes of many by saying the American people wanted an answer about Russian interference. Tillerson commented afterwards that he pressed Putin more than once on the issue. Of course Putin said they were innocent. Did the media expect him to fall down in abject repentance and guilt? They seemed to think Trump should have hit him with increased restrictions and threats. Odd, since Obama could have done the same thing and received effusive praise while conservatives excoriated him. My major point here is not a critique of today's coverage, but to point out an excellent example of how the media spins news. Today's was exaggerated.) If Trump had nailed Putin at the very beginning, he would have hurt our chances to get concessions elsewhere that might save lives.

Obviously the most important immediate impact is the truce in SW Syria. Whether it holds or not depends on other factors as well, such as the militias fighting there under the control of neither country. Nevertheless there's a chance for a break in the fighting and discussion over time. Note there was no mention of Iran in this discussion or anywhere else, though they may have talked about it and not reported it. After all, they talked over two hours, and a large part was on Syria.

Tillerson and his Russian counterpart gave contrary interpretations to what happened. I'm sure both had their respective countries' audiences in mind. Thus to the Russian, Trump accepted Putin's disclaimer on the election hacking. Tillerson said Trump kept bringing it up. Between the two I would think our Secretary of State more likely to be telling the truth.

Now let's go back and pay attention to what I would call the meta-conference. In business it's well known you have a power advantage if you get someone to come to you on your territory. You can see home-field advantage documented in sports. This was a neutral site, but the arrangements for the meeting determined certain things. Most important, the two men were basically alone, six people instead of 16 as Putin would have wished. This was huge! Trump nixed it (or his aides) showing he would not be bullied nor intimidated. Had Putin showed up with a dozen, do you think the atmosphere would have been the same?

A neutral observer might feel that the most important thing was the leaders of two great powers met to discuss world affairs. With North Korea thrown into the mix, the meeting takes on even more importance. Most of the sites I read indicated there would be follow-ups, an excellent thing, indicating that it went well enough to continue talking. No one stalked off muttering threats!

I've been meaning to write this blog about how to distinguish between reliable and biased news for awhile. I couldn't pass up the opportunity today. If you are serious about learning to distinguish real from fake news, read about the confab on five or six different news sites and pay attention to the differences!