• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are you okay with manipulating video to make a point?

What if...? said:
I know. I forgot to include that I waited and looked for a retraction and didn't see one. But she is usually so good about accuracy it kind of offended me.

There was definitely a change in MSNBC where it appeared to me they adopted an "If you can't beat them, join them" stance.

Where it shifted from bias to propaganda. It didn't sit well with me.

We must always remember these are for profit outfits and profit is why they exist.
Click to expand...

I felt the same, that she is usually so good about accuracy that I was offended if there was an exception - but I appreciate the good she does so much more, that I think the 'don't watch' response is unjustified. You don't have the specifics?

I'd agree with you more if I thought you were right about that 'change to propaganda'. I don't see it. I won't say there isn't some, but it's not remotely comparable to Fox.

I agree with you about remembering who owns them and that profit motive, and that having the truth told by more progressive shows is a lucky accident we get it at all, which we only do because they stumbled across it being profitable.

Even then, it's a pretty 'right-wing' ownership; they long had Andy Card running it, who seemed to be at war with the liberal hosts, and bringing in all the right-wing and Fox people he could. Remember Ed Schulz and his experience, which others had as well?
 
Craig234 said:
I felt the same, that she is usually so good about accuracy that I was offended if there was an exception - but I appreciate the good she does so much more, that I think the 'don't watch' response is unjustified. You don't have the specifics?

I'd agree with you more if I thought you were right about that 'change to propaganda'. I don't see it. I won't say there isn't some, but it's not remotely comparable to Fox.

I agree with you about remembering who owns them and that profit motive, and that having the truth told by more progressive shows is a lucky accident we get it at all, which we only do because they stumbled across it being profitable.

Even then, it's a pretty 'right-wing' ownership; they long had Andy Card running it, who seemed to be at war with the liberal hosts, and bringing in all the right-wing and Fox people he could. Remember Ed Schulz and his experience, which others had as well?
Click to expand...

I caught that original Keith Olbermann speech while accidently flipping through channels. Changed my life.

Perhaps "propaganda" was too strong a word. "Much more obvious framing" is probably more accurate. There's a very fine line between framing and propaganda. Framing is a way of propagandizing. It is what they call "narrative management" now.

The very fact that the name keeps changing is a clue that the practice is suspect overall. Spin Doctor. Communications Director. Now Narrative Manager.

When a new term for a familiar thing shows uo everywhere its because the old term became "negatively weighted" which means it turns people off. That's why they started calling rich people "Job Creators". None of them set out to create a job. None of them hire a single more person than they absolutely have to. But it sounds good.

And that's all it needs to do.

But overall it isn't as cynical as Fox. I think they mean well. I'm just not sure picking up the enemies weapons is the best course.
 
Craig234 said:
First of all, no they don't. I wish they did. If you can show me one centrist Democratic politician calling for restoring tax levels to pre-Reagan - even to pre-Bush 43 - I'd like to see it.

Second, there are different issues in 'taxing the rich'.

One is trying to limit the most powerful - the top 0.01% - and to reduce plutocracy.

Another is simply raising enough money for the country, which broadens the group a lot.

With Biden talking about $400,000, it's the second category, and I don't see any problem with it. That group has had huge advantage given to it since Reagan, and it's causing huge problems for the country as that small group has nearly all the political power.
Click to expand...

Yeah.... uh..... no. The problem with your "Biden talking about $400,000" bit is.. it means nothing. Just another Democrat campaign promise (lie).

Recall that under Obama/Biden the Democrats taxed anyone making over $250,000 as "the rich". They promised anyone making under $250k would not have a tax increase. They lied (as they always do). The tax increase they implemented in 2013 (see video at link) raised taxes on anyone making $100,000. They just love to play Santa Claus with "other people's" money. Scratch that, the Democrats love to play God by doling out other people's money to their special groups... while taxing the hell out of those they deem "too rich". But hey.... nice try there.

Fiscal Cliff Bill Will Raise Taxes on Those Making $100,000 a Year By $2,000 - YouTube
 
What if...? said:
At this point in time, the right has a view of the protests like the view at the Tulsa rally.

In all the camera shots it appeared as if the arena was filled.

But photos from other angles show that only those upper seats visible to the cameras were full. I worked a Hillary event in 2016 where they did the same thing: shot her speech in a way that made it look like more people were there.

The right sees the protests the way their media wants them to, as opposed to how they actually are. Giving the impression that dem cities are in flames and going outside anywhere in them is risking your life. When in fact most of the violence is very localized and involves a completely separate group of people. I have seen vidios of "AAAAH!!!" Where you turn the camera 180 degrees and it's rainbows and puppies. (Actually just regular city streets with regular (for COVID) activities. But you get the idea)

One thing we all need to remember: if someone gets all their information from conservative media we really are evil and trying to destroy their way of life. They actually believe this. They think trump has never done a single wrong or inappropiate thing. It is all attempts at a coup.

Don't let yourself convince yourself otherwise. They do not live in the world you do. Their's is distinct from that of the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree, and have said that I think this power of money and media and interests to manipulate so many people so badly, is a huge threat to democracy itself. The theory of democracy is based on an independent, informed populace. When the voters are overwhelmed and fooled by billions in propaganda, democracy is broken and defeated by those powerful interests.

It's not enough to just say 'those people are fooled'. We need to recognize the systemic danger and how these forces are planning for just this, how for 50 years they've been stacking the courts to ensure that the takevoer by money is turned into their constitutional right.
 
Craig234 said:
So you can list several example also?
Click to expand...

I could. Not interested in trying to convince you of reality, truth, facts and/or history. It wouldn't matter to you. Of that I'm sure.
 
Batcat said:
Any rational person would realize that you can’t get the money necessary to accomplish all the goals Joe Biden has simply by taxing the rich. Joe can stand in front of a podium and read a speech from a teleprompter and tell me I will not see an increase in my taxes but that’s Like Obama telling me I could keep my doctor. The bottom line is if Biden becomes president taxes or fees will increase on both the middle class and the wealthy.
Click to expand...

When will conservatives realize that the amount of taxes is not the problem but the benefits that taxes provide. We pay less in taxes than many countries such as Sweden where on average they pay over 50% of their income in taxes. Are the people there unhappy about the tax rate, NO. Why, because they see the benefits of their taxes. According to polls, they are much happier and have fewer problems than we do. In fact they are some of the happiest people in the world. I think our problem is that in Sweden they think of all the people and here we think only of ourselves and how everything effects just us. they are far less religious than the US but seem more Christian than this country.
 
Taylor2012 said:
Yeah.... uh..... no. The problem with your "Biden talking about $400,000" bit is.. it means nothing. Just another Democrat campaign promise (lie).
Click to expand...

You're clearly at a stage of what could be called propagandized robot. Calling all Democratic candidate promises lies. By the way, how is trump's promise to have universal healthcare and increase taxes on the rich going?

Recall that under Obama/Biden the Democrats taxed anyone making over $250,000 as "the rich". They promised anyone making under $250k would not have a tax increase. They lied (as they always do). The tax increase they implemented in 2013 (see video at link) raised taxes on anyone making $100,000. They just love to play Santa Claus with "other people's" money. Scratch that, the Democrats love to play God by doling out other people's money to their special groups... while taxing the hell out of those they deem "too rich". But hey.... nice try there.

Fiscal Cliff Bill Will Raise Taxes on Those Making $100,000 a Year By $2,000 - YouTube
Click to expand...

Fox. No. But your attacking Democrats claiming they use tax policy to reward their groups, while ignoring the actual policies in place where Republicans are actually doing that, gets you an irony of the day award.
 
independentusa said:
All parties have taken words out of context to make a point. One in question is the Trump video of Biden saying he will raise taxes. The Trump ad then goes on to say Biden will raise taxes on everyone, where if the Biden video was in context with the rest of what Biden was saying, you would know Biden was saying he would raise taxes on the wealthy, not everyone. If this kind of stunt is a bad on both parties, but Scalise has gone one stop farther. He has actually put words in the mouth of Biden that were not there and now is defending his right to do so. He is basically saying it lies inside the meaning of what Biden believes, that Biden wants to defund the police although Biden has often said he does not. Whether you believe that to be true, the video ad is an outright LIE. With our present ability to manipulate, we could have ads that were totally manufactured and how would the public know. I think that someone has to say enough is enough and stop this now or no telling what the future holds, never knowing what is true and not. Are you okay with this total manipulation of a video?
Click to expand...

Simple answer to the question in the OP: For rightwingers, YES. For everyone else: No.

Manipulating videos has been a staple of Right Wing propaganda for years now. James O'Keefe, anyone? Anyone remember how ACORN was scandalized (and ultimately forced to close down) by some altered videos?

Deception and dishonesty is THE staple of conservative campaign politics in the 21st century.
 
Batcat said:
Obama Promised He Wouldn't Raise Taxes On the Middle Class. He Lied.
Click to expand...

We'll put that to the side as one example you claim. You said "often". Let's have more of the "often".
 
Batcat said:
Obama Promised He Wouldn't Raise Taxes On the Middle Class. He Lied.
Obama Promised He Wouldn't Raise Taxes On the Middle Class. He Lied.
Click to expand...

Funny op/ed, Batcat.

So in the OPINION of that writer, Obama "lied" because he must've known that the USSC would rule, some 4 years after the fact, that the Obamacare "individual mandate" (which only applied to about 3-5% of those with insurance) should technically be considered a "tax", rather than a "fee" or "penalty" as described in the legislation.

Yes, Obama "lied"...."BIGLY", huh?

:lamo

By that standard, Donald Trump (who has already lied more than every previous president in history....combined), is a disgrace, right?
 
independentusa said:
Trump said he would never go after Social Security, but now he is going to take actions that will end it in three years if he is reelected. I think ending SS is a lot worse than a small tax increase.
Click to expand...

You would have a damn good point if Trump had actually said he would end Social Security if re-elected. Of course no candidate for president would every say anything like that unless he didn’t want to get re-elected.

Did Trump say he will terminate Social Security if re-elected?
By Amy Sherman
August 12, 2020

***snip***

Our ruling
Social Security Works said, "Donald Trump says he will ‘terminate’ Social Security if re-elected."

Trump never said he will terminate Social Security, but he has discussed terminating the program’s primary funding source. Administrative officials said that he was referring to doing away with the payback of the deferral.

Congress and the president could find an alternative way to fund Social Security. Trump hasn’t proposed such an alternative.

The statement has an element of truth but leaves out critical information that would give a different impression. We rate this statement Mostly False.
PolitiFact | Did Trump say he will terminate Social Security if re-elected?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ultmd said:
Funny op/ed, Batcat.

So in the OPINION of that writer, Obama "lied" because he must've known that the USSC would rule, some 4 years after the fact, that the Obamacare "individual mandate" (which only applied to about 3-5% of those with insurance) should technically be considered a "tax", rather than a "fee" or "penalty" as described in the legislation.

Yes, Obama "lied"...."BIGLY", huh?

:lamo

By that standard, Donald Trump (who has already lied more than every previous president in history....combined), is a disgrace, right?
Click to expand...

All politicians lie. Trump is a newbie at the political game but he knows how important lying is in the political game. Therefore I don’t consider Trump to be any worse than Joe Biden when it comes to lying.

For example Joe lied about his college record. In passing that is just one example of the MANY lies Joe has given during his career.

[ Lies, damned lies and the truth about Joe Biden
BY LIZ PEEK, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 05/22/20 08:00 AM EDT 1,262 THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

***snip***

A video is making the rounds in which Biden boasts at a 1987 rally, "I went to law school on a full academic scholarship…[and] ended up in the top half of my class."

Biden also maintained that he "graduated with three degrees from undergraduate school" and was the “outstanding student in the political science department.”

Not one of those claims was true, as newscasters at the time affirmed. In fact, Biden graduated 76th of 85 students in his law school class, had only a partial scholarship and did not win top honors in his undergraduate discipline.

Biden explained in his 2007 autobiography “Promises to Keep” that he had been angry at that rally since “it sounded to me that one of my own supporters doubted my intelligence." According to a 1987 Newsweek piece, a supporter had “politely” asked Biden what law school he attended and how well he had done.

Biden bristled, saying “I think I have a much higher IQ than you do,” reeled off his fabricated accomplishments and concluded “I’d be delighted to sit down and compare my IQ to yours if you’d like, Frank.”
Lies, damned lies and the truth about Joe Biden | TheHill
Click to expand...
 
like this one?


 
CaughtInThe said:
like this one?


Click to expand...




In my county so far 20 people have died from COVID-19. Twelve of those deaths occurred early on in one nursing home. There are 74,000 people living in my county and 1638 have been detected as having this coronavirus.

Since I am 74 and have COPD I obviously am a target so I wear a mask, practice proper social distancing and wash my hands often.

I don’t consider this virus to be the earth shaking event the media has made it. I imagine a year so so from now the scientists will tell us that wearing masks was a waste of effort and shutting down the economy accomplished little. COVID-19 is basically a nasty flu but not the end of the world as we know it.
 
Batcat said:
In my county so far 20 people have died from COVID-19. Twelve of those deaths occurred early on in one nursing home. There are 74,000 people living in my county and 1638 have been detected as having this coronavirus.

Since I am 74 and have COPD I obviously am a target so I wear a mask, practice proper social distancing and wash my hands often.

I don’t consider this virus to be the earth shaking event the media has made it. I imagine a year so so from now the scientists will tell us that wearing masks was a waste of effort and shutting down the economy accomplished little. COVID-19 is basically a nasty flu but not the end of the world as we know it.
Click to expand...

nasty flu. that's the way a bunch of Republicans are selling it.

856,841 dead in 6 months.
 
CaughtInThe said:
nasty flu. that's the way a bunch of Republicans are selling it.

856,841 dead in 6 months.
Click to expand...

Yes COVID-19 is a nasty flu.

The Spanish flu, also known as the 1918 flu pandemic, was an unusually deadly influenza pandemic caused by the H1N1 influenza A virus. Lasting from February 1918 to April 1920, it infected 500 million people–about a third of the world's population at the time–in four successive waves. The death toll is typically estimated to have been somewhere between 17 million and 50 million, making it one of the deadliest pandemics in human history.[4]
Spanish flu - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
 
Batcat said:
Yes COVID-19 is a nasty flu.
Click to expand...

^ no one forget who made things way worse than they needed to be and crushed small businesses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom