Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Mon Sep 21 05:00:13 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / Pelosi bans video
Mon Feb 10 20:14:35

Well she wants to. Personally this particular video doesn't seem scandalous or whatever.

That said I dont entirely* disagree with her. I dont think it should be banned, however it should be noted somewhere noticeable that it had been edited.
Mon Feb 10 22:15:24
Worldstar that please

They just killed her. Wow.
Cherub Cow
Mon Feb 10 23:53:04
lulz... who would have thought that a short-sighted political antic could be used against her? Of course, she didn't mean to metaphorically tear up *all* of the speech, she just *literally* did, which means that she failed at her metaphor. It should have been enough for her to applaud at the parts she liked and frown at the parts with which she disagreed (i.e., no ripping). Ripping up the entire speech is a "baby with the bath water" situation, so she created this context herself.

All the same, it's funny that people in the comments of the article have to defend those "poor people" who they think might think that Pelosi tore the speech up multiple times at each of those time points. At least one person spoke reasonably: "Pelosi and her supporters could just as well make a response video highlighting portions of the speech that she found particularly dishonest or distasteful, and then cut to her ripping it up after each of those. The solution is more speech."

Complete comment, for reference:
[PurpleCone]: "So she tore up the speech during the speech? I think not. It's edited, edited to make it seem like she tore it up while the speech was being read and then presented as fact.
Journalism has long been dead."

[CyanToast]: "No, that's a straw-man. The ad was not intending for people to think that - simply juxtaposing certain highlights of the speech with her ripping.

The ad cuts to the same clip - of her ripping up the speech at the end - like ten times...

Do you think people actually believe that she ripped up ten different copies of the speech ten different times? (and it somehow looked exactly the same each time)

No, it's clear that the ad is emphasizing various parts of the speech which she ripped up. When she ripped up the speech, it included all of the parts highlighted in the ad.

Of course the ad has its bias (it is a political ad after all), and puts its own spin on it, by highlighting the moments from the speech that generally (aside from honoring Rush) have widespread bipartisan popularity. Again though, this isn't particularly dishonest. It's simply political rhetoric.

Pelosi and her supporters could just as well make a response video highlighting portions of the speech that she found particularly dishonest or distasteful, and then cut to her ripping it up after each of those. The solution is more speech.

In any case, the author of the article is correct. Highlighting and juxtaposing clips of much longer events - often with a certain partisan spin - is STANDARD PRACTICE in journalism."
Tue Feb 11 00:06:06
Well that didnt take long. As CC points out pparently "fake news" has now been expanded to include "editing for effect."

When did Democrats start unironically taking their cues on free speech from communist China?
Tue Feb 11 00:22:52
Wondering when Newsweek became a right-wing rag and it turns out that it was an editorial by the guy from Turning Point. Would've saved me more time to note it at the beginning so those of us with brains can save our time.
Tue Feb 11 00:54:57
Dukhat, It does in the beginning of the 2nd paragraph.
Tue Feb 11 00:55:27
Article didn't load; thought it might be in reference to an ad that was played a while ago that Pelosi had asked Facebook to take down and got angry when they didn't.

This is just bonkers.
Tue Feb 11 12:17:48
cuckhat didnt read the article, lol.
Tue Feb 11 12:42:15
Hood, My concern is that of a slippery slope. This particular video doesnt seem that bad, i watched the live sotu. But in general if politically based video is edited a simple " this film has been edited" at the end would be nice imo.
Tue Feb 11 14:10:15
I don't even think this video needs it. Within the first minute, there's a 3 second clip where she supposedly tears the script up twice. Like, really? We can't obviously see that it's a cut?

Sure, some videos are clearly doctored well beyond reasonable limits (they don't make it obvious that is a hack job edit). They should come with a disclaimer. This one was fine.
large member
Tue Feb 11 14:41:31
Now why does not Pelosi just sue, then settle with an NDA clause forever removing everything from the face of the earth?

Thats how freedom does things!
Tue Feb 11 22:55:45
its really astounding that they caved to nancy fucking pelosi.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share