There’s a few good reasons why I chose to start with this topic. Firstly because of its frequency, and secondly because it’s a black and white issue. There’s no in between. It’s either true or it isn’t. The particular word “refuses” is an interesting one because it’s a strongly oppositional word. It means that someone is so strongly against something that they would never do it. This is a lot different to just suggesting that “so and so didn’t do this thing” or “so and so hasn’t done this thing yet” because in those cases, it isn’t insisting on anything, it’s just suggesting that something hasn’t been done, which could be something said out of ignorance (for example if the person involved had done this thing but  the reporter was not aware).

Now if you are suggesting that someone “refuses” to do something, then if they do this thing even once, your suggestion is completely false. If someone supposedly refuses to eat nuts, but they have been seen eating nuts, then there is no merit to the claim that the person refused to eat nuts. However, if that person has been seen eating nuts over and over, and people keep asking that person over and over why they refuse to eat nuts, well, it would probably be clear that someone is probably going nuts! It’s also clear that the people asking why a nut eater would refuse to eat nuts so many times would most likely have an agenda. There might not be a written record of a person eating nuts, but if people ask the person multiple times why they refuse to eat nuts, anyone reading or watching the transcripts or interviews would wonder what this person has against eating nuts! Then people would be free to think of this person as a nut refuser!

Diabolical, isnt it?!

This makes proving the truth of the claim very easy. If we see the thing happen once, the claim is false. If we see the thing happen many times, the claim is completely blown out of the water!

Journalism standards and ethics:

On that note. Usually if someone is asking a question like this to a very popular and well known figure, it’s usually not out of ignorance. But if it is, it may make the person look bad, but it also makes the interviewer look bad. If you either 1. Haven’t done your research, then you’ll look lazy or incompetent, or 2. Have malicious intent or personal bias, that will show through and reveal your true motives, or simply your lack of professionalism.
Here is an outline of the values journalism should be guided by.

Journalism is guided by five values:

1. Honesty: journalists must be truthful. It is unacceptable to report information known to be false, or report facts in a misleading way to give a wrong impression;
2. Independence and objectivity: journalists should avoid topics in which they have a financial or personal interest that would provide them a particular benefit in the subject matter, as that interest may introduce bias into their reporting, or give the impression of such bias. In cases where a journalist may have a specific financial or personal interest, the interest should be disclosed;
3. Fairness: journalists must present facts with impartiality and neutrality, presenting other viewpoints and sides to a story where these exist. It is unacceptable to slant facts;
4. Diligence: a journalist should gather and present pertinent facts to provide a good understanding of the subject reported;
5. Accountability: a journalist must be accountable for their work, prepared to accept criticism and consequences.^[16]

Now, a professional journalist should understand the consequences of their actions if they damage their reputation or their organisations reputation. Thus ignorance is not an excuse in professional journalism. Let’s quickly check out this wiki article on ethics in journalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

“Journalism today is built off true, accurate and objective information.^[18] To remove those aspects would be damaging to the very core of not just journalism. The very way information is spread and given to viewers and others all around the world. The audience will see the lack of ethics and standards, making others question what is good, reliable information or not.”

Another interesting example of this comes from the https://studykraken.com/journalistic-ethics-and-standards/ which states: Journalists must ensure that the information they gather and present to the public is accurate. Following the “seek truth and report it” standard, one has to be accountable for their work’s accuracy (Society of Professional Journalists, 2014). This means that time constraints or any other pressures cannot justify publishing information that was not thoroughly reviewed and checked. 

The answer to “why does it seem like you don’t like being asked this question so many time throughout the years?” can be best explained by Hugh Laurie’s frustration with being asked about the same things – for example his accent – every time he is interviewed. It’s clear that after a few times it becomes a nuisance, and the hosts should be more prepared to be aware of this and not ask the same questions that everyone else is asking so as not to bore or frustrate their guest.

What happens when you ask someone the same question over and over:

Stop boring Hugh Laurie (4,224 views•Jan 5, 2010 MrsKutner 433 subscribers)

That aside, let’s continue with our story.

Now the rabbit hears that Trump absolutely refuses to condemn white supremacy! What kind of racist person wouldn’t condemn hatred of certain racial groups?! The rabbits friend has made up their mind to spread this message on to the next rabbit, because it’s such salacious news!

But the turtle is reading through books with transcripts of all Trumps public speeches, and he discovers that not only has Trump condemned white supremacy, he has also rejected, denounced, and disavowed (and probably more) over 60 times!

Trump Transcripts

The third rabbit has received the message that this person known as Trump is the kind of guy that just refuses to condemn white supremacy! What will this rabbit do next?

The turtle uses his portable device to look up videos on the internet, and discovers a video clip of Trump condemning white supremacy 38 times in one video!

How do you think the rabbits and the turtle will react to this??!

Now the fourth rabbit has been told that Trump just will not, under any circumstances, condemn white supremacy! How dare he?!

Now that Turtle has done his research, he is quite knowledgeable that Trump condemned white supremacy and hate many times! So he confidently shares this information with another Turtle.

