Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Deliberately editing interview footage to create false conversations and statements is a gakky thing to do regardless of context. Whether you're a journalist or not, whether your intent is malicious or comedic or political or whatever, the act itself is unethical and immoral. Your excuse for the daily show is that it's ok to treat people in a dishonest and unethical manner as long as it makes some people laugh. I don't agree with the rationale that it's ok to wrong people and misrepresent them to get laughs.
Please cite specific circumstances of the Daily Show "deliberately editing interview footage to create false conversations and statements".
I know a few GOP officials have claimed that it was done to them in interviews(one of the NC GOP folks did so), but the full interview proved how bogus that was.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/24 16:12:03
Vaktathi wrote: Nobody is citing The Daily Show as a serious source of unbiased news.
If anyone is citing Milo as a serious source of unbiased news, let me know, because I've got a bridge to sell.
Funny how quick you were to edit out "He's in the infotainment business, same as the Daily Show".
Comparing Milo to the Daily Show shows a woeful lack of understanding or knowledge as to what the Daily Show has done in recent years.
Do you think The Daily Show isn't in the infotainment business? It's a show that mixes comedy, guest interviews and current events it's pretty much the definition of infotainment.
d-usa wrote: So Clinton talks to the AG for a few minutes, everybody is outraged.
Trump Administration requests that the DOJ lies about investigating Team Trump, not much talking about that...
Of course not it's the same narrative that some posters here have been doing since Obama was president. Outrage until the GOP does something worse then radio silence
Vaktathi wrote: Nobody is citing The Daily Show as a serious source of unbiased news.
If anyone is citing Milo as a serious source of unbiased news, let me know, because I've got a bridge to sell.
Funny how quick you were to edit out "He's in the infotainment business, same as the Daily Show".
Comparing Milo to the Daily Show shows a woeful lack of understanding or knowledge as to what the Daily Show has done in recent years.
Do you think The Daily Show isn't in the infotainment business? It's a show that mixes comedy, guest interviews and current events it's pretty much the definition of infotainment.
Do you think Milo is in the "infotainment business"?
Cause that was the statement he edited out. Nowhere did I say that the Daily Show isn't "infotainment", I just pointed out that comparing what the douchetroll does is not the same as what the Daily Show has done.
Look at all the people that Jordan Klepper or Hassan Minaj interviewed at Trump rallies. They said some of the most ridiculous crap, on camera, to someone who they didn't know...then got pissy when it turns out it made them look like a bigot.
d-usa wrote: So Clinton talks to the AG for a few minutes, everybody is outraged.
Trump Administration requests that the DOJ lies about investigating Team Trump, not much talking about that...
Of course not it's the same narrative that some posters here have been doing since Obama was president. Outrage until the GOP does something worse then radio silence
The FBI should definitely get going in their investigation of Russian links to the WH. Abso-fething-lutely.
Vaktathi wrote: Nobody is citing The Daily Show as a serious source of unbiased news.
If anyone is citing Milo as a serious source of unbiased news, let me know, because I've got a bridge to sell.
Funny how quick you were to edit out "He's in the infotainment business, same as the Daily Show".
Comparing Milo to the Daily Show shows a woeful lack of understanding or knowledge as to what the Daily Show has done in recent years.
Do you think The Daily Show isn't in the infotainment business? It's a show that mixes comedy, guest interviews and current events it's pretty much the definition of infotainment.
Do you think Milo is in the "infotainment business"?
Cause that was the statement he edited out. Nowhere did I say that the Daily Show isn't "infotainment", I just pointed out that comparing what the douchetroll does is not the same as what the Daily Show has done.
Look at all the people that Jordan Klepper or Hassan Minaj interviewed at Trump rallies. They said some of the most ridiculous crap, on camera, to someone who they didn't know...then got pissy when it turns out it made them look like a bigot.
How is what Milo does not infotainment? He writes/speaks to an audience about a current event topic or political position/agenda in a way that is intended to entertain his audience so that he gets web views/page clicks/speaking engagement to get paid.
