- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Messages
- 3,216
- Reaction score
- 1,021
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
You don't consider editting to be tampering? They are esentially the exact same thing.They EDITED IT TO CLEAR OUT ALL OF THE EXTRANEOUS "STUFF".
Do you consider it "Tampering" when a news broadcast shows clips from a speech? After all, they alter it, they edit it, they show certain segments....
Your post is devoid of any sense, common or otherwise.
You don't consider editting to be tampering? They are esentially the exact same thing.
You may be correct to doubt
Israel forced to apologise for YouTube spoof of Gaza flotilla | World news | The Guardian
No I don't consider it to be tampering unless they edited it to dub in things which were not said, editing out meaningless babble and white noise =/= tampering.
True. But it is also important to note that those who said the audio was suspect were correct in the fact that those tapes were indeed altered.
Were they altered to add the racist comments? No. But that doesn't change the fact that the tapes were altered.
If I were in charge of th eIDF, whoever decided to release the edited version of the tapes would be in deep **** for that.
No I don't consider it to be tampering unless they edited it to dub in things which were not said, editing out meaningless babble and white noise =/= tampering.
Sounds like your nitpicking.
The editing didn't change the story, therefore, who give a ****?
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Sounds like your nitpicking.
The editing didn't change the story, therefore, who give a ****?
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Oh, so it is only tampering if something is added in. Not if something is taken out. How silly of me to believe tampering is not what it is defined as.
Yes it did. It made out that is was passengers on the Mavi Marmara when they do not know who it is. That is giving a false impression. (see post 200)
On one hand, it did, in one instance seemingly showing a relatively constant stream of anti-israeli and western comments and in the other instance having them amidst comments proclaiming peace and other non-offensive comments and sounds. If you heard a 1 minute clip of a bunch of people cup up cursing at someone, and then hear that same clip and that 1 minute is over say a 5 minute span, do those not paint slightly different pictures on first listen in regards to the intensity and frequency of said cursing?
On the other hand, it also simply hinders the Irsaeli effort by giving potential reasonable doubt and thus giving rise to questions by those that aren't just going to mindlessly believe 100% of what they say and 0% of what the other side says. Why come in in the middle of the girls sentence? That alone should give someone pause to wonder what's actually there and at least to have the intellectual curiosity to see what it is they DEEM isn't important. Indeed, in listening to the full audio tucker actually found information he felt was MORE important for supporting the Israeli's than the anti-semetic language that the Israeli's choose to focus upon. Its a needless edit that does nothing but give rise to questions where its not needed, especially when the order of release could've been reversed.
That said, I would not be surprised if the order of release was purposeful. One of the benefits of a clipped thing condensing a bunch of comments over a long time into a short time is that the first time people hear of the incident and hear it the mind automatically frames it in ones mind based on the time of said edited down recording. And spitballing out a half a dozen anti-semetic remarks in a short span generally seems like a much more rabble rousing bunch then it dispersed over a longer period of time.
Does that mean I agree with the idiots on the boats at all? No. But Israel is not some sacred cow that can not be questioned and must be trusted in all things in every way 100% at all times and can not possibly do any form of wrong. They've made a number of mistakes throughout this entire thing, and I think the handling of this is yet another one.
Let me state a few points:
1) The editing was a mistake, no doubt about it, it should not have been editted that way.
2) The editing was done to cut things to the chase. The IDF did not wish to present the entire 5+ minutes of audio including mostly blank audio, repeated Israeli Navy statements and the female statement, for the sake of publishing the 10 seconds of anti-Semitic/anti-Western remarks.
3) There is no room to criticize the IDF for the editing. There was nothing relevant in the unedited part, just a few more warnings by the IDF and the full statement by the woman. Hence nothing that could really matter.
4) The IDF DID release the unedited part after a few hours, so again there's no room for criticism.
Conclusively, the IDF did commit a PR mistake when it has published the audio recording that was edited to include only the anti-Semitic and anti-Western remarks and a short version of the female comment, but when it seemed like people question the validity of the comments themselves due to the suspicion of editing, it has released the unedited version.
Last week, the Israel Defence Force had to issue a retraction over an audio clip it had claimed was a conversation between Israeli naval officials and people on the Mavi Marmara, in which an activist told soldiers to "go back to Auschwitz". The clip was carried by Israeli and international press, but today the army released a "clarification/correction", explaining that it had edited the footage and that it was not clear who had made the comment.
The Israeli army also backed down last week from an earlier claim that soldiers were attacked by al-Qaida "mercenaries" aboard the Gaza flotilla. An article appearing on the IDF spokesperson's website with the headline: "Attackers of the IDF soldiers found to be al-Qaida mercenaries", was later changed to "Attackers of the IDF Soldiers found without identification papers," with the information about al-Qaida removed from the main article. An army spokesperson told the Guardian there was no evidence proving such a link to the terror organisation.
Let me state a few points:
1) The editing was a mistake, no doubt about it, it should not have been editted that way.
2) The editing was done to cut things to the chase. The IDF did not wish to present the entire 5+ minutes of audio including mostly blank audio, repeated Israeli Navy statements and the female statement, for the sake of publishing the 10 seconds of anti-Semitic/anti-Western remarks.
3) There is no room to criticize the IDF for the editing. There was nothing relevant in the unedited part, just a few more warnings by the IDF and the full statement by the woman. Hence nothing that could really matter.
4) The IDF DID release the unedited part after a few hours, so again there's no room for criticism.
Conclusively, the IDF did commit a PR mistake when it has published the audio recording that was edited to include only the anti-Semitic and anti-Western remarks and a short version of the female comment, but when it seemed like people question the validity of the comments themselves due to the suspicion of editing, it has released the unedited version.
The only thing I disagree with here is that there is no room for criticism here.
Perhaps I should explain my thoughts on this.
Even though it's bull****, countries like the US and Israel receive a ****load of unjustified criticism. It seems like the rest of the world is chomping at the bit to criticize every action taken by these two countries.
As bad as it is for the US (and compared to most other countries, it's pretty bad), it's about 20 times worse for Israel (Israel gets more unjustified criticism than any other country, IMO).
This means that their margin of error in PR decisions is close to 0. Right or wrong, that's the reality. Pointing out the unfairness of that isn't going to change anything. And it isn't going to stop the unjustified criticisms.
So the only tack that these countries can take is to be extremely careful when they make PR decisions. Some bad PR cannot be avoided. There is little that can be done about that and criticizing that would be pointless.
But in a case such as this one, where a very stupid and avoidable PR decision was made, it is absolutely justified to criticize that decision.
Whoever made that decision in the first place should not be in a position to make decisions like this in the future.
Releasing the unedited audio was absolutely the right response. And Israel deserves credit for doing so immediately after the initial mistake was made. (Any delay would have turned a mistake into a potential PR disaster, IMO)
Sure it's unfair that this is the situation. I think anyone who hasn't already decided that everything Israel does is wrong would agree that it's totally unfair that they are held to a higher standard than pretty much every other country in the world.
But as I said, pointing out that it is unfair won't change it. It sucks, but it makes it so that any stupid and avoidable PR decision such as this one gets magnified.
And I think that in this case, the fact that I believe that any truly rational and objective observer would find the full audio to be an even more compelling argument in favor of the legitimacy and justifications for the Israelis boarding the flotilla magnifies the error of this PR decision even more.
If this was the US, I'd be furious. Since it's Israel, I'm just amazed at the fact that somebody who was at a level high enough to make this decision thought this was a good idea.
You and others have been indulging in a 'kangaroo court'.
Everybody in the middle east should remember that Israel took out saddam's nuclear capabilities many years ago. We owe them a big one for that.
If I recall correctly the IDF and Israel was criticized by the world for that, too!
If I recall correctly the IDF and Israel was criticized by the world for that, too!
If I recall correctly the IDF and Israel was criticized by the world for that, too!
Well that I can agree with.
Let me also add, in regard to the lose-lose PR situation Israel was facing, that for an entire week prior to the flotilla's interception, during a time that the majority of the world hasn't even heard about the existence of that flotilla, Israeli officials were being interviewed on Israeli media stating that a PR disaster is on its way, counting the days remaining to the predicted headlines on the international media.
The PR disaster was fully predicted and it just couldn't have been avoided.
I do however think that in every bad thing there's a good thing, and I find that more and more people are opening their eyes to the double standards towards anything that Israel does due to this incident.
If Israel solved world hunger tomorrow, the world would demonize them for it.
Last week, the Israel Defence Force had to issue a retraction over an audio clip it had claimed was a conversation between Israeli naval officials and people on the Mavi Marmara, in which an activist told soldiers to "go back to Auschwitz". The clip was carried by Israeli and international press, but today the army released a "clarification/correction", explaining that it had edited the footage and that it was not clear who had made the comment.
The Israeli army also backed down last week from an earlier claim that soldiers were attacked by al-Qaida "mercenaries" aboard the Gaza flotilla. An article appearing on the IDF spokesperson's website with the headline: "Attackers of the IDF soldiers found to be al-Qaida mercenaries", was later changed to "Attackers of the IDF Soldiers found without identification papers," with the information about al-Qaida removed from the main article. An army spokesperson told the Guardian there was no evidence proving such a link to the terror organisation.
I have already posted this, twice I think. It was ignored. Huwaida Arraf, main spokesperson for the group says that she heard all the broadcasts and neither of those offensive comments were on them. Unfortunately all their recordings have been taken so she cannot present them. I think it's on one of the two tapes here.
WitnessGAZA - Join us live as a witness in Gaza
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?