How fake is the 2018 State of the Union

by CamilleB-P on February 7, 2018 - 12:35pm

How fake is the 2018 State of the Union

Recently, I read an interesting article about the 2018 State of the Union on The Washington Post. It relates that if you want to entertain yourself and see a character to pronounce a prepared speech without understanding the meaning of it, watch the 2018 State of the Union. This State of the Union Address is just another proof that President Trump and his defenders are fake. He is completely incompetent in his job: he just wants to make a show. He says things that a president cannot say and he does not have any respect for others. Instead of share common human values like generosity, respect and acceptance of differences, he denigrates publicly everybody who he does not like. Trump has two personalities: A false and a true. The false Trump is the one that pronounces prepared speeches like the State of the Union address. The true Trump is the one who says disrespectfully what he really thinks on Twitter. People have to make the difference between the two personalities of President Trump. The 2018 State of the Union is insincere, hypocritical and staged, just like Donald Trump.

In my opinion, I think that the article You want fake news? Watch the State of the Union is credible, because it is published in the reliable daily newspaper The Washington Post. It is a famous newspaper in the United States. Also, the author, Jennifer Rubin, is a real American journalist and she has work for a lot of newspapers like Human Events and The Weekly Standard before starting to write the ‘’Right Turn’’ blog for The Washington Post. Furthermore, the article was posted on The Washington Post on January 30, the same day of the State of the Union. So, it adds credibility to the article because it proves that the author follows the phenomenon of Donald Trump. She talks about real facts, real events and real tweets that Donald Trump posted on Twitter, for example the tweet about ‘’shithole’’ countries. Because of the credibility of the newspaper and the author, I believe that the article is reliable.

Source: You want fake news? Watch the State of the Union, Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post, January 30, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/01/30/you-want-f...

Comments

The explanation of the two different sides of trump is very accurate, through out his whole campaign and presidency we can see the two different ways he acts. The first being his true self self on twitter and in live interviews and the second being the scripted “faked” side of him that his advisors help him create, however the reasoning behind the facts supporting why this article is creditable might be a little flawed. Jennifer Rubin from the Washington Post is a opinion writer (meaning she has free range to write whatever she wants) who writes articles regarding the president each day, despite her working for a creditable news outlet after reading several of her other articles regarding the president she comes across as a little bit bias towards him in a negative way. The fact that she wrote the article the day of the 2018 State of Union doesn't make her writing more creditable then someone who wrote the article a week following this event. Overall your article was well written and truly described the reality of Trump that we are all thinking. Ive included another articles written by Jennifer Rubin to help show that she has a little bias to herself.

The article speaks the collusion between Russia and Trump, the reason why this article helps support the fact tat Jennifer is bias is because it talks about the President in a hypothetical negative light. She takes advantage of a negative story and turns it into a worse one
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/02/15/morning-bi...

First of all, your interpretation of the prepared speech that Donald Trump did at the 2018 State of the Union is clear and understandable even if the reader didn't know what happened, which is great. Moreover, the paradox that you do with the two personalities he has is really interesting and it enhances your summary. Furthermore, your overview of the article is well done and the way that you mention the credibility of the source with many observations is good.

About the author