It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


"Deceptive Editing Techniques" Explained

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 09:09 AM
While I remain a staunch supporter of expanding one's own vocabulary and have delighted in the seemingly overnight saturation of the phrase "deceptive editing techniques" into the mindset of even the least articulate conservative, I feel compelled to assist in the correct use and definition of the phrase destined to replace "weapons of mass destruction" as the most popular and ambiguously defined catch phrase of a generation.

Though editing (itself being a required film making technique) is not in question as most sane people realize movies are neither in real time or live, the political charge behind the DET mantra is clearly the "deceptive" part, so let's focus on that.

All should agree that for an editing technique to be defined as "deceptive" it must in some sense be purposefully reporting (or at least implying) that which is untrue. Again, it's the "implying" part that people get upset about with Mike Moore since he's quite careful with what is reported as FACT... and it's his unique ability to successfully imply things that makes him the sneaky, sneaky liberal that he is on the right's most hated hit list.

But what is actually implied by the word implied? Well, some form of communication at a minimum where one makes a reasonable assessment that not only did Mike Moore intend a certain implication, but that any reasonable viewer would draw the intended conclusion. The fact alone that conservatives disagree with Mike Moore's implied conclusions should then alleviate all fears that he's being deceptive (or that conservatives are reasonable), but let's explore further.

Assume the reverse of what we've established logically (in order to understand the conservative position). The case being that reasonable people know it's deceptive, don't draw the implied conclusion and have a moral responsibility to inform unreasonable people of the deceptive editing techniques. Yes, I'm pretty sure they're just calling liberals stupid in that case, but where does that leave the DET's? Pretty ineffective I'd say.

I think we can all agree then that what Mike Moore needs is more effective Deceptive Editing Techniques. It's not hard to find good examples. Here's a common DET used to demonstrate to stupid liberals how Mike Moore is disgusting and can't be trusted.

I think you'll find this posted frequently all over the web including ATS.

The reason it's a great example of the deceptive editing techniques Mike Moore should aspire to is it's an outright lie. But believed by "reasonable" people (namely conservatives) convinced Mike Moore uses DET's and they should expose them with pictures like this.

Here's the unneoconned version of the picture. Also known as the orginal or "truth" for those so challenged.

Big difference huh?

Before dismissing this one example of a REAL DET too lightly, consider the source. (from an anonymous blogger on AirAmerica exposing his employer Sinclair Broadcasting)


I work for a station that is owned by a pro right-wing corporation...Sinclair Broadcast Group (the same infamous corporation that banned all of its ABC affiliates from airing Ted Koppel's Night Line showing photos of servicemen and women who died in Iraq).

Every night at 11pm, our station, along with the other 64 stations owned by Sinclair must air a mandatory editorial entitled "The Point", performed by one of their head guys, Mark Hyman. They are usually commentary that is favorable to President George W. Bush and eat a valuable minute and a half out of our news-time.

So, one night, he decided to attack Michael Moore and his movie. He passively bashed it...saying "Everyone knows this film is purely political speech and has no artistic or entertainment value", which is untrue -- in my mind -- because it is REALLY entertaining and I don't know what his sources are to prove that "everyone knows" that this film has "no artistic or entertainment value"...other than just because he SAID that "everyone knows" that, it's true.

He goes on to say "The absurd allegations and fabrications put forward by Moore in his film are no worse than the absurd allegations and fabrications put forward by slanted media outlets." First, MARK HYMAN is slanted, which is okay because it's commentary...but so is Michael Moore's movie, YET happens to also provide proof of his claims, something Hyman hasn't done thus far in this "The Point". He just says it's full of "fabrications"...doesn't prove why...he just says it.

That's the basic theme of what makes his editorials so credible: he just SAYS it is so -- with a man-childish/mama-boy's stance.

