Pinterest Stumbleupon Whatsapp
Advertisement

The Internet Archive has created a repository dedicated to Donald Trump. The Trump Archive is designed to be a public record of the views the next President of the United States of America has expressed in recent years. Allowing us all to become fact-checkers.

For the uninitiated, the Internet Archive is an online repository of books, movies, music, and games. The Wayback Machine, probably the best known element of the Internet Archive, charts changes to billions of website and web pages. Including your very own MakeUseOf.

The Trump Archive contains more than 520 hours of Trump-related videos. This includes speeches, interviews, debates, and other televised broadcasts concerning the president. The earliest video dates back to December 2009, when Trump started expressing views relevant to his presidency.

Fact-Checking President Trump

As well as the unedited footage of Donald Trump on TV, the Trump Archive also includes “500 video statements fact checked by FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, and The Washington Post’s Fact Checker“. Subjects being fact-checked include Donald Trump’s tax returns and Hillary Clinton’s emails Hillary Clinton's Email Scandal: What You Need to Know Hillary Clinton's Email Scandal: What You Need to Know The Hillary Clinton email scandal is confusing, isn't it? What you need is an in-depth look at what facts are known about the case, to help you understand its significance. Read More .

The Internet Archive can only do so much on its own though. So members of the public are invited to use clips in articles and videos, create supercuts on certain topics, and suggest content that is currently missing from the Trump Archive. All videos are “searchable, quotable, and shareable on social media”.

Keeping an Eye on Public Officials

In its blog post announcing the Trump Archive, the Internet Archive suggests this is just the start of its efforts to keep an eye on politicians and public servants. Essentially, this is an “experimental model” which could be duplicated for everyone from “members of Congress of both parties” to “Supreme Court nominees”.

Advertisement

Despite these assurances, people are bound to feel this is politically motivated. Because, let’s face it, the Internet Archive didn’t do this when Barack Obama entered office in 2009. Then again, we assume Hillary Clinton would have been subjected to the same level of scrutiny had she beaten Donald Trump Clicking Consequences: Why Donald Trump Is Your Fault Clicking Consequences: Why Donald Trump Is Your Fault Every time you click an article about Donald Trump, the media thinks that is what you want to read, and so it spends more time talking about Trump. Stop clicking! Read More to the presidency in November 2016.

What do you think of the Trump Archive? Will you be using it to track how Donald Trump’s views have changed over the years? Should the Internet Archive apply the same level of scrutiny to other politicians and public officials? Please let us know in the comments below!

Image Credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. John
    January 9, 2017 at 3:25 pm

    It should not be called Trump Archive it should be called "Government Archive" and it should focus on ALL GOVERNMENT officials not just Trump.

  2. Ari Shrum
    January 9, 2017 at 1:43 pm

    Ok, here is a correctly quoted passage: "...we assume Hillary Clinton would have been subjected to the same level of scrutiny had she beaten Donald Trump to the presidency in November 2016."

    Unfortunately, you do have to assume, since she did not win, so why bother? Is it not more important that we make sure (not just HOPE) Trump does EVERYTHING he promised? THAT would be a CHANGE, for sure!

    And I agree with a previous poster, it is most important that we fact-check the so-called "journalists" of our day, unfortunately. They are supposed to simply go "see what happened", write down "what happened", and report to us exactly and succinctly "what happened".

    It seems today's journalists are more interested in turning fact into opinion to somehow create consensus to usher in some sort of nirvana/utopia as defined by them, which has never been done, and is not the purpose for which they were trained. I want the news, the FACTS, not opinions that should be relegated to a PRIVATE hobby.

    Wishful thinking, at this point. But there IS HOPE, you'll see, as I already see on a daily basis, and the guy's not even sworn in yet. Too bad the outgoing regime leader is acting like a petulant child.

    Will this post see the light of day? (I very SELDOM post anywhere, if ever. This is one of only two blogs I read, so kudo to you for that, although I'm "nobody".)

    Cheers.

  3. Greg Maxwell
    January 9, 2017 at 1:21 am

    Not impressed, you fact check journalists and not their victims... err subjects. Do you have an editor? Is your work fact checked? Maybe we should demand that journalists be professional and not engage in malicious gossip.

  4. Phids
    January 8, 2017 at 7:21 pm

    I think the idea of a video archive of candidates' public positions is a good idea if that is all it is. I think it's important to keep in memory what candidates promised or proclaimed years ago and how they're delivering upon those claims today. But the problem with the political "fact checking" industry of today is that it's too easy to masquerade partisan sniping. What better way is there for an ideology to push itself to the top than by proclaiming itself to be the arbiter of truth? When fact checkers need to be fact checked, you know you have a problem. At the end of the day, it's better to let the people see what candidates say for themselves and let them do their own "fact checking" than to declare certain organizations be the declarers of fact.

  5. Howard A Pearce
    January 6, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    "Subjects being fact-checked include Donald Trump’s tax returns and Hillary Clinton’s emails."

    The above line seems to indicate the writer of the article simply accepts that the sites mentioned in the article are doing fact checking as opposed to mentioning any possibility of questioning their reliability..
    Does this assumption come from the fact some sites name themselves as fact checking ?

    • Dave Parrack
      January 6, 2017 at 3:49 pm

      You're reaching, but good try. That sentence does not imply anything of the sort. As I said before you'll get further directing your queries/complaints to the Internet Archive. I wish you luck.

  6. Howard A Pearce
    January 6, 2017 at 2:30 pm

    "As well as the unedited footage of Donald Trump on TV, the Trump Archive also includes “500 video statements fact checked by FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, and The Washington Post’s Fact Checker“.

    "As well as the unedited footage of Donald Trump on TV, the Trump Archive also includes “500 video statements fact checked by FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, and The Washington Post’s Fact Checker“. " - Dave Parrack

    So MUD/Dave has chosen to accept what these sites say as true ?
    Unfortunately having a site named I_Am_God does not make it so - although MUD/Dave may be naive enough to believe that.

    No where did I see the above basic assumption by MUD/Dave stated. - That it/they have assumed these sites to provide "true" news as opposed to "fake" news. The mere absence of MUD's/Dave's honesty in telling the readers of this basic assumption speaks for itself. There is simply the implied "truth" that the validity of these sites is a fact

    • Dave Parrack
      January 6, 2017 at 2:46 pm

      You see those quotation marks in the middle of your quote? That means you're quoting me quoting The Internet Archive. So if you have an issue with those fact-checking websites please take it up with The Internet Archive rather than me.

      It's MUO, by the way, and it stands for MakeUseOf.