(10-27-2019 08:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 07:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-26-2019 10:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yeah, because similarly obvious statements were provided by PV before that turned out to be untrue due to selective and manipulative editing.
Literally they have pulled the same crap before, where it sounded super damning, and further evidence showed they were full of ****.

I've heard this argument before, but never actually seen any backup proof. I've seen a lot of allegations, but no substantive proof. Do you have a link to any real corroboration?

https://www.npr.org/2011/03/14/134525412...Of-Context
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes....yawns/amp/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/...vist-group

I wouldn't say that any one of those three substantiates your claim that PV are "full of ****." The biggest claim seems to be that they take allegedly hours of material and whittle it down to a few minutes which may be "out of context." Hello! Ever watch 60 Minutes? What do you think they do? It's a common newscasting technique.

In another context, how is what PV did distinguishable from reporting that Donald Trump said that the neo-Nazis at Charlottesville were "good people"? Actually, I can answer that. You don't have to rely on "context" or "misleading," just take the full Trump quote, standing alone, and the allegation is clearly false. I'm not aware of claims that the PV stuff is false, just that it is "misleading" or "out of context." The Trump comments were clearly edited to mislead, based on nothing more than a few seconds of extension to include the full text of his quote. I haven't seen anything that says the PV stuff has peoples saying things that they did not say.

"Full of ****" would mean to me that the people shown as saying things did not actually say those things, but that the tapes were altered to change the words that they said. I haven't seen any such claims. It's all about, "Well they said those things, but they were taken out of context so they didn't really mean them." To which my question is, in what context would they have been appropriate?

Sure, a bunch of apologists can watch a full two-hour tape and compose an argument that the portions shown did not accurately represent the full conversation. But that is a very different claim from "they didn't say that." And Pulitzer Prizes have been won for selectively edited material.