(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

(10-26-2019 11:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2019 10:29 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  No, I was referring to OOwl's.

Sorry for calling you a drunk boomer. That post was just so galaxy brain.

I think it is a lie that you are sorry. I have to consider the source of the apology, and the source is suspect.

This source has allegedly made insincere apologies in the past, therefore all current and future apologies are GARBAGE.

(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

Editing, of course. That’s why I would listen to multiple sources and make my own judgement.

Sting. Certainly. Not exactly unethical. Remember the sting of the DC mayor smoking crack?

But what is not presented or alleged is that one frame has been modified to present something that did not happen. What is not presented or alleged is that one word was dubbed. The tapes show what happened and what was said.

Why did we go through the requirement of body cams for officers if the video is to be ignored? Home security camera, traffic cameras, dash cameras, doorbell cameras, we record and use them them in court.

If O’Keefe filmed a man attacking somebody, and Lad was on the jury - instant acquittal?

(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.

Not one frame of tape was falsified.

If Lad can show the contrary to that, he has a case.

(10-26-2019 11:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2019 10:29 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  No, I was referring to OOwl's.

Sorry for calling you a drunk boomer. That post was just so galaxy brain.

I think it is a lie that you are sorry. I have to consider the source of the apology, and the source is suspect.

Good call.

(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

On the first link, can you tell me any substantive difference between the edits that O'Keefe performed on the subject, and the highly selected edits of Trump's re: 'good people' comment in Charlottesville? Actually there are zero substantive differences, to be honest. Given that, I will be more than happy to condemn O'Keefe on that action. Will you join the cause and condemn the continuous repetition of the selective edit of Trump's statement> Even after you have used that ad infinitum elsewhere. If you dont, I think it would a hilarious example of hypocrisy, tbh, given that is one of the main indictments being used against PV here.

Turning to the second link --- is there any evidence O'Keefe knew of the employee's actions subsequent to the filming? Honestly, I heartily congratulate the employee for actually informing police. But, I would not really think an act of negligence (at worst) would be worthy of your condemnation of saying O'Keefe uses 'active measures' (paraphrase there, lad, before you get your knickers in a wad). Perhaps O'Keefe should have followed up the subsequent actions of each 'unwilling participant'. I dont think any other investigative journalist really uses much effort to do so (said from actually defending a target more than once), so the negligence there might not be that stunning.

And, iirc, the ACORN tape(s) had more than one 'target'. Did all of them also do the right thing there? That piece is strangely silent on that aspect. Wow, *that* article did exactly what *that* article ******* about. They didnt follow up that fully, did they, nor did they give anywhere near an accurate representation of the fuller picture. And funny enough, that is the thesis in the first link you provided as well. Are you up in arms over that media source for that as well now, lad?

Now that those two links proved so juicy, lets turn to your third one, shall we? From my read, O'Keefe attempted an undercover sting on the WashPo. Uhhhh.... I dont have an issue with that. Are you mad and upset because a media provider used an 'sting bait' to try and get a story? Shocked and outraged over *that*? C'mon lad, you can do a boatload better than that cheesy story as 'proof of GARBAGE'.

Let's take that story at its full statements as utter truth. I'm game with that. So the fk what? Tell me the utterly egregious thing that PV did there? Good god that last link is a piece of utter schlock as to 'proof of bad'. Did you even read it before you posted it? If you did, did you think about what was going on? Did you realize that the undercover sting is a tried and true friend of every bit of the media in this country? Good fing grief that last one is so thin as to be utterly laughable.

(10-27-2019 09:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2019 11:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2019 10:29 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  No, I was referring to OOwl's.

Sorry for calling you a drunk boomer. That post was just so galaxy brain.

I think it is a lie that you are sorry. I have to consider the source of the apology, and the source is suspect.

This source has allegedly made insincere apologies in the past, therefore all current and future apologies are GARBAGE.

Just like you all, I'm here for the angry, impotent circle-jerk.

(10-27-2019 03:30 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 09:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2019 11:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2019 10:29 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  No, I was referring to OOwl's.

Sorry for calling you a drunk boomer. That post was just so galaxy brain.

I think it is a lie that you are sorry. I have to consider the source of the apology, and the source is suspect.

This source has allegedly made insincere apologies in the past, therefore all current and future apologies are GARBAGE.

Just like you all, I'm here for the angry, impotent circle-jerk.

Get back to us when your adderall kicks in.

(10-27-2019 03:30 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 09:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2019 11:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2019 10:29 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  No, I was referring to OOwl's.

Sorry for calling you a drunk boomer. That post was just so galaxy brain.

I think it is a lie that you are sorry. I have to consider the source of the apology, and the source is suspect.

This source has allegedly made insincere apologies in the past, therefore all current and future apologies are GARBAGE.

Just like you all, I'm here for the angry, impotent circle-jerk.

GARBAGE

How many Pulitzers does WashPo have?

(10-27-2019 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

How many Pulitzers does WashPo have?

Weird thing with this obituary headline - that was a revised headline.

Quote: The Post changed its headline at least twice Sunday for the article, starting by describing al-Baghdadi as the "Islamic State's terrorist-in-Chief." The newspaper then adjusted the headline to call him an "austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State," sparking some backlash on social media.

Now reads an "extremist leader of Islamic State."

No idea why they changed the original headline.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...isis%3Famp

I wonder how their obit on bin Laden read.

Dow hitting record highs.
Employment up, unemployment down.
Wages up.
Economic activity up.
Gasoline down.

When will this misery ever stop? We need to elect a Democrat NOW, else this prosperity may go on unchecked.

Warren for President.

(10-28-2019 07:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I wonder how their obit on bin Laden read.

Could have been worse. I can easily see the CNN chyron:

"Trump Orders Unarmed Father of Three Killed: Gloats over Death"

The funny thing with the Post headline (apart from the 'religious scholar') is the passive tense ('dies'). No mention he was taken out by Special Forces and under the order of Trump.

I mean, remember when Obama ordered the shooting of the trapped Somali pirates? Every headline blazed and included Commander Kickass in that bit. Over a Somali pirate.....

Baghdadi simply 'dies' --- from ten or twenty well placed low velocity subsonic 5.56mm bullets fired by a team of US Special Ops. But simply 'dies' in the headlines......

And some beclown Project Veritas and cite the issue of being undercover in nature as proof positive of being
GARBAGE journalism.

Funny, that NPR link was about PV looking at Washington Post bias; and the headline(s) all seemingly do the same thing -- from the Post again.

(10-28-2019 07:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I wonder how their obit on bin Laden read.

Quote:Osama bin Laden killed: Leader of terrorist group al-Qaeda was 54

Amazing -- they used the correct verb for Bin-Laden.

I wonder why the difference?

(10-28-2019 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Amazing -- they used the correct verb for Bin-Laden.

I wonder why the difference?

Bin Laden was killed by the Savior, Bahgdadi was killed killed by the Usurper.

I find the "austere" to be more curious.

(10-28-2019 11:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Amazing -- they used the correct verb for Bin-Laden.

I wonder why the difference?

Bin Laden was killed by the Savior, Bahgdadi was killed killed by the Usurper.

I find the "austere" to be more curious.

I find the fact that this was a second headline to be the most curious part. What made some editor feel like they needed to change things and be nicer?

46 Pulitzers.

I think that is enough to safely say they are never wrong.