Breitbart.com edits ANOTHER video - Congresswoman threatened after edited video posted

reply to post by MysticPearl


Perhaps you're the paid shill? I can't review every clip shown by MSM for truth, but at least can expose ones from an organization with a history of editing clips to distort the truth. Most editorials/news casts can edit clips for time constraints and then offer their opinion - no problem with that. What Breitbart.com did was edit a clip and offer NO comment or even place the clip in proper context - other than to write a big headline full of rage.

If you want to start a topic on every video clip shown by MSM that has been edited, then by all means go right ahead. If you don't, then I'll just assume your a paid shill as you accused me of being.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Dear Blackmarketeer,

I agree with you that MysticPearl may have gone a little overboard with name-calling, but she's not the one I'm peeved at. I don't like what your source has done, they're the bad guys in my eyes.

Remember that the source said that we could listen to the unedited speech by following the three clips? Well you can't. They left out the opening (I think) part of the speech. You can tell because Breitbart included clips from the speech (it was the same speech) that your source didn't. So for that part of Breitbart's clip we have no evidence that it was a deceptive edit, we don't have the original to compare it to. See why I'm mad at your source?

The rest of Breitbart's clip, about crazy Tea Partiers, seemed fair to me. It also seemed like no big deal. The Tea Partiers have been called crazy many times before. It couldn't have hurt the Congresswoman to be shown saying what many believe.

I do wish you hadn't spent so much time on "a history of editing clips," "another video," and so on. My understanding is that Breitbart has been accused ONCE of improperly editing a clip. Many people we admire have done something wrong once, including presidential candidates.

Also I'm not sure why offering an opinion about a clip is so much superior to showing the clip and letting people decide for themselves what it means. And as for proper context? A Congresswoman was giving a speech to supporters in her District. What more context is needed?

Please explain where I'm going wrong. I welcome these opportunities to get my thinking straight.

With respect,
Charles1952