Law CBS pays out (settles) for election interference

[BFoe]

Liar

Look, I’m sorry that the facts don’t agree with your feelings here. The answers that viewers of that broadcast heard Kamala give to specific questions, are portions of longer answers that Kamala gave to those specific questions. That’s it.

They didn’t rearrange or resequence them, they didn’t present them as if they were answers to other questions, and their editing didn’t change the overall meaning or substance of what she said.

It’s no different than what Fox did to Trump’s interview.
OMG, Fox deprived the whole nation of getting to see Trump do “The Weave”!!

Fox News edited Trump interview days after former president slammed Harris over ‘60 Minutes’ sit down

Trump has called for CBS to have its broadcasting license revoked for editing it’s interview with Harris

www.yahoo.com

 

[Deleted member 592570]

Lol at the conspiracy dorks ITT.

They got caught. End of story.

 

[Deleted member 592570]

What makes you say that?

Reality.

 

[cincymma79]

Look, I’m sorry that the facts don’t agree with your feelings here. The answers that viewers of that broadcast heard Kamala give to specific questions, are portions of longer answers that Kamala gave to those specific questions. That’s it.

They didn’t rearrange or resequence them, they didn’t present them as if they were answers to other questions, and their editing didn’t change the overall meaning or substance of what she said.

It’s no different than what Fox did to Trump’s interview.
OMG, Fox deprived the whole nation of getting to see Trump do “The Weave”!!

Fox News edited Trump interview days after former president slammed Harris over ‘60 Minutes’ sit down

Trump has called for CBS to have its broadcasting license revoked for editing it’s interview with Harris

www.yahoo.com

Nice try liar

 

[PhitePhan]

Can you explain exactly what was wrong with that edit with reference to the interview itself?

The first part of the answer she references actions by her administration impacting Israel’s policies:

“Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy  for what needs to happen in the region. And we’re not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”

I believe it is relevant to understand what her administration has done already if we’re going to have an idea about their likely position moving forward. This part of her answer may alert the astute observer to dig into exactly what type of “advocacy” and “work” already done in the region, and to decide if they want more of the same. Besides that, her rambling nature and the quality of her overall answer should be accurately captured if voters are going to get an accurate idea of her as a candidate.

Did you happen to know that the interviewer's answers were also edited for clarity and brevity?

Relevance?

No one cared about this standard journalistic practice until Trump made it a partisan issue and in the end that's the real problem, a sitting president using the leverage of the Oval Office to carry out personal vendettas against media companies.

BS to claim “no one cared” about journalistic integrity before Trump… total BS as people have been calling out deceptive practices forever. In the end, you hate Trump so much that you’re going to bat for obviously deceptive journalistic practices. SAD.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

No one cared about editing interviews for clarity and brevity, standard journalistic practice, until Trump made it a partisan issue and so far no one can explain to me exactly what CBS did wrong so it very much does seem that you only care it because "orange man" told you to.

One could also frame this as, there have been no edits like this before of a presidential candidate (unless you want to provide example), they only did it because they are partisan and people are ignoring the lack of journalistic integrity because they believe “orange man bad”.

 

[PhitePhan]

double

 

[Confucamus]

Okay sure you're both using it wrong, glad we could clear that up.

So when were you going to ask the OP that? I'm curious why it didn't offend you so much until I re-used it. Also, if you are the arbiter of whether or not that phrase was being used incorrectly, why not take issue with the person who wrote the article?

 

[Deleted member 592570]

One could also frame this as, there have been no edits like this before of a presidential canddate (unless you want to provide example), they only did it because they are partisan and people are ignoring the lack of journalistic integrity because they believe “orange man bad”.

Yeah you can really see the effect of the brainwashing on guys like @Islam Imamate.

Trump is mega Hitler and literally anything done in service of trying to get rid of him is worth it in their eyes.

Complete ideological capture.

 

[Deleted member 592570]

What makes you say that? Can you point to me exactly where in the interview they did this? What lines did they remove to make her answer more coherent? How did the manner in which they edited the Kamala interview differ from the way CBS or other news orgs generally edit interviews for clarity and brevity?