The four rabbits meet up and, strangely, all have exactly the same thing to say, which was the exact same thing that the first rabbit said. Neither of them have taken any time to check if this is true, so they are all counting on their group to be saying the same thing that they are, so that they can appear up to date, and with the latest trends. Thus, they say it, but there isn’t any thought behind it, it’s simply an echo, or a ‘parrot’ of what everyone else is saying.

This turtle has a trusted source, that has proven to be reliable over and over, but as is common with Turtles, they tend to be slow to making up their minds, as they will need more time to research and decide if the claim is true or not for themselves.

This means that at least one of the turtles is 100% confident in his idea, whilst the other one is confident  for now, as his source has never let him down, but will be happy to take the time to check it out later. The turtles can confidently discuss the topic because they have taken the time (or at least used a source who has taken their time and shown consistency).

When they are outnumbered by the rabbits saying something different to them, they are not bothered in the slightest. That’s because they know what the truth about this issue is.

However, the rabbits who have just been passing the information on in a hurry, now have 4 Rabbits saying the same thing, but the two Turtles are saying something different. So the Rabbits each glance at each other awkwardly. Sure, they have the numbers, but it does make them feel uncomfortable that some animals are saying something that is the exact opposite of what they are saying. The Turtles have noticed that four Rabbits are saying the opposite of what they are saying, but the Turtles know their stuff, and probably just assume that the Rabbits are, as usual, the fastest at spreading news, but not the best at checking to make sure if it is true or not. The Turtles are not bothered, but will happily state the truth so that the Rabbits will be aware that not everyone thinks the same as they do.

This is where our little story ends. A questioning and resourceful mind is often slower to arrive at conclusions about something, but they are taking time to think through the issue, to dig into the topic, to look into all the corners and see what’s really going on. This kind of thinking and reasoning, in our example, is called Turtle Thinking. If you’re a Turtle Thinker, you’re often more reliable, and more confident in your ideas. Not because you aren’t open to correction, but usually because you don’t make up your mind right away, so there’s less correction needed in the long run.

Then there are the Rabbit Reasoners. People who reason like rabbits are often quick with the hottest and newest news. But when it comes to news, the first out of the gate is not often the most accurate. This is simply because there is always more to the story, and the quicker a story is spread, the less time has been utilised to verify sources and events. This can be harmless in some situations where it’s nothing serious, just some frivilous, but funny stories, but over time this can really damage a persons reputation, as not everyone has the time to be Turtle Thinkers.

That’s why it’s important to consider other perspectives on things, and make sure we hear things we don’t like to hear from time to time. The rabbits and turtles story ends there, but how would that story continue? Would the rabbits want to slow down a bit and learn from what the turtles have to say? Or would the rabbits feel uncomfortable and want to bury the turtles in a hole so that they don’t have to hear them speak about things that make them uncomfortable?   

Would you be the type of person that would like to silence someone for having a different opinion? Would you be the type of person who would check things out to the best of your ability, and understand when you only have limited information, and could really gain by learning from others?

Only you can make these choices. But remember. A rabbit may travel half way around the world while a turtle is putting its boots on, but the turtle is more prepared, and last longer. The rabbit may travel faster, but the rabbit tires out faster, where the turtles never tire out.

Lies spread swifter but fades faster. Truth starts slower, but is more steadfast and has more stamina.

Truth fears no lies, but lies cannot survive the truth.

Let’s go through as many instances as I can find to show what Trump has really said and his stance towards white supremacy, in the easiest form possible!
Below are the many images with text of Trumps speeches that you can scroll past in an instant, or read through in a fraction of the time it takes to listen to all the speeches. I may not have gotten every single speech, but I did my best to include as many as possible, and there is more than enough here for the point to get across! You can decide for yourself after checking them all out.

Picture quotes:

That’s a lot of denouncing of racial supremacy and hatred! How many people have denounced hatred and racial supremacy so many times?!?

And here are some images of the transcript search for quick and easy viewing.

What’s the point of all this?

Now that we know the truth to this story, we’ve outlined journalistic ethics, and discussed the relevant issues, it’s time to get to the REAL main point of this.
So now that we know that the “Trump refuses to condemn white supremacy” line is clearly false, we can start to look at organisations that have propagated this false narrative.
In general it will go something like this:
Every time a writer writes or refers to this or something along these lines, they will be awarded 1 debunk point. (The amount of times they mention it across every article that they’ve mentioned it will add to their debunk score)
The organisation that the writer works for gets 1 debunk point for every time one of their writers gets a debunk point. (So every debunk point the writer gets, their organisation also gets. And every writers debunks points within that organisation also get added to the organisations debunks points.
I will have the dates and articles referenced so people can check these out themselves, but over time I hope to shine a light on the deceptive practises of these so called “news” agencies that we’re expected to believe.

Stay tuned for the Trump refuses to condemn white supremacy scoreboard!

Thank you very much for your time in reading this! I hope it helps!