posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 06:13 PM
I can't hear what the lady is saying. First and foremost it is not clear that there was an exaggeration.
Flood waters are disgusting. They are full of backed up sewage, chemicals from cars and homes, parasites from the dirt, fertilizers, animal waste and
lord knows what else all collected into a cesspool which can span several city blocks or more.
Just because this guy was willing to walk through a pool of water that would be festering with disease doesn't mean that the reporter was in the
wrong for not wanting to do the same. Not to mention the studio's insurance company probably would not have wanted her to do something so foolish.
It was also very clear from the cars around the group of people in the boats that the water was not that deep. The man walking by, even though
emphasized in the clip, was hardly a significant indication of the depth of the water.
I think while you're all maybe getting a good laugh out of it you may fail to understand the significance of even a 10 inch flood. It can ruin an
entire home. For the people who were actually affected by this flood it would be devastating.
It seems like there was a portion cut out where the lady was talking about how this particular area is repeatedly affected by floods, which is a
problem that does need to be reported on and does need to be fixed. So if you want to talk about selective editing I would look for the originator of
this clip because he apparently cut it off right at the portion that suited his needs.
The cameraman would have seen the guy coming before he walked through the frame anyway, so if they really wanted to keep it out of the report he could
have just zoomed in to cut the guy out.