This has already been done ad nauseum.

And all you're gonna do is switch from 'it didn't happen' to 'it did happen but it didn't change the content of her answer' to 'it did happen and it did change the content of her answer to add clarity and brevity, and that's a good thing!'

We've seen you in action before

 

[chardog]

Do you think it’s a good thing that such editing is both legal and usual? This is blatant manipulation of crucial information during an election year.

I don’t need orang man to tell me anything… when a normal person sees major corps lying to their faces in order to sway an election, they tend to get offended and speak out (unless they hate Trump so much that they do backflips to excuse such abhorrent behavior).

This is why many influencers will only agree to an interview when they get to do their own recording, because two sides can be shown, it wasn’t good enough to have a manipulative interviewer.

 

[Darkballs]

Pretty funny watching the trumpers pretend this proves trump's claims were honest.

I guess just pretend the full transcript doesn't exist and pray no one notices. But therein lies the rub. If the only people who believe you, are the people too dumb to check for themselves, well then you're talking to a trump supporter and not moving the needle.

 

[Islam Imamate]

So when were you going to ask the OP that? I'm curious why it didn't offend you so much until I re-used it. Also, if you are the arbiter of whether or not that phrase was being used incorrectly, why not take issue with the person who wrote the article?

I'm not offended, I was just correcting you. I didn't feel like quoting every post that made that same mistake but yes I think OP and anyone else who thinks the CBS interview constitutes "election interference" is egregiously wrong about that.

The first part of the answer she references actions by her administration impacting Israel’s policies:

“Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy  for what needs to happen in the region. And we’re not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”

I believe it is relevant to understand what her administration has done already if we’re going to have an idea about their likely position moving forward. This part of her answer may alert the astute observer to dig into exactly what type of “advocacy” and “work” already done in the region, and to decide if they want more of the same. Besides that, her rambling nature and the quality of her overall answer should be accurately captured if voters are going to get an accurate idea of her as a candidate.

You don't see why a news outlet would edit that answer for clarity and brevity? Do you think the edit substantively changed her answer? In what way was CBS trying to deceive the viewer here?

Relevance?

It suggests the edits were not done to improve the candidate's image as even the interviewer's questions were edited for brevity. Unless you can show that her answers or the questions were substantively changed by the edits I think its all a nothingburger.

BS to claim “no one cared” about journalistic integrity before Trump… total BS as people have been calling out deceptive practices forever. In the end, you hate Trump so much that you’re going to bat for obviously deceptive journalistic practices. SAD.

No one cared about this standard practice of editing interviews until Trump made it a partisan issue. These shows have a time slot, its not practical to expect them to post the unedited interviews in their entirety every time which is why they get edited for brevity and clarity. Of course those who are already concise and clear in their answers will benefit less than those who ramble on like Harris and Trump do.

In fact Fox News did just that with Trump not long after he initially filed the lawsuit against CBS.

Does anyone think that you could successfully strongarm Fox News into settling for millions of dollars for its interview edits under the guise of consumer fraud and election interference without the leverage of the Oval Office?

One could also frame this as, there have been no edits like this before of a presidential candidate (unless you want to provide example), they only did it because they are partisan and people are ignoring the lack of journalistic integrity because they believe “orange man bad”.

60 Minutes has been doing these presidential campaign interviews for some time now and there's no indication they did anything different here. In fact as I point out above Fox News did the same thing with Trump when he held an event at a barbershop.

This has already been done ad nauseum.

And all you're gonna do is switch from 'it didn't happen' to 'it did happen but it didn't change the content of her answer' to 'it did happen and it did change the content of her answer to add clarity and brevity, and that's a good thing!'

We've seen you in action before

That clip itself is misleading as it implies they changed her answer or used an answer from a different question but that didn't happen. Here's a transcript of the relevant part of the interview

Here’s a guide, followed by the exchange:

• Bold: Only in the preview clip.
• Italics: Only in the aired interview.
• Bold and italics: In both videos.
• Unmarked sections: Not included in either video.

