Trump, Don Jr, Giuliani & Fox Circulating Doctored Video of Pelosi edited and slowed down to make her sound confused and drunk.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,014
8,643
136
Because it was obvious what he meant by the original Rather reference...
Here is "the original Rather reference:
Or Dan Rather doctoring a doc file to falsely accuse dubya.
To me, it "means" Dan Rather doctored a doc file to falsely accuse dubya. That is simply not the case. He stated an untruth to further his political argument, which is reprehensible. What do you think he "meant" by his untruth, such that you evince zero condemnation or concern that he stated it?

..and the “policing” of truth is blatantly obvious in its intent.
My intent in correcting that factually untrue statement was to correct the record and bring us all into the same factual reality. Without such a correction, no honest exchange is possible.

What, other than that, was my "blatantly obvious" intent to you?

The rest, just the typical abundance of concern.
Your lack of concern for factual fidelity is, to use a term, "blatantly obvious." The smell of scurrilous bullshit does indeed invoke in me a "typical abundance of concern." I wish to wipe it away with, yes, the truth. It it telling that you repeatedly post in a way that indicates you don't give a damn.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,031
5,495
146
Sure it’s possible he could win but Americans really, really dislike him. To not recognize this is to be blind to reality.

You're not understanding what that person was really saying. Ignore him playing gateway pundit and instead look at the details he focused on. What he's really trying to make sure you're aware of is that there are people like him that vote. And they actually believe and look up to Turmp and love him more than ever (they've completely tuned out everything but what Turmp tells them).

Those people are going to still be there after Turmp is gone (any which way that happens). It'll be like the conservatives that still idolize Reagan, but add in the general hate that Turmp fans live off of. Most likely, these are people that are going to spend the rest of their lives casting purely spite votes, because they see that they can in fact fuck other people over in very deliberate ways while getting zero of the blame or having to take any responsibility for it. Turmp has effectively given them a clean conscious for their actions and it'll probably be worse in the future because they'll feel even more justified as they'll blame any "side" for not living up to their fairy tale where they got to be princess while Turmp grabbed them by the...
 

jmagg

Golden Member
Nov 21, 2001
1,998
348
126
Not sure who doctored that video, but anyone who believes 16 yr olds should vote may have had one too many Martini's.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,785
6,032
136
You're not understanding what that person was really saying. Ignore him playing gateway pundit and instead look at the details he focused on. What he's really trying to make sure you're aware of is that there are people like him that vote. And they actually believe and look up to Turmp and love him more than ever (they've completely tuned out everything but what Turmp tells them).

Those people are going to still be there after Turmp is gone (any which way that happens). It'll be like the conservatives that still idolize Reagan, but add in the general hate that Turmp fans live off of. Most likely, these are people that are going to spend the rest of their lives casting purely spite votes, because they see that they can in fact fuck other people over in very deliberate ways while getting zero of the blame or having to take any responsibility for it. Turmp has effectively given them a clean conscious for their actions and it'll probably be worse in the future because they'll feel even more justified as they'll blame any "side" for not living up to their fairy tale where they got to be princess while Turmp grabbed them by the...
They also consider voting their duty, unlike the people who dislike Trump but rarely vote.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,963
27,642
136
Not sure who doctored that video, but anyone who believes 16 yr olds should vote may have had one too many Martini's.
I trust 16 year old's more then that 50% of Republicans that were convinced by Trump Obama was born in Kenya
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,402
8,038
136
I heard about this on the evening news last night. The news anchors explained it without playing any videos, there was just a still shot of Pelosi. They said the video is phony, a hatchet job, a paste together of moments trying to make her seem incoherent, even drunk. Odd coming from people whose champion is the least eloquent politician in memory. Well, it was SF Bay Area TV so you should expect some favoritism to Pelosi, who represents S.F. Anyway, I do not want to see this piece of obvious pathetic propaganda.

I also do not watch Fox News, never have, don't have subscription TV. I visited Breitbart on the web one day a year or two ago out of curiosity. My reaction as I recall was simply, emphatically boredom and I would never go there again.

I can't stand Trump, period. Video clips of him (or tweets) I find revolting, every time. I suppose I'll watch TV debates, Trump against Demo challenger. I will for certain be revolted by the SOB.
 
Last edited:

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
At no time did CBS or anyone in the investigation accuse or claim Rather did anything intentionally.
Incompetence it is then.

To suggest such IS a conspiracy.
I didn’t suggest he did. I am also not willing to dismiss that a journalist of his experience and influence made an honest mistake.