Maybe we'll all find out someday that everything Michael Moore has said in his film is nothing more than a pack of lies, but you can say in retrospect that at least Moore gave something of what could be considered sources. Mark Hyman just SAYS it...LOUDLY and ARROGANTLY, and, unfortunately, awkwardly.

Actually, he BARKS it at YOU, the viewer. And that's his only source: loudness and arrogance...barked at you. You (the viewer) are immediately imposed to play the role of the disobedient child. That's the basic feel of these "The Point"'s. He's telling you how it is. Don't dare think otherwise you disobedient children!


Mark Hyman ends his Michael Moore commentary on what is quite honestly a trashy note....

"And finally. No reasonable person would take seriously anything said by someone who has so little respect for himself that he allows himself to look like this."

While he is saying this, a series of unflattering photos of Michael Moore are shown. I watched them as I screened it before it went on air...they were all not the best photos, but the last one...the one Hyman ended on just as he was saying "allows himself to look like this" was a clearly doctored photo garnered from the internet of a grossly overweight Michael Moore with hotdogs in both fists, mustard stains on his shirt, and an unnatural, pixilated white background --> click here (or copy/paste URL) for doctored photo

I didn't think it was real, mostly because it obviously wasn't. So, I showed the producer, the producer agreed, because it was OBVIOUS. So, he called the news director. The news director said we couldn't really do anything about a purported doctored photo unless we found the original.

A few minutes later, on blessed Google, I found the original --> click here (or copy/paste URL) to see original

The ORIGINAL shows Michael Moore fisting a microphone and his other hand clenched into a fist in front of a podium...and may I add, not as cartoonishly overweight as the doctored photo of Moore fisting hotdogs used by Sinclair.

Short story, producer called back news director and told them I found the original, news director called corporate headquarters and told them I found the original, corporate headquarters called me (and my co-worker who suggested the Google search) "heroes" and sent out an e-mail to all the 64+ stations it owns that are mandated to run the editorial "The Point" to edit out the part that visually defames Michael Moore.

So, everyone wins: Sinclair avoids a potential lawsuit, I satisfy my personal need to stop this reckless lying and distortion in the media, whether it be intentional or not.

In my mind, the question remains: How could people who run a corporation as successful as Sinclair NOT have the sharpness of perception enough to realize how obviously doctored this photo was? Could it have been deliberate?

Yet, the website still has the original editorial, which you can watch at and click on "The Point" icon. Go to the July 8th editorial entitled "More on Michael Moore". In fact watch all of them. See for yourself how unintentionally funny he is, then ask yourself "what's 'The Point'?"

Thanks for reading!

Posted by Teddow at 07.13.2004 03.50 AM

Sorry this can't be shortened or linked better but it's an important find in a blog. Would love to know more about "Ted" and if he gets fired for exposing this.

Amazing story isn't it? Were it not for this unidentified liberal hero stopping the networks false light DET's, Mike Moore would own Sinclair broadcasting right now.
Too bad.

[edit on 13-7-2004 by RANT]

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 09:16 AM
well thats the first time i've ever seen the photo on THIS board and its the first time i've seen that picture at all.

about all you've done here is admit it does happen but seem to think only those who hate moore do it.

i think you're missing the bigger picture here. moore does it, limbaugh does it, CBS does it, every political pundit does it, every media outlet does it.

christ even you and i do it! and dont dare tell me you've never done it. you're human and you're not THAT special.

while i do think moore does do this i dont think he is alone in this category he is but one of countless others who do it.

it happens all the time on this board as much as we;'d like to think other wise.

in short its a technique we all use where we take something and keep the bits that support our claim assertion belief opinion or view and then dismiss the rest.

i cant think of a single person that hasnt done this. i know i've been guilty of it.

are we going to continue to believe only certain people that lean in the opposite direction of moore and yourself only do this???? i dont like playing the game of half truths, it gets boring very quickly and makes losers of us all.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 09:50 AM

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
well thats the first time i've ever seen the photo on THIS board and its the first time i've seen that picture at all.