Deliberately editing interview footage to create false conversations and statements is a gakky thing to do regardless of context. Whether you're a journalist or not, whether your intent is malicious or comedic or political or whatever, the act itself is unethical and immoral. Your excuse for the daily show is that it's ok to treat people in a dishonest and unethical manner as long as it makes some people laugh. I don't agree with the rationale that it's ok to wrong people and misrepresent them to get laughs.
Please cite specific circumstances of the Daily Show "deliberately editing interview footage to create false conversations and statements".
I know a few GOP officials have claimed that it was done to them in interviews(one of the NC GOP folks did so), but the full interview proved how bogus that was.
Can you provide evidence that disproves the claims of Peter Schiff, Wayne Allen Root and Matt Slick that their interviews were edited to create mashed together answers that aren't an accurate representation of the answers they provided to the questions?
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/24 16:39:06
The official said Priebus' request came after the FBI told the White House it believed a New York Times report last week describing those contacts was not accurate. As of Thursday, the FBI had not stated that position publicly and there was no indication it planned to.
Seems to me that Priebus is pushing the FBI to state that publically... not lie about things.
Unless I'm missing something else altogether?
FWIW... a WH official demanding the FBI to make something 'public' thats politically advantageous to the WH on an active investigation is bad... so, good for the FBI for saying 'nah'. But let's be honest, this isn't same sort of thing of Billy's visit to AG Loretta on a tarmac during emailgate.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/24 17:15:35
whembly wrote: FWIW... a WH official demanding the FBI to make something 'public' thats politically advantageous to the WH on an active investigation is bad... so, good for the FBI for saying 'nah'. But let's be honest, this isn't same sort of thing of Billy's visit to AG Loretta on a tarmac during emailgate.
You're right, there is absolutely no evidence that Bill meeting AG Loretta on tarmac was anything to do with the emails or indeed whether he asked her to do anything at all.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
whembly wrote: FWIW... a WH official demanding the FBI to make something 'public' thats politically advantageous to the WH on an active investigation is bad... so, good for the FBI for saying 'nah'. But let's be honest, this isn't same sort of thing of Billy's visit to AG Loretta on a tarmac during emailgate.
You're right, there is absolutely no evidence that Bill meeting AG Loretta on tarmac was anything to do with the emails or indeed whether he asked her to do anything at all.
Totes normal for Bill to actually meet Loretta while on a plane that's a tarmac... happens all the time. Totes.
Yeah, I'm not suggesting what Milo did wasn't a gak thing to do, I'm just saying that nobody got outed, as I've seen claimed over and over, and accepted without question. This individual had already outed themselves, and was giving TV interviews advocating that transgenders should be able to use the bathroom of their choice, rather than of their biological gender, which is a fairly controversial and unsettled issue.
And its disingenuous to say people on the left don't pull this kind of stuff as well. Forget big names like Trump and Bannon...shows like the Daily Show, Samantha Bee, etc routinely take a minor public figure, or just some random schmoe in a crowd, give them a disingenuous and often humiliating interview, edit the interview for maximum laughs,
As John Stewart once said, "I'm on Comedy Central...the show that comes on after me is puppets making crank phone calls".
Milo was a senior editor at an outfit ostensibly representing itself as a factual news outlet.
With the Daily Show, anyone *consenting* to an interview with the Daily Show would be familiar with the show and how they operate and what they do, they know the score and are choosing to interact directly with the show. Very different situations from those targeted by Milo.
Asking somebody to consent to be an interviewee and then editing their responses to change what that person said is a gakky thing to do. It's wrong when Katie Couric does it for her antigun movie, it's wrong when the OKeefe guy does it for his gotcha videos and it's wrong if The Daily Show does it. Dakka is a message board that's mostly about tabletop gaming and none of us on here have any responsibility to have journalistic integrity or any such thing but if a poster consistently quoted other posters and changed the words they posted people would get upset, complain about it and the offending poster would be told to stop or face disciplinary actions against their account, because deliberately misrepresenting what people say/write is a gakky thing to do regardless of the context.
