Quote:
Originally Posted by Maru
Not everyone we have disagreements with has some major personality flaws and/or agenda. So I would ask that we leave the personal assessments out of this discussion. Thanks.
People are destigmatized to being lied to, especially with politics. That's been the observation even before the era of "Fake News". That's why we do research. There's a wide-reaching mantra in our media, especially online, of folks attempting to be defacto "fact checkers". This is a dubious claim to make anyway because so much our news coverage is so "manufactured" for a certain audience. CNN can't claim this mantle, no different any other outlet. They're all playing the same game of musical chairs to a large degree.
Sometimes we do a need some reasonable context/interpretations in order to make sense of a set of facts. Sometimes this means putting facts on a scale and weighing them.
This is not what Acosta was doing though. He's been using his pass to be as disruptive as possible for months now to call attention to himself for months though. This is not journalism.
Concepts of "dodgy" video when it's concepts most people don't even understand don't seem to matter. The established facts are the following: There was an incident, he didn't hand over his mic and Trump got pretty pissed about it and revoked his pass. Some people deme this "activism", others call this a violation of press rights. That's why keyframe rates don't matter. The interpretation would be the same on either spectrum, whether there was doctored video or not.
|
You said as much in your post. Did you or did you not say the following? 'I'm not sure anyone cares either, because it's not like CNN/<insert media outlet> has never done any creative editing of their own' How else am I meant to take that other than what I said. I don't appreciate you making out that I'm insulting you for pointing something out that YOU wrote.
Oh, so now fact checkers aren't to be believed.... In the words of Monque Heart, facts are facts. You can put spin on them for a while but ultimately you can't lie about them or dilute them to be anything other than facts. Your point about interpretation errs too close to the attitude that opinions and facts are one in the same or that facts are somehow less infallible than someone's thoughts. A dangerous brand of 'logic' that I can't abide. Once again, facts are facts.
As I said before as a general point, why single out Acosta for apparently 'being rude' when Trump insulted multiple people in that press conference and was way ruder without purpose? Why highlight one side while ignoring the other being guilty of worse instance of rudeness? You're just trying to spin the story at this point. 'It's the fault of the journalist but let's ignore the wrongdoings of the White House in all of it.'
You're ignoring several facts and thus ignoring important context of those facts. Acosta challenged the president and in the next few days he lost his access and the White House commented on it saying it was because of an aggressive incident and then they used a sped up video to push that narrative although raw footage told a different tale. No amount of mental gymnastics or spin can change those facts. You can use any excuse you like but it won't change a damn thing.
Considering the bare facts and the narrative that the White House has pushed that has already been proved false, you can only really come up with one sensible solution and I shouldn't have to spell that conclusion out to a rational mind.