Thank you, Q. Thank you.

talk@talkingpointsmemo.com

but rather, a Reuters error and quite a few sites just went along with it:

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/22/12257840/obama-reaction-trump-rnc-speech

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/obama-fears-expressed-at-republican-convention-dont-jive-with-the-facts/

On edit: Vox has corrected the error

Is the author doing a transcript from a taped statement?

And quite ironically, "jive" is exactly what Mr Trump is selling.

-- Mal

This time from Reuters news writers. The institutional racism is insidious and embedded in our collective sub-conscious.

Why would a British wire service have a vested interest in perpetuating American racism?

-- Mal

But it is a bit of a reach to think that misquoting the US President would serve racism in Britain. And Reuters does have a reputation of being a reasonably fair and accurate source. But of course, "mishearing" has the obvious problem that any reasonably literate reporter should know that "jive" is not the appropriate word, there. This assumes that the transcriptionist is reasonably literate, however, which is not a given any more, and editing is just about a lost art.

-- Mal

I wouldn't be surprised at all if it came down to a half-educated intern just hurrying out copy to beat the other wire services.

-- Mal

They perpetuate right-wing talking points - including racist ones - everywhere they can.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110839077

Of course to hear the local conservatives describe the town where I live it's lawless with crime out of control. Local reasonable people keep pointing out that the numbers show the decrease in violent crime but they never listen.

“Gibe” is a now rare term meaning “to tease.” “Jibe” means “to agree,” but is usually used negatively, as in “the alibis of the two crooks didn’t jibe.” The latter word is often confused with “jive,” which derives from slang which originally meant to treat in a jazzy manner (“Jivin’ the Blues Away”) but also came to be associated with deception (“Don’t give me any of that jive”).
[link:http://www.beedictionary.com/common-errors/gibe_vs_jibe_vs_jive|

This is a wrong attack angle.
One's impressions or immediate perceptions have been systematically and purposefully endowed with the legitimacy previously held by facts, as rather clearly explicated by Pig Rove in his "we create our own reality" confession. I call this a confession because I doubt he has ever read Marx.
So one can align as many facts as humanly possible and still leave believers completely unphased, while even weakening the penetration of one's argument in the process.

The question is whether this reminder of the facts is directed to the opposite camp, or to the remaining uncommitted. I would say it is bootless to hope to sway the members of the other camp by any means, but the question of what the best way to influence the uncommitted is an open one. Arguably, if the emotional and ideological approach were the most efficient means, the uncommitted would have already gravitated to one camp or the other. It is, however, difficult to imagine how anyone with two brain cells to rub together could be undecided in relation to the suitability of Mr Trump for the office of President.

-- Mal

Use of the word to "facts" is the culprit, I think. Saying something like: "US Crime rate has consistently declined since 1994" should be more effective. It's also harder to reject because the period contains 2 republican administrations.

I particularly noticed because so many people get that wrong.

When you link two things that way, there's an implication of causality. I'd recommend making it clear when you consider developments to be parallel, and when you consider them to be linked.

-- Mal