The Daily Show has a known schtick, people know what they're signing up for and what they should expect, and again, theyre *Comedy Central*. If you're expecting an even handed interview and journalistic perfection, you're missing the fundamental premise.
Couric is ostensibly is serious journalist engaging in truthful journalism and people consent to interviews based on that, so when she does it, she's violating that premise. When Okeefe does it, he's passing it off as legitimate undercover journalism and hiding his real identity and purpose the whole time for political purposes. The Daily Show is a comedy show and is presenting itself as such openly as a known quantity, they're not masquerading as something else, people know what theyre getting into.
And again..."the show that comes on after me is puppets making crank phone calls". Nobody is citing The Daily Show as a serious source of unbiased news. Theyre commentary and comedy and make no other claims.
This shouldnt be a big deal to have to explain why one isnt held to the sam standard as others.
Deliberately editing interview footage to create false conversations and statements is a gakky thing to do regardless of context. Whether you're a journalist or not, whether your intent is malicious or comedic or political or whatever, the act itself is unethical and immoral. Your excuse for the daily show is that it's ok to treat people in a dishonest and unethical manner as long as it makes some people laugh. I don't agree with the rationale that it's ok to wrong people and misrepresent them to get laughs.
You're drawing parallels and casting things in black and white absolutes that society at large does not.
If they know what the Daily Show is, what they do, how they do it, and agree to do it anyway, then what the Daily Show does is perfectly fine. Everyone knows the score ahead of time, and nobody should be surprised at the outcome, and the Daily Show isnt going to air anything without that understanding.
That is very different from the other cases you mention, and is why the Daily Show doesnt get flak for what they do.
Vaktathi wrote: Nobody is citing The Daily Show as a serious source of unbiased news.
If anyone is citing Milo as a serious source of unbiased news, let me know, because I've got a bridge to sell.
Funny how quick you were to edit out "He's in the infotainment business, same as the Daily Show".
Comparing Milo to the Daily Show shows a woeful lack of understanding or knowledge as to what the Daily Show has done in recent years.
Do you think The Daily Show isn't in the infotainment business? It's a show that mixes comedy, guest interviews and current events it's pretty much the definition of infotainment.
The difference is that the Daily Show is open about that and acknowledges it from the outset, theyre not trying to portray themselves as anything else. Milo was a senior editor at an organization passing itself off as actual news, Okeefe was going in under false pretenses and deceptively editing footage and presenting it as "truth" under as a "project veritas". These are *very* different things that most people understand.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
I kinda think we haven't spent enough time focusing on this one quote from Trump;
"You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things."
Just fething read that. God damn. This is the guy that 60 million people chose to be their national leader. I mean, how dumb does the stuff Trump says have to get before people start putting their hands up and admitting they screwed up?
cuda1179 wrote: As long as there is a actual political or social aspect to that speech, then yes, it is protected.
And if a court deems it wasn't sufficiently political or artistic, it isn't protected.
As for nudity in private clubs..... Yes, that has actually been protected, even here in the middle of Conservative land, and to extreme levels. There was a case a while back here in Iowa that protected an underage girls rights to express herself on stage, in the nude. So, technically, in Iowa, as long as there is no alcohol, a 13-year old can shake her goodies.
And if there is alcohol, then it is okay for government to tell one 21 year old they can't get it off for another 21 year old.
Again, I'm not saying the US doesn't have strong freedom of speech. It does. But it doesn't have this freest of free speech that ever did free speech that so many Americans like to think their country has. Like everywhere you have limits on your speech. Some of those limits make perfect sense, some of them are pretty stupid, like all other countries.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Vash108 wrote: So they are walking back the Privatized Prison stance for them to be phased out AND NOW working on stepping up enforcement against Marijuana use.
HMMM
It seems like they want more people in privatized prisons for slave labor.
Anyone else connecting these dots?