Whitaker: "But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. The Wall Street Journal said that he — that your administration has repeatedly been blindsided by Netanyahu, and in fact, he has rebuffed just about all of your administration’s entreaties."

Harris: "Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we’re not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end."

As you can see all they did was edit the answer for brevity and clarity, it doesn't substantively change her answer the gist of which is that her admin was trying to end the war.

 

[Stoic1]

The usual suspects are here to deny reality, shift the narrative, and vent their TDS.

 

[cincymma79]

I'm not offended, I was just correcting you. I didn't feel like quoting every post that made that same mistake but yes I think OP and anyone else who thinks the CBS interview constitutes "election interference" is egregiously wrong about that.

You don't see why a news outlet would edit that answer for clarity and brevity? Do you think the edit substantively changed her answer? In what way was CBS trying to deceive the viewer here?

It suggests the edits were not done to improve the candidate's image as even the interviewer's questions were edited for brevity. Unless you can show that her answers or the questions were substantively changed by the edits I think its all a nothingburger.

No one cared about this standard practice of editing interviews until Trump made it a partisan issue. These shows have a time slot, its not practical to expect them to post the unedited interviews in their entirety every time which is why they get edited for brevity and clarity. Of course those who are already concise and clear in their answers will benefit less than those who ramble on like Harris and Trump do.

In fact Fox News did just that with Trump not long after he initially filed the lawsuit against CBS.

Does anyone think that you could successfully strongarm Fox News into settling for millions of dollars for its interview edits under the guise of consumer fraud and election interference without the leverage of the Oval Office?

60 Minutes has been doing these presidential campaign interviews for some time now and there's no indication they did anything different here. In fact as I point out above Fox News did the same thing with Trump when he held an event at a barbershop.

That clip itself is misleading as it implies they changed her answer or used an answer from a different question but that didn't happen. Here's a transcript of the relevant part of the interview


As you can see all they did was edit the answer for brevity and clarity, it doesn't substantively change her answer the gist of which is that her admin was trying to end the war.

You guys need to stop your wequeefblue discord. It’s the same points less than 2 pages apart. Pretend to be different at least

 

[Confucamus]

I'm not offended, I was just correcting you. I didn't feel like quoting every post that made that same mistake but yes I think OP and anyone else who thinks the CBS interview constitutes "election interference" is egregiously wrong about that.

Telling someone you have a different opinion than them is not correcting them. I was hoping you had a more thought out explanation for your opinion, but it doesn't appear so.

 

[Deleted member 592570]

As you can see all they did was edit the answer for brevity and clarity, it doesn't substantively change her answer the gist of which is that her admin was trying to end the war.

Lmao literally word for word what I said your spin would be.

 

[Deleted member 592570]

You guys need to stop your wequeefblue discord. It’s the same points less than 2 pages apart. Pretend to be different at least

I wonder if agonyandirony, hack savage, fauwty, sketch and beer still all hang out on there pouting all day

 

[Deleted member 592570]

This is why many influencers will only agree to an interview when they get to do their own recording, because two sides can be shown, it wasn’t good enough to have a manipulative interviewer.

Yep. Ari Shaffir told CNN (or some other propaganda factory) he would agree to an interview about his Kobe tweet provided he was allowed to also record it and post the whole thing unedited and they pulled the offer.

If they can't shape the narrative, they aren't interested.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Telling someone you have a different opinion than them is not correcting them. I was hoping you had a more thought out explanation for your opinion, but it doesn't appear so.

I don't think its really a matter of opinion, to say that CBS' use of standard editing practices for the Kamala interview constitutes election interference strikes me as an absurd reach. Its like saying that my posts on this forum critical of Trump constitute election interference.

Lmao literally word for word what I said your spin would be.

Uh sure but I'm still right, CBS didn't change the substance of Harris' answer nor did they substitute her answer from a different question.