It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Baltimore Fox Affiliate Edits Protest Footage To Sound Like 'Kill A Cop'

page: 7
49
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: 8675309jenny

Oh dear.


Yes dear ?




posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Rocker2013

So, when NBC edited the Zimmerman 911 call... Your thoughts?


My thoughts are the same regardless of the outlet involved or the circumstances. If a news broadcaster has been exposed as creating propaganda they should be investigated and people charged.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: FoJAk
So, just because I hear something different than you, I am automatically a right winger, and defending FOX?


No, I stated that this was a right wing broadcaster, and that you are rejecting reality and fact in favor of defending the indefensible.


originally posted by: FoJAk
I have no party affiliation. I don't believe in parties, I believe in policy, personally. Now you are being ridiculous. I would be embarrassed to be a liberal if I were one. At least, I am assuming that you are, because you don't like FOX....see what I did there?


I have no problem with being called a liberal, so many people seem to think it's some kind of insult.

The fact is, the evidence is there for all to see, they manipulated the audio to manufacture propaganda, leaning towards a right wing stance. If you refuse to accept reality in defense of right wing propaganda, then it would be a reasonable assumption to consider you an irrational right winger.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74


Ummm...I think I'm to the point where i think it's time for a "Facts only...Mam" news source....I mean keep the gorgeous babe newscasters but "tell the truth...and only the truth"...

Now...before you focus only on the "gorgeous babe" newscaster part...Let me conclude by stating that I'm genetically wired to think that way...so rather than fault me for being sexist...fault whoever laid the wiring...






YouSir



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
Am I the first post here to point out:

THEY DIDN'T EDIT ANYTHING

They clipped the the video, but they did NOT edit the audio in ANY WAY.


That doesn't matter, it amounts to the same thing - misrepresentation of the facts for propaganda. They knew what this editing would do, and they reported it as that. Listen to what they actually report and it is clear that this was an intentional misrepresentation of reality in order to increase racial tension and propagandize.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Kali74


Ummm...I think I'm to the point where i think it's time for a "Facts only...Mam" news source....I mean keep the gorgeous babe newscasters but "tell the truth...and only the truth"...
YouSir


Apart from the "gorgeous babe" this is how many other countries do it, and this is why we have press and media standards in the UK. The BBC can be fined and presenters fired for misrepresenting the facts. That's not to say the whole thing cannot be biased (it most certainly can, and there are plenty of examples of government interference in BBC reporting) but it's still a better situation than the wild west media you have in the US where they can scream and rant to camera and still get away with being called "news".

Now that it's been shown that FOX has deliberately created propaganda for a political ideology, there should be massive outrage and something actually done about it. Unfortunately, as we can see from many defending this here, that's not likely to happen. Too many Americans thing "opinion" can pass as "news" and that freedom of opinion can be prioritized over accurately informing the public.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013


Ummm...I'm sure there would be massive outrage...IF...the masses weren't under such a daily barrage of...programming...

"Mind numbed robots"...comes to mind...gotta love that they upfront call it "programming" though...




YouSir



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

Then where was your faux outrage when that happened?



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

Well now, all falls into place. A UK resident who thinks the BBC isn't a state run propaganda machine. But hey, they tell you they have standards so you believe them, and they're "independent"...

Tell me, who was fired at the BBC for completely fabricating audio to make it seem like the government of Syria was killing civilians?

How about their excellent journalism during the Yes campaign?

m.youtube.com...
edit on 24-12-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Thank to raymundoko as well as others.

Merry Christmas folks! I'm off to have some positive moments.
edit on 12/24/2014 by FoJAk because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/24/2014 by FoJAk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: 8675309jenny

edit: to prepare (something written) to be published or used : to make changes, correct mistakes, etc., in (something written)

Edit doesn't always mean altered content. When producers select footage to be used in a broadcast they edit it show the relevant part to which the anchor/reporter comments on.

This particular video was edited to cut off 'are in cell blocks' so that the commentary could be, protesters chant for cops to be killed.

Perhaps you should EDIT your thread title then, because you clearly made it out like they had modified the SOUND:


Baltimore Fox Affiliate Edits Protest Footage To Sound Like 'Kill A Cop'

They didn't edit it to SOUND like anything. It sounded like what it sounded like.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
you can call me deaf or what ever you want, i have listened to both over and over again. they both sound the same to me.
i think what everybody is hearing, and i know that i'm gonna get flamed for this, is that the way she is pronouncing killer.
instead of er at the end it sounds like a, such as killer, killa.

now they did cut the chant after killa cop, so it does sound like that if you just heard the fox video.

that is not so much the net work as it is the local station.

Exactly, the OP led us all to believe the SOUND was edited when in fact it WASNT.

originally posted by: FoJAk
Uummmm, I hear the same exact thing in both videos. Both are saying, "so kill a cop". The only difference that I hear is the second video has extra lines afterwards about a "cell block". I don't get what the FOX affiliate did wrong here?