We have over 1 million people incarcerated in the US and in 2015 UNICOR (the Federal agency that controls prison labor) employed less than 13,000 of them. If the Feds want more prisoners to do more factory work for them then it would be much easier to just use more of the existing prison population than it would be to expend the cost and effort of incarcerating more marijuana users.
jasper76 wrote: Unless, if by some mental gymnastics, you can construe the belief that life begins at conception as being somehow an offensive position to take. Or, if by some some mental gymnastics, you can construe the effort to protect lives in utero as somehow intending to hurt people that are different.
It isn't that hard to find the hypocrisy in the pro-life movement. Just ask any of them how much they've looked in to alternate means of reducing abortion. Ask them if they read about the incredible impact that free IUD programs have for at risk women, and if on learning it can lead to a drop in abortions of up to 80% if they support such programs.
Almost every time you will get blank looks, because the idea of actually doing stuff to reduce abortion just hasn't occurred to them. Because it isn't actually about the foetus. It's about the crusade.
The point is, some progressives are perfectly willing to publicly humiliate people, big and small, if they go against the current progressive orthodoxy. If it's bad for the Milos of the world to do it, it's bad for Samantha Bees of the world as well. No double-standards please.
I don't much like Samantha Bee, I've just never found her that funny. As a result I don't know how aggressive she gets on her show, or how much that . But if you want to compare her to Milo, you need to give an example of her saying anything as bad as 'thick as pig gak media jew'.
I'm guessing she's said nothing like that, and your attempt to equate the two is very, very weak.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
As for nudity in private clubs..... Yes, that has actually been protected, even here in the middle of Conservative land, and to extreme levels. There was a case a while back here in Iowa that protected an underage girls rights to express herself on stage, in the nude. So, technically, in Iowa, as long as there is no alcohol, a 13-year old can shake her goodies.
And if there is alcohol, then it is okay for government to tell one 21 year old they can't get it off for another 21 year old.
The majority of states also say that it's illegal for me to pay a woman $100 to have sex with me. But it's legal for me to pay a woman $100 to have sex with me while I'm filing it to sell it as porn down the line.
sebster wrote: It isn't that hard to find the hypocrisy in the pro-life movement. Just ask any of them how much they've looked in to alternate means of reducing abortion. Ask them if they read about the incredible impact that free IUD programs have for at risk women, and if on learning it can lead to a drop in abortions of up to 80% if they support such programs.
Thing is Seb, under the "life begins at conception" definition, an IUD can be murder just the same as the emergency contraceptive pill and any abortion procedure as it can prevent a fertilised egg from implanting into the lining of the womb.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Violent nonsense against property. I'm sure violent nonsense against people gets a pass sometime.
Yeah, Stormfront has been linked to more than 100 murders. Fair point..
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The majority of states also say that it's illegal for me to pay a woman $100 to have sex with me. But it's legal for me to pay a woman $100 to have sex with me while I'm filing it to sell it as porn down the line.
Yeah, I'm not suggesting what Milo did wasn't a gak thing to do, I'm just saying that nobody got outed, as I've seen claimed over and over, and accepted without question. This individual had already outed themselves, and was giving TV interviews advocating that transgenders should be able to use the bathroom of their choice, rather than of their biological gender, which is a fairly controversial and unsettled issue.
And its disingenuous to say people on the left don't pull this kind of stuff as well. Forget big names like Trump and Bannon...shows like the Daily Show, Samantha Bee, etc routinely take a minor public figure, or just some random schmoe in a crowd, give them a disingenuous and often humiliating interview, edit the interview for maximum laughs,
As John Stewart once said, "I'm on Comedy Central...the show that comes on after me is puppets making crank phone calls".
Milo was a senior editor at an outfit ostensibly representing itself as a factual news outlet.
With the Daily Show, anyone *consenting* to an interview with the Daily Show would be familiar with the show and how they operate and what they do, they know the score and are choosing to interact directly with the show. Very different situations from those targeted by Milo.