I've seen it. Usually obviously superimposed on a can of spam, or fake movie poster. But it's definitely been on ATS. And I shudder to think was about to be on the news as a "real" picture. How stupid are they?

The point though being exactly what you said.

Everyone implies things and gets a little clever now and then with only half the story. And really only those clucking their tongues about it are the truly dishonest ones.

My tongue clucking was just one of those "deceptive editing techniques" to make a point.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 10:39 AM
So are you saying somewhere out there is a complete version of F 9/11 that has no lies or DET? If so, I would love to see it. It wouldn't be as popular as the DET laced movie, but it would be interesting nontheless.

[edit on 7/13/04 by slickwilly95991]

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 10:50 AM
lol no the movie that moore put out is THE movie, there is no DET free version. moore has admitted even before it opened the movie is basically his opinion on everything he covers oin the movie.

that being you think he's going to show things that dont reenforce what he is trying to convey? you think he's going to leave things in that make his opinion look bad/inconsistent? would you?

like i said before everyone does this but lets not try to pretend that his movie is truth. its not and even he admits as much. its an op-ed piece. no different than if rush limbaugh or sean hanity did a movie.

i jsut dont get all the hype over the movie. people rushing to see someones opinion. christ i need to start making movies if this concept that showing your opinions is a money maker.

all i need is a painfully obvious bias, some cameras and editing software....poof! instant money maker.....right?

anyone can do this.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:14 AM
I grabbed the HOT DOG photo from the WEB.
I grabbed the Spam can photo from the WEb.
I put Mike, on the Spam Can.
I posted the obviously photoshopped photo Here, on ATS.
I used it in 2 threads.

Deceptive Editing is Moore's technique as well!
That was my point, thank you for noticing.

Ive seen plenty of Deceptively Edited photos of Repblicans..

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:20 AM
I wasn't saying you engineered it Spacedoubt. I mean the Spam can thing maybe, but I seriously didn't recall who posted that and that was obviously a joke.

But the original "doctored" picture making him fatter than he is and holding hot dogs...that was about to go on the news as real. All Sinclair stations.

You aren't saying THAT was your creation was it?

This was already on the web right?

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:28 AM
Last night I saw a Jacques Cousteau documentary on whales, in the Atlantic. In this one scene, he showed stock footage of the Calypso II sailing, in the Pacific! When will these 'so-called' documentaries stop using DETs?

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:29 AM
I don't see the controversy here.

Moore makes a movie accusing the Bush administration of being complete and utter bastards. Accusations range from murdering babies to creating scenarios where high school kids kill each other.

Bush supporter makes a photo of Moore eating hotdogs.

Isn't there some sort imbalance here in the outrage quota? Not only that, but it's much more likely that Sinclair got it right, judging from Moore's weight problem.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:34 AM

Originally posted by curme
Last night I saw a Jacques Cousteau documentary on whales, in the Atlantic. In this one scene, he showed stock footage of the Calypso II sailing, in the Pacific! When will these 'so-called' documentaries stop using DETs?

I'm just thrilled to see people saying DET's. Saves alot of time.

And gives new meaning to "the hunt" for said DET's being played out in the media.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:39 AM
for some reason i find the phrase DET disturbing. then again i find using buzzwords and catchphrases coined by the mediaand society to be revolting for some reason. its like everything is a catchpphrase or a buzzword and it seems to diminish the meaning behind the issue and makes it seem more of a joke, something to to be taken seriously.

ugh i need to get out of this forum. i knew not to come back in here!

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:57 AM

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
moore has admitted even before it opened the movie is basically his opinion on everything he covers oin the movie.


Of course it is. His political stance is quite clear throughout. Your point? Isn't it about time all the F-9/11 bashers started actually disproving the facts that are in this movie instead of just moaning about how biased it is. I'm sick of hearing it!