Exactly, the OP led us all to believe the SOUND was edited when in fact it WASNT.


originally posted by: everyone
a reply to: FoJAk

You have to be on the low end of the IQ ratings to make that out of the context and especially the context of the fact that fox cut the video of at the part that made it too clear.

Someone must be of low IQ simply because they can't understand someone else's ghetto ass, not-properly-pronounced, slurred words?

I heard it exactly as he did, and statistically I have an IQ higher than 998/1000, so you can put that back in your pants there buddy.





.



If I am arrested from a possibility of commiting a crime and asked by the police if I was quilty of the alleged offense, if my response was, "Why do you think I did it?, and they clip the recording to the point when it is played back to all you hear is "I did it", by your standards they are innocent of subterfuge and deception.

Clipping the audio to change the understanding of what was said "is" editing and it is deceitful. I have to also question the motive for such an action.

It also makes the use of any video presented, especially from the police, very questionable and therefore useless, if they can clip (edit) the video or audio to show anything other than what actually occured.

Regardless, if the event took place in Buckingham Palace, in the heart of China or a corner of a street in America, if material was removed, clipped, edited, before presenting for viewing, it is no longer an accurate portrayal of the occurrence.

We all bring our own experiences and beliefs to play when we are presented with new information. How it is presented has great influence on how it is consumed. A raw piece of bloody meat just handed to you, is likely to turn your stomach, but grind it up and place in on a China plate, call it steak tartar and many will buy it and eat every morsel.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I fail to see your point. Fox screws up and your only point is that someone else did it? THAT has already been established. Deflection so as not to acknowledge what Fox did. It didn't work when I was growing up. "But Ma, Dave took as many cookies as I did." We still both got whupped.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013




right wing stance. If you refuse to accept reality in defense of right wing propaganda,


I am what you would call a "right winger" though I am libertarian, im conservative......

i would be interested for you to define this "stance " to me, what exactly is the stance this is directed towards?



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

You obviously are picking and choosing what posts to read. That poster made the claim this wouldn't happen with the BBC...



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I'm also a libertarian and find his post comical.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
Am I the first post here to point out:

THEY DIDN'T EDIT ANYTHING

They clipped the the video, but they did NOT edit the audio in ANY WAY.


That doesn't matter, it amounts to the same thing - misrepresentation of the facts for propaganda. They knew what this editing would do, and they reported it as that. Listen to what they actually report and it is clear that this was an intentional misrepresentation of reality in order to increase racial tension and propagandize.


You know, maybe I'm actually outgrowing ATS a little bit, because I don't see EVERY LITTLE THING as some conspiracy or propaganda. I think it was genuinely misheard, they thought that were onto something and they ran with it. None of us will ever know if the Fox employee heard the 'right' words but decided to roll with it anyway.

Before you crucify someone over this, you need to be sure of the intent. Which you can never be sure of.

They quickly issued a statement and then an apology and even had the woman come on the station and gave her and her cause some very valuable airtime and promotion! What more do you really want?

it seems like many people these days will never be happy until there is an actual TIME MACHINE and every person can go back in time and correct every single mistake to create the perfect world! They admitted their mistake and made every effort to make it right.

People on both sides need to stop using a microscope to find grievances before we burn this godamn country down!



originally posted by: Rocker2013


That doesn't matter, it amounts to the same thing - misrepresentation of the facts for propaganda. They knew what this editing would do, and they reported it as that. Listen to what they actually report and it is clear that this was an intentional misrepresentation of reality in order to increase racial tension and propagandize.


Murder and vehicular manslaughter "amount to the same thing" do they not?

INTENT is what matters in discussions of wrong doing, and in fact IN COURT as well.



.

.
edit on 24-12-2014 by 8675309jenny because: Merged



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   

a reply to: Rocker2013

Now that it's been shown that FOX has deliberately created propaganda for a political ideology, there should be massive outrage and something actually done about it.


What political ideology are you referring to?

Should Congress and the President eliminate the 1st Amendment?



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Rocker2013

Then where was your faux outrage when that happened?

I know you love to troll by doing things like this, but perhaps your troll would be more effective if you had noticed the member's reg date on ATS - which is well after that happened.

Asking where this member's "faux outrage" was implies this member was here when it happened and didn't comment it.

Pathetic.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: intrepid

You obviously are picking and choosing what posts to read. That poster made the claim this wouldn't happen with the BBC...

I don't necessarily agree with Rocker2013's opinion on the matter, as I see this more as shoddy journalism rather than political propaganda.

However, perhaps you would be so kind as to quote him saying that this "wouldn't happen with the BBC?"

Because it seems to me that you are making stuff up. Again.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Are you still upset for how badly you embarrassed yourself?

a reply to: Rocker2013

If that's not a statement that the BBC is above this type of journalism I don't know what to tell you.

My faux outrage comment is to everyone in the thread, not just that one poster.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join