Asking somebody to consent to be an interviewee and then editing their responses to change what that person said is a gakky thing to do. It's wrong when Katie Couric does it for her antigun movie, it's wrong when the OKeefe guy does it for his gotcha videos and it's wrong if The Daily Show does it. Dakka is a message board that's mostly about tabletop gaming and none of us on here have any responsibility to have journalistic integrity or any such thing but if a poster consistently quoted other posters and changed the words they posted people would get upset, complain about it and the offending poster would be told to stop or face disciplinary actions against their account, because deliberately misrepresenting what people say/write is a gakky thing to do regardless of the context.
The Daily Show has a known schtick, people know what they're signing up for and what they should expect, and again, theyre *Comedy Central*. If you're expecting an even handed interview and journalistic perfection, you're missing the fundamental premise.
Couric is ostensibly is serious journalist engaging in truthful journalism and people consent to interviews based on that, so when she does it, she's violating that premise. When Okeefe does it, he's passing it off as legitimate undercover journalism and hiding his real identity and purpose the whole time for political purposes. The Daily Show is a comedy show and is presenting itself as such openly as a known quantity, they're not masquerading as something else, people know what theyre getting into.
And again..."the show that comes on after me is puppets making crank phone calls". Nobody is citing The Daily Show as a serious source of unbiased news. Theyre commentary and comedy and make no other claims.
This shouldnt be a big deal to have to explain why one isnt held to the sam standard as others.
Deliberately editing interview footage to create false conversations and statements is a gakky thing to do regardless of context. Whether you're a journalist or not, whether your intent is malicious or comedic or political or whatever, the act itself is unethical and immoral. Your excuse for the daily show is that it's ok to treat people in a dishonest and unethical manner as long as it makes some people laugh. I don't agree with the rationale that it's ok to wrong people and misrepresent them to get laughs.
You're drawing parallels and casting things in black and white absolutes that society at large does not.
If they know what the Daily Show is, what they do, how they do it, and agree to do it anyway, then what the Daily Show does is perfectly fine. Everyone knows the score ahead of time, and nobody should be surprised at the outcome, and the Daily Show isnt going to air anything without that understanding.
That is very different from the other cases you mention, and is why the Daily Show doesnt get flak for what they do.
Vaktathi wrote: Nobody is citing The Daily Show as a serious source of unbiased news.
If anyone is citing Milo as a serious source of unbiased news, let me know, because I've got a bridge to sell.
Funny how quick you were to edit out "He's in the infotainment business, same as the Daily Show".
Comparing Milo to the Daily Show shows a woeful lack of understanding or knowledge as to what the Daily Show has done in recent years.
Do you think The Daily Show isn't in the infotainment business? It's a show that mixes comedy, guest interviews and current events it's pretty much the definition of infotainment.
The difference is that the Daily Show is open about that and acknowledges it from the outset, theyre not trying to portray themselves as anything else. Milo was a senior editor at an organization passing itself off as actual news, Okeefe was going in under false pretenses and deceptively editing footage and presenting it as "truth" under as a "project veritas". These are *very* different things that most people understand.
I'm not commenting on the Daily Show interviews where they just ask somebody at an event to comment on camera. I'm referring to the instances where the Daily Show will do long form interviews with people that may be hours long and then edit them down to a segment that's only about 5 minutes long. Multiple people who have done such an interview with the daily show have complained that the editing of the long interview into a short segment was done in a way that misrepresented what they said, why they said it and the context in which it was said. That's the exact same thing that Couric and OKeefe and others do.
d-usa wrote: Totes normal for the administration to actually contact the DOJ and say "deny what you are doing": Totes
It is unethical for Clinton and Lynch to meet, much less outside of others, while there is an active investigation. As Lynch was the most important prosecutor in the US, and Clinton was a (disbarred) lawyer, both knew that.
As to the most recent shenanigans I don't have the details so can't open, but its perfectly possible it also was unethical.