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 12:06 PM
earthtone i think you "missed" what i was saying.

some on this board when the movie first came were saying "yeah you gotta see it, its THE TRUTH!" and all that crap when all it is an op-ed piece.

thats the part i have ever had an issue with. not him.

that and the the fact he doesnt consider them or call them documentaries but when one of them gets an award for being a documentary he is more than to accept said award. but thats another issue entirely.

so next time before you start blindly calling me a basher you might want to get things straight before shooting off at the hip like that.

but to be fair if you're going to attack those who blindly bash the movie then maybe you should attack those who blindly support it also. both are acting like sheeple arent they? bah bah, never questioning why they're saying what they're saying. right????

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 12:17 PM
Hey prank, I didn't call you a 'basher'!
I totally agree, either the way, the people who are 'blindly' following are wrong. There are problems with this film and Moore certainly does use a few dirty techniques which i didn't agree with, however, I feel that his coverage is fair. you could call this film 'opinion' Prank, but sadly alot of his 'opinions' are backed up with fact.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 12:25 PM
guess what tone?

all of our opinions are backed with "facts". does that mean one is superior to another? not in my mind but thats just me.

as i said before, anyone can do this. all you need a bias (which we all have) a camera or two and something to edit the footage with. viola! instant mooreumentary.

i guess some people just dont like seeing him being dragged back down to earth, his opinion is no more special than yours or mine. so why not all of us have a go and make a mvoie based on our own opinions and market them make tons of cash? its a free country after all, why not?

i think he's a genius for suckering people into paying to see an opinion. christ i wish i could do that. doesnt mean anything as my opinions would still just be plain ole opinions.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 12:28 PM

Originally posted by RANT

I'm just thrilled to see people saying DET's. Saves alot of time.

And gives new meaning to "the hunt" for said DET's being played out in the media.

Where are DET's being played out in the media? Before today I never heard of the term. I watch the news constantly and never heard of it.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 12:32 PM

Originally posted by earthtone

Of course it is. His political stance is quite clear throughout. Your point? Isn't it about time all the F-9/11 bashers started actually disproving the facts that are in this movie instead of just moaning about how biased it is. I'm sick of hearing it!

Earthtone, haven't read any of the posts on this topic board. At least half of them were created to disproving the "facts" of the movie. Also, there are plenty of websites that pretty much go word for word with the movie disproving whatever was intended by the director using sources to back it up. Just look around.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 12:33 PM
I don't think he has been 'dragged back to Earth' quite yet. Indeed you are right, Moore is a clever guy to have got so many people to see his 'opinions', and you are right, they certainly are opinions which he is presenting. It is the choice of the viewer if they agree with it or not.

It just seems to me that the right are saying that it's all opinion and the left are saying it's all facts: I am sitting in a quiet little place somewhere in the middle (a bit to the left)

Sure you could call his opinions 'unfair' or 'misguiding' , but I don't see anyone stepping up to prove all this stuff as lies.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 12:40 PM
i'm not calling his opinions themselves anything but opinions, his techniques in which he presents those opinions are open for debate

i;'m sure he used the "truth" in his movie and as i said before the truth that fits what he is tryin to convey to the audience. which technically could be considered a halftruth which to me anyway is on the same level as a lie.

of course as i also said we are all guilty of doing that so i know moore isnt special in that regard either.

i dont care to prove or disprove anything he's saying as opinions are neither right or wrong. we can say what he's using are facts but theyre more or less "edited facts", only using the parts that support what he's saying.

and lets be honest , would you present facts on something that didnt support what you were trying to convey but rather contradicted what you said? of course not! none of us would. and we know why we wouldnt either.

THAT is my entire point. he might be using facts but are those all the facts or just the facts that make his opinion look good?

even this can be duplicated by any of us, in fact we DO duplicate that here on a regular basis every day everyone minute of every hour on this board alone.

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 12:43 PM
Of course, selective evidence. Though however 'selective' Moore's evidence may be, it's pretty bad huh? I don't disagree with wht you are saying .

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in