[Maru]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

'Who cares if this video is doctored because other organisation doctors videos too!' Troubling logic.

It's fairly obvious just looking at the videos in comparison that the one the White House used was sped up to make the non-incident look like an act of aggression when it isn't. Either way, the White House used a video to push a narrative that was invalidated by the raw footage of the incident. You can try to minimalise that all you want but you won't erase that fact.

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.