Where's my cookie?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Yeah, I'm not suggesting what Milo did wasn't a gak thing to do, I'm just saying that nobody got outed, as I've seen claimed over and over, and accepted without question. This individual had already outed themselves, and was giving TV interviews advocating that transgenders should be able to use the bathroom of their choice, rather than of their biological gender, which is a fairly controversial and unsettled issue.
And its disingenuous to say people on the left don't pull this kind of stuff as well. Forget big names like Trump and Bannon...shows like the Daily Show, Samantha Bee, etc routinely take a minor public figure, or just some random schmoe in a crowd, give them a disingenuous and often humiliating interview, edit the interview for maximum laughs,
As John Stewart once said, "I'm on Comedy Central...the show that comes on after me is puppets making crank phone calls".
Milo was a senior editor at an outfit ostensibly representing itself as a factual news outlet.
With the Daily Show, anyone *consenting* to an interview with the Daily Show would be familiar with the show and how they operate and what they do, they know the score and are choosing to interact directly with the show. Very different situations from those targeted by Milo.
Asking somebody to consent to be an interviewee and then editing their responses to change what that person said is a gakky thing to do. It's wrong when Katie Couric does it for her antigun movie, it's wrong when the OKeefe guy does it for his gotcha videos and it's wrong if The Daily Show does it. Dakka is a message board that's mostly about tabletop gaming and none of us on here have any responsibility to have journalistic integrity or any such thing but if a poster consistently quoted other posters and changed the words they posted people would get upset, complain about it and the offending poster would be told to stop or face disciplinary actions against their account, because deliberately misrepresenting what people say/write is a gakky thing to do regardless of the context.
The Daily Show has a known schtick, people know what they're signing up for and what they should expect, and again, theyre *Comedy Central*. If you're expecting an even handed interview and journalistic perfection, you're missing the fundamental premise.
Couric is ostensibly is serious journalist engaging in truthful journalism and people consent to interviews based on that, so when she does it, she's violating that premise. When Okeefe does it, he's passing it off as legitimate undercover journalism and hiding his real identity and purpose the whole time for political purposes. The Daily Show is a comedy show and is presenting itself as such openly as a known quantity, they're not masquerading as something else, people know what theyre getting into.
And again..."the show that comes on after me is puppets making crank phone calls". Nobody is citing The Daily Show as a serious source of unbiased news. Theyre commentary and comedy and make no other claims.
This shouldnt be a big deal to have to explain why one isnt held to the sam standard as others.
Deliberately editing interview footage to create false conversations and statements is a gakky thing to do regardless of context. Whether you're a journalist or not, whether your intent is malicious or comedic or political or whatever, the act itself is unethical and immoral. Your excuse for the daily show is that it's ok to treat people in a dishonest and unethical manner as long as it makes some people laugh. I don't agree with the rationale that it's ok to wrong people and misrepresent them to get laughs.
You're drawing parallels and casting things in black and white absolutes that society at large does not.
If they know what the Daily Show is, what they do, how they do it, and agree to do it anyway, then what the Daily Show does is perfectly fine. Everyone knows the score ahead of time, and nobody should be surprised at the outcome, and the Daily Show isnt going to air anything without that understanding.
That is very different from the other cases you mention, and is why the Daily Show doesnt get flak for what they do.
Vaktathi wrote: Nobody is citing The Daily Show as a serious source of unbiased news.
If anyone is citing Milo as a serious source of unbiased news, let me know, because I've got a bridge to sell.
Funny how quick you were to edit out "He's in the infotainment business, same as the Daily Show".
Comparing Milo to the Daily Show shows a woeful lack of understanding or knowledge as to what the Daily Show has done in recent years.
Do you think The Daily Show isn't in the infotainment business? It's a show that mixes comedy, guest interviews and current events it's pretty much the definition of infotainment.
The difference is that the Daily Show is open about that and acknowledges it from the outset, theyre not trying to portray themselves as anything else. Milo was a senior editor at an organization passing itself off as actual news, Okeefe was going in under false pretenses and deceptively editing footage and presenting it as "truth" under as a "project veritas". These are *very* different things that most people understand.
