5 ms·

How is pinning the video not spreading it?

drilldrive 7y ago
You are misreading my comment: there were two major videos of Pelosi that came to the fore recently. The one that Giuliani posted on his twitter was the one mentioned in the article, and the footage and audio was distorted and slowed down. Trump did not post this video. Trump posted the second video comprising of spliced segments of Pelosi speaking, each segment was raw footage of the House Speaker.
- masonic 7y ago
  the footage and audio was distorted and slowed down Jimmy Kimmel has done this hundreds of times in his recurring "Drunk Donald Trump" segment over the past 3.5 years, usually with no disclaimer. Should he be censored? Broadcast television has much stronger legal standards than Facebook would ever consider, too.
  - davidw 7y ago
    This is why it's kind of tricky. I think most people get that comedy people do one thing and are ok with that as long as it's clearly labeled. Perhaps the president and people who work for him ought to be held to a different standard though?
  - plugger 7y ago
    No, because it's comedy. If people are getting what they consider "news" from late night comedy they don't understand the purpose of the show. I'd say the same thing about the Daily Show, Last Week Tonight, etc. They're not news, they're comedy shows that focus on current events. The larger elephant in the room are the news network opinion shows like Hannity and Carlson. These shows open with something to the effect of "this is just my opinion" but then spend the rest of the show speaking as everything they're saying is fact when in fact it's opinion and 100% not news.
    - ng12 7y ago
      Why do we expect people to make this distinction for TV but not for things they read on the internet?
      - plugger 7y ago
        I don't. I expect to make this distinction no matter where I consume media. If anything the Internet is even worse though as the lines are much less well defined.
PixyMisa 7y ago
It's a different video. The one Trump retweeted is undoctored footage of Pelosi stumbling over words, because she actually does that.
- zaroth 7y ago
  It’s amazing how hard it is to get someone to believe something counter to their baseline assumption. People “know” Trump spread the video, even though it’s simple irrefutable fact that he did not. The media is often responsible for amplifying and distorting an act to the point where the original act and actor are indistinguishable. Kind of exactly like what happened in the doctored video. This is perhaps an incredible example of the pot calling the kettle black. Just yesterday, the TIMES reporter tweeting a fake quote of the President, only admitting he made it up after it went viral, and claiming, “it was plausible”. IMO the media does this against Trump pervasively and highly effectively, to the point where it is nearly impossible to distinguish what Trump may have actually said, forget about what he meant. I’d say the Charlottesville comments are probably the most famous example of this.
  - makomk 7y ago
    It's worth thinking, too, about the role this New York Times opinion piece played in convincing people so strongly of something that isn't true that the untruth was upvoted whilst the comment pointing it out is greyed out. They make it sound like the perception she was "drunk or perhaps crazy" was entirely the result of the deliberately and maliciously doctored video. Clearly it wasn't. Anyone who didn't investigate things themselves is left with the false impression that everyone mocking this Pelosi appearance was using a fake doctored video to do so - including the President of the United States - even though the author of this never technically lied.
    - drilldrive 7y ago
      Currently my comment is +4, so I wouldn't be so quick to say it is greyed out. Regardless, claims based on vote totals are not useful and distract from discussion: vote totals consider only the subset of the population willing to participate in site-based voting, which will pull from the polemics much more than the moderates. And besides, the structured refutation comment format of mine above is rife for false corrections, in that frequently such comments are only be a distortion or a deflection of the truth. People learn to blind themselves of the content of the message over time, furthering the partisan lock on their minds.

You are misreading my comment: there were two major videos of Pelosi that came to the fore recently. The one that Giuliani posted on his twitter was the one mentioned in the article, and the footage and audio was distorted and slowed down. Trump did not post this video. Trump posted the second video comprising of spliced segments of Pelosi speaking, each segment was raw footage of the House Speaker.

masonic 7y ago
the footage and audio was distorted and slowed down Jimmy Kimmel has done this hundreds of times in his recurring "Drunk Donald Trump" segment over the past 3.5 years, usually with no disclaimer. Should he be censored? Broadcast television has much stronger legal standards than Facebook would ever consider, too.
- davidw 7y ago
  This is why it's kind of tricky. I think most people get that comedy people do one thing and are ok with that as long as it's clearly labeled. Perhaps the president and people who work for him ought to be held to a different standard though?
- plugger 7y ago
  No, because it's comedy. If people are getting what they consider "news" from late night comedy they don't understand the purpose of the show. I'd say the same thing about the Daily Show, Last Week Tonight, etc. They're not news, they're comedy shows that focus on current events. The larger elephant in the room are the news network opinion shows like Hannity and Carlson. These shows open with something to the effect of "this is just my opinion" but then spend the rest of the show speaking as everything they're saying is fact when in fact it's opinion and 100% not news.
  - ng12 7y ago
    Why do we expect people to make this distinction for TV but not for things they read on the internet?
    - plugger 7y ago
      I don't. I expect to make this distinction no matter where I consume media. If anything the Internet is even worse though as the lines are much less well defined.

PixyMisa 7y ago

It's a different video. The one Trump retweeted is undoctored footage of Pelosi stumbling over words, because she actually does that.

zaroth 7y ago
It’s amazing how hard it is to get someone to believe something counter to their baseline assumption. People “know” Trump spread the video, even though it’s simple irrefutable fact that he did not. The media is often responsible for amplifying and distorting an act to the point where the original act and actor are indistinguishable. Kind of exactly like what happened in the doctored video. This is perhaps an incredible example of the pot calling the kettle black. Just yesterday, the TIMES reporter tweeting a fake quote of the President, only admitting he made it up after it went viral, and claiming, “it was plausible”. IMO the media does this against Trump pervasively and highly effectively, to the point where it is nearly impossible to distinguish what Trump may have actually said, forget about what he meant. I’d say the Charlottesville comments are probably the most famous example of this.
- makomk 7y ago
  It's worth thinking, too, about the role this New York Times opinion piece played in convincing people so strongly of something that isn't true that the untruth was upvoted whilst the comment pointing it out is greyed out. They make it sound like the perception she was "drunk or perhaps crazy" was entirely the result of the deliberately and maliciously doctored video. Clearly it wasn't. Anyone who didn't investigate things themselves is left with the false impression that everyone mocking this Pelosi appearance was using a fake doctored video to do so - including the President of the United States - even though the author of this never technically lied.
  - drilldrive 7y ago
    Currently my comment is +4, so I wouldn't be so quick to say it is greyed out. Regardless, claims based on vote totals are not useful and distract from discussion: vote totals consider only the subset of the population willing to participate in site-based voting, which will pull from the polemics much more than the moderates. And besides, the structured refutation comment format of mine above is rife for false corrections, in that frequently such comments are only be a distortion or a deflection of the truth. People learn to blind themselves of the content of the message over time, furthering the partisan lock on their minds.