Like I said that kind of editing is standard practice with Trump getting that same treatment from Fox Newss around the same time. If you're a rambling politician like Harris or Trump then yeah you will benefit more from this kind of editing than someone who is more clear and concise but even Obama, who most consider a strong public speaker, had lots of "Ughs" and "Umms" and I bet in a lot of his interviews many of those got edited out for clarity and brevity.If you're running for president and I ask you 'will you reduce funding to Israel?' And you respond by doing this for two minutes:
And then saying 'yes.'
Sure you got the right answer, but the voters have a right to know you seem to have a serious mental disability as well.
And it's clearly misleading to edit all that out and just post the 'yes.'
The answer was edited for clarity but they didn't use a different answer from another question nor did the edit change the substance of her response.
You just said that the substance of her response was edited. Same words you used I just edited them for clarity
In what way did the edit change the substance of her post in your view?
Is it not relevant that Trump did a similarly edited interview not long after? You don't see the obvious hypocrisy in that?
Not quite. If you were to go research the 2024 election cycle, you would see that Kamala Harris only had about few months to campaign for President, but didn't give any real interview until about 40 days in. it was clear she was a terrible speaker and you often saw the phrase "word salad" when she was reported on. CBS was using editing to make her appear more intelligent than she actually is, giving a false impression to potential voters. This isn't standard editing and we've seen more outlets pledge to make full unedited interviews available in light of what CBS did to make Kamala appear coherent.
Seems like a reach to say they were trying to make her look good when they still publicly released the section you guys are saying makes her look bad, in fact that response was included in the preview clip so if they really wanted to make her look good why would they release that answer at all and much less in the preview which is more likely to be seen by low engagement voters?
What makes you say that? Certainly people in the industry seem to disagree
And the legal merit of the case is very much dubious
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/trump_fcc_cbs_lawsuit_harris_60_minutes_ethics.php
I mean yeah you can have your opinion but I think its a bit nonsensical to say that editing the interview of a presidential candidate for clarity and brevity constitutes election interference.
My argument is they did nothing wrong and so far no one ITT has demonstrated exactly what they did wrong.
Like I said its standard journalistic practice to edit interviews for clarity so I think Fox News also did nothing wrong in by editing the Trump interview, the point of bringing it up is to expose the obvious hypocrisy.
Public pressure? Don't know. You'd have to ask them.
Then please tell me why they are paying out for this?
I'm not really into conspiracy theories. As far as the merit of the case, CBS absolutely had a reason to try to help Kamala look more coherent, as did most of the mainstream media. It was irresponsible and they are unable to BS their way out of it.
That's YOUR reason for them editing Kamala's interview. If your opinion had any basis in truth, CBS would not be settling.
We're not talking about events from 5 years ago. That's been discussed to death and it's not the only way an election can be interfered with. If you want to go back to the past to make a point, what about when CBS and other networks were labelling Facebook memes as legit election interference back in 2016?
I know someone else that likes to blame judges for his legal problems.
The rambling clip was in the ad they released to promote the interview, no reason to think it was in response to public pressure.
Because Trump is using the leverage of the Oval Office to strongarm them into settling, specifically Paramount is looking to merge with Skydance and they need the approval of Trump's FCC.
Its not a conspiracy though, its widely reported that the merger was a huge factor in deciding whether or not to settle.
But again they didn't do that, the ad for the segment included the rambling answer.
Again CBS is settling because Trump is using the leverage he has over their merger to strongarm them to settle. You can ignore that but that's obviously a piece of the story here and that you were unaware is quite telling.
I think a lot of people are wondering why the Democrats, in conjunction with msm, have spent the last 10 years fighting against the evil criminal Trump, always seem to fall short and allow Trump to reign victorious in virtually every battle.