I'm not commenting on the Daily Show interviews where they just ask somebody at an event to comment on camera. I'm referring to the instances where the Daily Show will do long form interviews with people that may be hours long and then edit them down to a segment that's only about 5 minutes long. Multiple people who have done such an interview with the daily show have complained that the editing of the long interview into a short segment was done in a way that misrepresented what they said, why they said it and the context in which it was said. That's the exact same thing that Couric and OKeefe and others do.
I'm not disputing that they do that, but the premise is different.
The Daily Show is on a comedy channel, and presents itself as such. People interviewing with them should have no expectations of a fair and even handed result, and the Daily Show offers no such guarantees and is up front about that. The Daily Show is also a longstanding and long running show and their content should not surprise anyone and theyre not passing what they do off as anything but infotainment.
Okeefe was operating under false pretenses and and often without any indication that anything was being recorded and portraying his edited cuts as factual information. This is a key fundamental difference.
Couric went in as an ostensibly respectable journalist and made deceptive cuts and tried to pass it off as factual information. Again, fundamental key difference.
Intent and manner matter. With the Daily Show, people know ahead of time whats going on and can choose to engage or not with that in mind.
Just like all sorts of other shows. Jackass gets away with punching people in the balls because people know whats going to happen and they agree to it. Me going out and punching someone in the balls on street is going to get an entirely different response, and rightfully so.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
whembly wrote: The FBI should definitely get going in their investigation of Russian links to the WH. Abso-fething-lutely.
Should we also get a series of congressional investigations. I assume Trey Gowdy has time on his hands now that he's finally let his investigations in to Benghazi end... just coincidentally at the time that Hillary Clinton is no longer running for office.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: We have over 1 million people incarcerated in the US and in 2015 UNICOR (the Federal agency that controls prison labor) employed less than 13,000 of them. If the Feds want more prisoners to do more factory work for them then it would be much easier to just use more of the existing prison population than it would be to expend the cost and effort of incarcerating more marijuana users.
Yeo. It'd be even easier to just hire people at the minimum wage. While the pay per hour for a prison worker is very low, once you add in the cost of facilities and guards it's a hell of lot more per hour than just paying minimum wage.
I think private prisons are a terrible idea. I think jail time for marijuana is an even worse idea. But it isn't a big slave labour conspiracy thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/24 18:12:43
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I'm not commenting on the Daily Show interviews where they just ask somebody at an event to comment on camera. I'm referring to the instances where the Daily Show will do long form interviews with people that may be hours long and then edit them down to a segment that's only about 5 minutes long. Multiple people who have done such an interview with the daily show have complained that the editing of the long interview into a short segment was done in a way that misrepresented what they said, why they said it and the context in which it was said. That's the exact same thing that Couric and OKeefe and others do.
How about this? Just comedy or unethical hit piece?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
A Town Called Malus wrote: Thing is Seb, under the "life begins at conception" definition, an IUD can be murder just the same as the emergency contraceptive pill and any abortion procedure as it can prevent a fertilised egg from implanting into the lining of the womb.
One kind of IUD makes the womb hostile to a fertilised egg. Other kinds work by killing or immobilising sperm. The fairly simple answer is to just use the ones that prevent fertilisation.
Somehow the abortion crusaders haven't considered that. Why is obvious.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: The majority of states also say that it's illegal for me to pay a woman $100 to have sex with me. But it's legal for me to pay a woman $100 to have sex with me while I'm filing it to sell it as porn down the line.
Yeah, that's one of those truly amazing bits of ridiculousness. Future generations will have a good laugh about it.
It was a joke. Either by some conservatives with a sense of humor, or some liberals that got in the door. Almost as soon as the flags were spotted ushers went around collecting them, and warning people if they were seen waving the flags around they'd be booted.
It's a good gag but that's all it was. It's interesting to note that not many people who took the flags appeared to know what the Russian flag looked like.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/24 18:22:04
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
