PapaStevesy comments on President Trump threatened to break up Nvidia, didn't even know what it was — 'What the hell is Nvidia? I've never heard of it before'

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 52 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Trying to put Trump quotes into context is like trying to read a Pollock, it's not possible and it's not supposed to be. Your interpretation really didn't change any of the meaning for me, and it certainly didn't contradict the headline.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

Here's the actual video source, skipped to the relevant context:

https://youtu.be/BrTT7dX0mcQ?t=851

And if you don't want that, a clip of the auto transcript I ripped from YouTube:

...And a very special thanks to some of the top industry leaders including somebody that's amazing. I said, "Look, we'll break this guy up." This is before I learned the facts of life. I said, "We'll break them up." They said, "No, sir. It's very hard." I said, "Why?" I said, "What percentages of the market does he have?" I said, "He has 100%." I said, "Who the hell is he? What's his name?" His name is Jensen Wong. Nvidia. I said, "What the hell is Nvidia? I've never heard of it before." He said, "You don't want to know about it, sir." I figured we could go in and we could sort of break them up a little bit, get them a little competition. And I found out it's not easy in that business. I said, "Supposing we put the greatest minds together. They work hand in hand for a couple of years." He said, "No, it would take at least 10 years to catch him if he ran Nvidia totally incompetently from now on." So, I said, "All right, let's go on to the next one." And then I got to know Jensen, and now I see why. Jensen, will you stand up? What a job. What a job you've done, man. Great. It's a great He's a great guy, too. Lisa...

Trump's clearly referencing learning about Nvidia in the past, and getting to know Jensen. He's telling a story about pondering breaking up Nvidia and putting together a government chip development effort before he learned the finer details on what they do. Tom's headline, on the other hand:

President Trump threatened to break up Nvidia, didn't even know what it was — 'What the hell is Nvidia? I've never heard of it before'

Is worded to imply Trump 'threatened' Nvidia blindly, or that he didn't know who Nvidia is during or just before the speech, cherry picking a quote with no context. It's technically plausibly deniable.

Call it what you want, but that is classic tabloid journalism from Tom's.

The headline contradicts what Trump was saying. It sort of contradicts their own article.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

Thanks for all the info. He talks about learning about Nvidia in the past, and mentions talking about breaking it up. That doesn't sound like a business man talking about getting involved in the company, or competing against it, that sounds like a politician wanting to address a very strong company. Trump has only been a politician for the past 9 years. So Trump just found out about the largest chip designer in the world 9 years ago... That seems absurd to me.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

That's just the same as the article. Same quotes.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

If it was so clear, we wouldn't be having this conversation because I disagree. Like I said, even all that context doesn't actually give any context because nothing Trump says really has any meaning. When he says something happened "in the past", it could mean it happened at literally any time previously, it could mean he expects it to happen soon and as such is an inevitability so he just says it already happened, it could mean it never happened and never will. But even taking him at his word, nothing from that "context" makes me any less likely to believe he found out what Nvidia was minutes before taking the stage. And even if he did know what Nvidia was "in the past", he did try to break it up without knowing what it was, so where's the contradiction? I don't see how that headline is implying any kind of timeframe, inaccurate or otherwise.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

It's not unreasonable to simply dismiss what Trump says entirely, but it's a different matter to assign it a meaning other than the meaning that can be inferred from context. You're just putting words in his mouth at that point.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Given all the possible context, I still don't see the headline as misleading 🤷‍♂️ idk what to tell y'all. Typically "breaking" news headlines are written in present tense "Trump threatens...", so any headline that starts "Trump threatened..." I just automatically assume to have happened sometime in the last 10 or 15 years, while bearing at least a semblance of relevance to current events. Like this one. It's definitely a nothingstory, but it doesn't read to me as a decrease in journalistic quality.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

nothing Trump says really has any meaning.

This is reductive. Why report on anything he says then? But for the sake of argument let's go with that.

When he says something happened “in the past”, it could mean it happened at literally any time previously, it could mean he expects it to happen soon and as such is an inevitability so he just says it already happened

So how do you go from that to concluding:

othing from that “context” makes me any less likely to believe he found out what Nvidia was minutes before taking the stage

You're not making any sense. You're saying "nothing Trump says really has any meaning," effectively refuting his whole quote, while somehow holding up the conclusion that he "found out what Nvidia was minutes before taking the stage" with, per your own standards you just emphasized, zero evidence, out of thin air.

So which is it? Is his whole quote invalid?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You very conveniently left out the "But taking him at his word" part of my comment, which kind of negates everything you're complaining about. See, that's a good example of taking a quote out of context and changing the meaning, unlike this headline. I do agree that we shouldn't report onanything he says though, just report on the administration's actions.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent