ABC news reedits Comey testimony in classic style #FakeNews

a reply to: elementalgrove

My OP clearly points out that I am supporting Ed from the Outer light youtube channel and his breakdown.

I then go on to describe how ABC does correctly put it into context in the article, the one in which it shows ABC's version of it, which happens to be the same as Ed's.

What part of "the text provides the context" are you not getting? By removing the context, "Ed's" video is portraying the ABC video in a false light.

a reply to: elementalgrove

OMG ...Could it be anymore blatant as a example of , of , of , other then using "sedition" as a category I am at a loss . false ,fake,propaganda seem not strong enough words ...it was creative though .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: elementalgrove

OMG ...Could it be anymore blatant as a example of , of , of , other then using "sedition" as a category I am at a loss . false ,fake,propaganda seem not strong enough words ...it was creative though .

If you are talking about the "expose" video, I might be tempted to agree. But please explain how the original is sedtitious?

Comey says Loretta Lynch asked him not to call Clinton email probe an 'investigation'

Describing the circumstances that led to his public announcements about the status of the investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of state, Comey pointed to his concern with an impromptu June 2016 meeting between former President Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Not only did the former director indicate that he wanted to maintain the FBI's independence, but said he was also troubled by Lynch's comments about the inquiry.

"At one point, the attorney general directed me not to call it an 'investigation,' but instead to call it a 'matter,' which confused me and concerned me," said Comey. "But that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the Department [of Justice] if we were to close this case credibly."

The original source.

a reply to: DJW001

If you are talking about the "expose" video, I might be tempted to agree. But please explain how the original is sedtitious?

It is the way the vid is edited that implies the context as a stand alone sound bite .I used sedition only because fake,false or untrue are just not strong enough .I am sure there is a proper word somewhere in the law but even that would have to have a attachment to suggest the severity as to what may have been going on . intent is hard to prove and even Comey hinted that Trump might have been lying to him because he didn't trust him . That is why he made the memo .

A person that watched the real hearing would have followed the subtitles but the ABC clip flips the who's and when's to the narrative of the hearings imo

a reply to: elementalgrove

The big problem here is that is people that believe anything the news media now turned tabloids spew on national TV.

We have a generation that is far away from the faithful Democratic base that are mentally derailed and self appointed anarchist.

News outlets are targeting this groups directly.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

A person that watched the real hearing would have followed the subtitles but the ABC clip flips the who's and when's to the narrative of the hearings imo

Anyone who watched the video on the ABC website without reading the accompanying text would be foolish and irresponsible.

a reply to: marg6043

The big problem here is that is people that believe anything the news media now turned tabloids spew on national TV.

The bigger problem is that there is a concerted attempt to confuse people about the nature of media and journalism. Propagandists are overloading the noosphere with contradictory stories in an effort to create the impression that it is impossible to know the truth. In the case of the OP, if all you saw was the YouTube video, you would be deceived into thinking that ABC was falsifying Comey's testimony. If you are an intelligent news "consumer," you would go to ABC's webpage to put the clips in context. The only defense against disinformation is critical thinking and research. It is the price we pay for our freedom of expression.

a reply to: DJW001

I believe I broke down my OP pretty clearly from start to finish and you are doing some intense mental gymnastics to avoid the point, that being that ABC deliberately edited the video to make it sound as if Comey was talking about the Russia investigation and not HRC's.

That video was made for people with short attention spans, those who would not read the rest of the article. You can act as if it was not done for the purpose of misinformation all you want, but you are clutching at straws my friend.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: elementalgrove

The big problem here is that is people that believe anything the news media now turned tabloids spew on national TV.

We have a generation that is far away from the faithful Democratic base that are mentally derailed and self appointed anarchist.

News outlets are targeting this groups directly.

And this is the reason for sharing this and putting it in the dissecting disinformation forum!

It is not even just that generation, the attention span of the average American is virtually non-existent and they knew that when they made the video, there was absolutely no reason to leave the context out of that sound byte.

a reply to: DJW001

And when so many of the low information voters, who are already biased against Trump, get their information from video clips, this plays right to their bias. The Liberal MSM have been against Trump from the start, claiming to have "evidence" from the always convenient "unnamed source" and manipulating what few facts they actually do have. You say it's the fault of the reader and defend the MSMs' twisting of fact and outright lies, under some strange misinterpretation of the 1st.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: elementalgrove

OMG ...Could it be anymore blatant as a example of , of , of , other then using "sedition" as a category I am at a loss . false ,fake,propaganda seem not strong enough words ...it was creative though .

They really are becoming quite brazen about their efforts to distort the truth, fortunately it has caused people to wake up en-masse!

a reply to: DAVID64

And when so many of the low information voters, who are already biased against Trump, get their information from video clips, this plays right to their bias. The Liberal MSM have been against Trump from the start, claiming to have "evidence" from the always convenient "unnamed source" and manipulating what few facts they actually do have.

