The editors of the Washington Post are shocked, shocked to find nasty things going on in politics, in this case President Trump’s retweeting of a video of Nancy Pelosi, purporting to show Speaker Pelosi slurring her words and showing other signs of being indisposed. The incident of their displeasure is the claim that the video has been edited in a misleading way:
These difficulties both are caused by and contribute to the erosion of trust in today’s America, where it is hard to say what there is more of: false cries of “fake news,†or viral “news†that is actually fake. Technology certainly has helped this issue along, providing both an easy means to craft propaganda and an easy means to promote it. The increasing sophistication of image editing that creates the threat of actual deepfakes filling the Web will make that worse.
In the best of circumstances, the emergence of these tools for mass deception would be disturbing. It becomes absolutely alarming at a time when America is led by somebody who is intent on deceiving. The role of a responsible leader is to be a bulwark against an assault on truth, yet instead Mr. Trump is a battering ram. That’s not a problem Twitter or any other platform can solve.
But wait! There’s more! As acknowledged by the editors, although there is a misleadingly edited video of Speaker Pelosi making the rounds the video retweeted by Trump was not misleadingly edited.
Does it matter? My opinion is that it ain’t beanbag. If Speaker Pelosi or her supporters object to the Speaker being portrayed in an unflattering light, truly or not, they should reconsider careers in politics. Or exit the public sphere entirely.
Over the period of the last 30 years we have elected the candidate with the lower character too frequently. Weighing the factors and deciding that character doesn’t really matter that much is the way you get Donald Trump elected in the first place.
“making the rounds the video retweeted by Trump was not misleadingly edited.”
Actually, it was. Every public speaker stutters or misstates something and corrects themselves. You can string together 40 seconds of that out of a 30 minute speech and get a picture that is totally misleading. With Trump’s word salad you could do that quite easily. What is new here is that you have a POTUS sending out this kind of misleading stuff. That is usually left to cable TV and talk radio.
You also fail to acknowledge that releasing the two videos at the same time will mean that the two are blended together in people’s minds. Having just read pieces like what you have written the fanatics on the right will now claim that neither of the videos was altered. Why dont we just try being honest and admit that both of those were misleadingly altered from the original speech to present a false picture.
Steve
“Beanbag”
You have to admit Pelosi went there first with a public call for an “intervention” by Trump’s family or staff.
It’s not pretty, but that’s politics. At least they aren’t shooting each other, yet.
By that standard all news is fake news.
“By that standard all news is fake news.”
No it is not. In this case they clipped out only the three or four times she stuttered or hesitated. Most of the time in news clips they try to sort out the part that conveys what the speaker was trying to say, and they very rarely do it by clipping out 3 seconds at a time. I have to assume you didnt watch the clip. I did. (You are trying way too hard here. This is basically the same as my clipping out two word pieces from stuff you have written to “prove” that you support incest or mass murder. AS long as I dont have to include complete sentences or even phrases and I dont have to refer to the entire piece that you wrote, that would be easy.)
“You have to admit Pelosi went there first ”
Not really. They were sniping at each other well before this. Also, as I said before what is unique here is that you have a POTUS actually endorsing stuff that is ordinarily left to the extremists of the party.
Steve
Yes, it would be a refreshing upgrade if BOTH parties were more honest, followed by a media that relied on named sources, bipartisan investigative curiosity and neutral reporting of both sides of the aisle.
You are very trusting. Most of the time the news clips select the part that conveys the message they wish to convey and fits into the time slot they have. Editing small chunks out happens all of the time, notionally to fit into the time slot.
To answer your question, no, I haven’t viewed either clip and don’t intend to because I don’t think it matters. I think it’s all a tempest in a teapot. Have you watched both the unedited and edited clips? If you haven’t, how do you know how it was edited?
Steve, were you this passionately opposed to how the MSM misled the public by showing a cherry-picked video snippet dealing with the Covington event? Also, what about the some 400 false Trump stories over his presidency, followed by the stat of 92% negative news being peddled by the press?
While I agree with you about how abhorrent it is to tinker with audio or video in order to embarrass one’s opponents, this has become standard operating practice for the dems. It certainly doesn’t make it right when republicans use the same tactic. However, it does reveal the hypocrisy inherent in the resistance, revealing the hubris of being ok about dishing it out, and then complaining when such garbage is returned.
I think it’s just the digital age’s equivalent of drawing a mustache on your opponent’s campaign poster. I would prefer that we had presidents that didn’t go around doing it but, then, I didn’t vote for Trump.
I return to my key point. If you want candidates with higher character, vote for them. Look at the last seven presidential elections. The candidate with the higher character only prevailed a minority of the time.
Even straight arrow candidates with character & integrity (Romney comes to mind) are routinely torn apart by applying the left’s Alinsky rules of engagement known as “character assassination.†Coupled with the public’s affinity to lean into the dirt, scandals, lurid details eagerly “exposed†by oppositional research, little does it matter whether such information is true. The most recent example of this tendency is the infamous dossier, which was easy to push, given the target’s controversial history of coarseness.
BTW, what is the best underlying quality for choosing one’s candidate for president – someone who is a “good†person or someone who renders “good†policy?
Jimmy Carter IS a good person. Most would agree a weak leader.
Gray, Carter came to mind, with the new same assessment as yours, when I wrote that post.
“Steve, were you this passionately opposed to how the MSM misled the public by showing a cherry-picked video snippet dealing with the Covington event? Also, what about the some 400 false Trump stories over his presidency.â€
No, Jan, he wasn’t. That said, as Dave notes it’s not beanbag. As I’ve stated here before, I believe only the smallest fraction of what I see or read in media. It’s mostly entertainment.
You know, the news coming out about the Russian hoax just gets worse and more pervasive. Anyone who was willing to listen knew this perhaps a year ago. Very few were willing, especially because it was coming out oN Sean Hannityâ€s show. I couldn’t care less what Hannity has to say, but I do care about John Solomon and Sarah Carter. And they haven’t been wrong in a year now. Pundits on CNN, WaPo, NYTs not so much.
You have to be very discerning these days.
“I think it’s all a tempest in a teapot. Have you watched both the unedited and edited clips?”
Yup. In 99% of the unedited clip she is speaking just fine.
“Editing small chunks out happens all of the time, notionally to fit into the time slot.”
How often do they edit out just two words from one part of a speech then add two more words from 5 minutes later in the speech? It’s just killing you to admit that this was edited in a misleading manner isn’t it? (Just sampling words above you said “In my opinion Donald Trump is the nasty, lower character candidate”. Those words are all in your original piece. Now is it OK to do that to your articles and misrepresent them? If not, why is it OK to do it to others?
“this has become standard operating practice for the dems. It certainly doesn’t make it right when republicans use the same tactic.”
Then I am sure you will bye glad to provide some examples AND show us where the Dem president spread them out as fact. Go Ahead, I will wait. (LOL)
“Also, what about the some 400 false Trump stories over his presidency, followed by the stat of 92% negative news being peddled by the press?”
Given the many thousands of stories some errors are going to happen. Of course the media always retracts and correct errors. Compare that with the 10,000 lies made by Trump, who never admits to making a mistake and it looks like the press is doing a much better job than your leader. Only 92% are negative? That still surprises me sometimes.
“by applying the left’s Alinsky rules of engagement known as “character assassination.—
I do feel bad about this sometimes. After all, people on the right never said anything bad about Obama or made up stuff about him.
“the Russian hoax”
I am going to make a prediction here. I am betting that we get at least 3 investigations out of this. You dont really have time to do 8 like you did with Benghazi. Just like Benghazi you won’t find much, even with Trumps personal attorney, Barr, doing the investigation.
Steve
That’s probably why the principals are pointing fingers at each other. With the conflicting versions just so far, somebody (at least 2) lied under oath.
As I said, John Solomon hasn’t missed in over a year.
It’s almost laughable if it wasn’t for vivid recollections of dems slow-walking the Benghazi, IRS targeting, Fast & Furious investigations by stonewalling emails and info requests, sometimes for years, But, when awaiting the mueller report, the dems were raging when their demands for having a full, unredacted copy of the report was not in their grubby hands within a weeks time.
As for the declassification of docs surrounding the many years of investigations conducted against Trump – it will hopefully clear the muddied allegations ascribed to his presidency, bringing some measure of accountability for any criminal behavior discovered.
“dems slow-walking the Benghazi,”
You had 8 Benghazi investigations in 4 years. Explain what you mean by slow walking since it doesn’t fit with the facts. You also had multiple IRS investigations, and guess what? You never found the conspiracies you were convinced were waiting to be found. Maybe if just once one of your “investigations” finds something we can start to take them seriously.
“As for the declassification of docs surrounding the many years of investigations conducted against Trump”
I hope they get declassified, all of them, not done selectively like Barr did when he released his assessment of the Mueller report.
Steve
Just how was Barr’s Mueller Report release done “selectively,†except for the portions that legally had to be redacted, via a 3rd Circuit Court Ruling. In order to cooperate even more fully with Nadler’s demands, Barr submitted another, with fewer than 2% of the original report redacted, to be available to the “gang of 8†to peruse at their convenience. None of these Congress people took the time to do so. Why not?
Do you not remember Steve how Lois Lerner’s hard drives were said to have been destroyed, and then suddenly “found,†much later on. Like so many investigations, by either the OIG, Republicans, or FOIA requests, the Obama administration was uncooperative, dragging out any reasonable requests for transparency for as long as possible. Such lengthy gaps of time does not help find the truth. It only gives an administration more time for disparagement of those trying to find it, as well as growing disinterest by the public to even care.
“Just how was Barr’s Mueller Report release done “selectively,—
Because his report totally minimized all aspects of the obstruction of justice claim. Then when the redacted report was released a few weeks later we saw that the report was much different from what Barr summarized, the Trump was not exonerated and had in fact committed numerous acts that look like obstruction of justice. It looks like the OLC ruling was the only reason we didnt have charges. (Needless to say, but I guess I have to say it, all the claims about delays are essentially unsubstantiated claims made by your side. What is substantiated is that your side just couldn’t find anything.)
“Do you not remember Steve how Lois Lerner’s hard drives were said to have been destroyed, and then suddenly “found,†much later on.”
Old computers really do get lost, but let’s assume it was done on purpose to satisfy your fantasy. Guess what? It didnt change anything. They didnt find anything on it, or in any of their investigations to support the claim that it was a conspiracy. In fact, the more they investigated the more they found that the IRS had treated liberal groups the same. So once again, once you actually find anything in all of your investigations we can take your more recent claims seriously. I am predicting 3 investigations to try to pin something on the Trump investigation team. What is your prediction?
Also, tell me again why you didnt give Lerner immunity? LOLOLOLOL
Steve