It is the low information voters who were specifically targeted by the campaign:

assets.documentcloud.org...

Funny, after all the protesting that all of the claims about Trump trying to convince Comey to "go easy on Flynn" came from "anonymous sources" and were therefore not true, it turns out Comey himself was the "anonymous source." This is only a surprise to people who do not understand journalism. You know, "low information" types.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: DJW001

And when so many of the low information voters, who are already biased against Trump, get their information from video clips, this plays right to their bias. The Liberal MSM have been against Trump from the start, claiming to have "evidence" from the always convenient "unnamed source" and manipulating what few facts they actually do have. You say it's the fault of the reader and defend the MSMs' twisting of fact and outright lies, under some strange misinterpretation of the 1st.

Exactly!

I have been having a difficult time understanding what DJW's argument actually is, he speaks of Ed's "context" while ignoring the edit video that removed all context of Comey's words, in a moment when that context is quite important to the watcher who did not hear the testimony.

a reply to: elementalgrove

That video was made for people with short attention spans, those who would not read the rest of the article.

And the YouTube "expose" was made for people with even shorter attention spans who could not be bothered to seek out the original.

a reply to: elementalgrove

I have been having a difficult time understanding what DJW's argument actually is, he speaks of Ed's "context" while ignoring the edit video that removed all context of Comey's words, in a moment when that context is quite important to the watcher who did not hear the testimony.

The text is the context. Why do you keep ignoring that fact? Are you "Ed?"

a reply to: DJW001


What text are you talking about exactly?

The video was an edited version of the testimony, none of the words were changed in the video, they edited out the context of the question resulting in propaganda designed to deceive.

a reply to: DJW001

You can try to dismiss me as low information all you like, but unless Comey himself told you he was his own leak, you were just as low information as the rest of us.
Let me ask you this..Let's say I don't personally like you, [ not true, I don't personally know you ] not only because of your politics, but more that "your side" was going to reverse all the social engineering "we" had already put in place and expose us as "fake". I spread rumors of a horrid crime you committed, with nothing but rumor and innuendo as proof. It takes you at least 6 months to clear your name, all while under constant close scrutiny by law enforcement and the public, judged guilty before the facts even come out.
Is that my 1st Amendment right, or am I just a vindictive asshole?

The Liberal MSM has been doing exactly that to Trump and protected Hillary, by twisting and manipulation of facts, and at times, outright lying and covering up.

originally posted by: DJW001

It is the video you link to that has been edited, not the original ABC video. Talk about disinformation!

Coming out of the gate with a steaming pile of WRONG. Par for the course. I feel slimed.

What's the difference between sleazy propaganda and ethical journalism? Since you apparently don't know, here ya go!

My background is with CBS (sleazebags too, good riddance and goodbye!) and I edit pretty much every day of my life.

Editing can tell the truth or lie/mislead and therein lay one of the differences between sleazy propaganda and ethical journalism.

Our MSM is compromised and unprincipaled. It pains me deeply & personally as a professional.

Sponsored by the deep state and brought to you by traitors-r-us. No amount of deceptive apologetics can change that sad fact.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I cant wait to see D______ come raging in here about freedom of the press, and all that junk....

Da-amn I'm good:

originally posted by: DJW001
Anyone who watched the video on the ABC website without reading the accompanying text would be foolish and irresponsible.

originally posted by: DJW001
ETA:Be advised: I will never let anyone forget that you called freedom of the press "junk."

You be sure and link this thread in so that they can all see what I meant by "junk". To give them the clearest possible picture you should just have the link go directly to your "posts in thread". You can find the code in the sidebar just under your avatar and all that:


I wish I had all day to waste in this fine thread with ATS's premier pro multinational corporate propaganda news outlet & tabloid / yellow "journalism" 'enthusiast', but alas I do not.

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: DJW001

It is the video you link to that has been edited, not the original ABC video. Talk about disinformation!

Coming out of the gate with a steaming pile of WRONG. Par for the course. I feel slimed.

What's the difference between sleazy propaganda and ethical journalism? Since you apparently don't know, here ya go!

My background is with CBS (sleazebags too, good riddance and goodbye!) and I edit pretty much every day of my life.

Editing can tell the truth or lie/mislead and therein lay one of the differences between sleazy propaganda and ethical journalism.

Our MSM is compromised and unprincipaled. It pains me deeply & personally as a professional.

Sponsored by the deep state and brought to you by traitors-r-us. No amount of deceptive apologetics can change that sad fact.

I have always appreciated you sharing your perspective having been in the industry yourself. To work so hard to get to that point of working for CBS only to find that the entire profession is nothing but a weapon being used to oppress the minds of the masses.

They have spent decades learning how to manipulate people's minds through repetitive fear. Fortunately people are tuning out of the MSM and I like to optimistically believe that people are beginning to see through it with each of these failed attempts of deceit.