And congrats on your thread hijack and whataboutism.
I would agree with your thread if you directed your ire towards the social media companies that profit off misinformation.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Here is "the original Rather reference:
To me, it "means" Dan Rather doctored a doc file to falsely accuse dubya. That is simply not the case. He stated an untruth to further his political argument, which is reprehensible. What do you think he "meant" by his untruth, such that you evince zero condemnation or concern that he stated it?
Because I interpreted it as a reference to a fake news event that did factually happen, and given Rather’s reprimand both by his employer and in court, I choose not to give Rather the benefit of the doubt.

My intent in correcting that factually untrue statement was to correct the record and bring us all into the same factual reality. Without such a correction, no honest exchange is possible.
That standard needs to apply consistently to recognize it as such.

Your lack of concern for factual fidelity is, to use a term, "blatantly obvious." The smell of scurrilous bullshit does indeed invoke in me a "typical abundance of concern." I wish to wipe it away with, yes, the truth. It it telling that you repeatedly post in a way that indicates you don't give a damn.
You’re right, I don’t give a damn about misdirected or confirmation bias concern.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
You’re right, I don’t give a damn about misdirected or confirmation bias concern.
Are you sure? You don't seem to be able to distinguish what is apparent to me, that the Rather case and the Pelosi doctored video are essentially different with respect to the fact that Rather claims to have believed the data he had, fake or not, whereas the Pelosi stuff was an obvious intended fabrication. You have build a moral case with all the moral outrage that should be attendant to it, the need to apply journalistic integrity on all sides, based on your personal assumption that Rather's motives were what you have no proof they were, whereas, again, the illwill behind the Pelosi thingi is obvious. Your need to see what you want to see looks pretty clear to me. No need to reply. I have followed your arguments to this point and find this blindness persistent throughout. I'm pretty sure my words here will make little difference and I'm fine with that.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Are you sure? You don't seem to be able to distinguish what is apparent to me, that the Rather case and the Pelosi doctored video are essentially different with respect to the fact that Rather claims to have believed the data he had, fake or not, whereas the Pelosi stuff was an obvious intended fabrication. You have build a moral case with all the moral outrage that should be attendant to it, the need to apply journalistic integrity on all sides, based on your personal assumption that Rather's motives were what you have no proof they were, whereas, again, the illwill behind the Pelosi thingi is obvious. Your need to see what you want to see looks pretty clear to me. No need to reply. I have followed your arguments to this point and find this blindness persistent throughout. I'm pretty sure my words here will make little difference and I'm fine with that.
Your posts are as always thoughtful and interesting so I will respond in kind.

The Dubya AWOL documents and the Pelosi video were created with the same malicious intent, and in both cases became part of the national conversation in attempt to discredit someone through a false narrative.

Democrats certainly echoed the AWOL allegations when it was politically convenient to believe an untruth, through the whole “Texans for Truth” ad campaign. John Kerry faced the same with all the swiftboat nonsense.

Social media just elevates the game, but the game remains unchanged.

As I said earlier, the ire should be against those who allows these false narratives to take flight. That includes Dan Rather, intentional or otherwise, and now the social media platforms that allow fake news to go viral.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Your posts are as always thoughtful and interesting so I will respond in kind.

The Dubya AWOL documents and the Pelosi video were created with the same malicious intent, and in both cases became part of the national conversation in attempt to discredit someone through a false narrative.

Democrats certainly echoed the AWOL allegations when it was politically convenient to believe an untruth, through the whole “Texans for Truth” ad campaign. John Kerry faced the same with all the swiftboat nonsense.

Social media just elevates the game, but the game remains unchanged.

As I said earlier, the ire should be against those who allows these false narratives to take flight. That includes Dan Rather, intentional or otherwise, and now the social media platforms that allow fake news to go viral.
You can lead a journalist to believe something he might in fact like to believe for political and biased reasons, but the intention of journalism is to out the truth, especially truth to power, to the people and to do so independently of the financial interests of it's corporate owners. The job of social media is to make money for their stockholders. It seems pretty clear that our average tech CEO possess the morals values of children. This split within the real journalistic world with it's vaunted and protected independence makes awkward, in my opinion, any both sides argument you would like to make between them and social media. So we seem, in my opinion, to be right back to the same blind spot I mentioned before. You seem to me to be reconfirming the same confirmation bias I felt you manifested earlier.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
You can lead a journalist to believe something he might in fact like to believe for political and biased reasons, but the intention of journalism is to out the truth, especially truth to power, to the people and to do so independently of the financial interests of it's corporate owners. The job of social media is to make money for their stockholders. It seems pretty clear that our average tech CEO possess the morals values of children. This split within the real journalistic world with it's vaunted and protected independence makes awkward, in my opinion, any both sides argument you would like to make between them and social media. So we seem, in my opinion, to be right back to the same blind spot I mentioned before. You seem to me to be reconfirming the same confirmation bias I felt you manifested earlier.
That may have been the case before the rise of cable news, but now journalism is a for profit business, and there is a symbiotic relationship between cable news and social media, with journalists increasingly falling victim to the mob mentality of viral news.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,512
29,099
146
Because it was obvious what he meant by the original Rather reference, and the “policing” of truth is blatantly obvious in its intent. @Jhhnn is the only one who responded with anything interesting to say. The rest, just the typical abundance of concern.

As for the OP, the title and angst is misdirected. Without the social media platforms to spread such videos, there is no Trump. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube...a viral doctored video is just the tip of what’s to come.

address the question.

be a fucking man for once.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
That may have been the case before the rise of cable news, but now journalism is a for profit business, and there is a symbiotic relationship between cable news and social media, with journalists increasingly falling victim to the mob mentality of viral news.
As I said, there are pressures on news broadcasting but there is a real and still functioning tradition of journalistic integrity and the belief in it still operational among many journalists. The pressure to keep news real and not fake comes to a large degree within the journalistic community whereas the only way we will get integrity our of social media is by government regulation created by pressure of the citizenry, in other words, essentially never. But you are not going to see this, I believe, because your bias against journalism is subject to bias confirmation. Mine is too. I am less cynical than you are and while it can be argued that I have a confirmation bias in that direction, I would say its it's because I lack your negative bias. It's pretty much Tweedledum and Tweedledee to me.

Just for example, if you want to deal in suspicious thinking, my first goal in any desire I would have to destroy American democracy would be to sow doubt in the objectivity of any entity that could expose my efforts in that direction. I would definitely work to make people doubt objectively reported news especially attacking those engaged in it and with a reputation for doing it well. And I would do it over years and years of time, slowly conditioning people to distrust everything.

As a person with, in my very 'unhumble' opinion, a unique and rarefied world view, I am very aware that within myself there is a tendency to want to think of myself as special. and as a person of great charity and magnanimity, and I like to think also that I share this delusion with lots of other people, Flat Earthers for example whom I am very convinced exhibit this disgusting trait simply for the joy of irritating others with by their doggedness in holding such an irrational belief.

So I do have my suspicions and they include that such efforts are underway and that you have been not only exposed to them but also affected by them.

I have been conditioned too, to look at the world as if all the problems I see out there have their real origin in me.
 
Last edited:

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
As I said, there are pressures on news broadcasting but there is a real and still functioning tradition of journalistic integrity and the belief in it still operational among many journalists. The pressure to keep news real and not fake comes to a large degree within the journalistic community whereas the only way we will get integrity our of social media is by government regulation created by pressure of the citizenry, in other words, essentially never. But you are not going to see this, I believe, because your bias against journalism is subject to bias confirmation. Mine is too. I am less cynical than you are and while it can be argued that I have a confirmation bias in that direction, I would say its it's because I lack your negative bias. It's pretty much Tweedledum and Tweedledee to me.

Just for example, if you want to deal in suspicious thinking, my first goal in any desire I would have to destroy American democracy would be to sow doubt in the objectivity of any entity that could expose my efforts in that direction. I would definitely work to make people doubt objectively reported news especially attacking those engaged in it and with a reputation for doing it well. And I would do it over years and years of time, slowly conditioning people to distrust everything.

As a person with, in my very 'unhumble' opinion, a unique and rarefied world view, I am very aware that within myself there is a tendency to want to think of myself as special. and as a person of great charity and magnanimity, and I like to think also that I share this delusion with lots of other people, Flat Earthers for example whom I am very convinced exhibit this disgusting trait simply for the joy of irritating others with by their doggedness in holding such an irrational belief.

So I do have my suspicions and they include that such efforts are underway and that you have been not only exposed to them but also affected by them.

I have been conditioned too, to look at the world as if all the problems I see out there have their real origin in me.
I see a distinction between journalism and cable news.There are news sources I absolutely trust and respect. The Atlantic publishes some amazing articles. I read the NYT daily.

But then I tune to CNN or MSNBC and hear a bunch of talking heads shouting past each other. My gym often has three flat screens side by side showing the news: Fox, CNN and MSNBC. What I see is confirmation bias cheerleading, not journalism. Go to CNN even now and you will see some sensationalist headline with a YouTube ready video clip of Cuomo or Lemon or Cooper putting on an act.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
Your posts are as always thoughtful and interesting so I will respond in kind.

The Dubya AWOL documents and the Pelosi video were created with the same malicious intent, and in both cases became part of the national conversation in attempt to discredit someone through a false narrative.

Democrats certainly echoed the AWOL allegations when it was politically convenient to believe an untruth, through the whole “Texans for Truth” ad campaign. John Kerry faced the same with all the swiftboat nonsense.

Social media just elevates the game, but the game remains unchanged.

As I said earlier, the ire should be against those who allows these false narratives to take flight. That includes Dan Rather, intentional or otherwise, and now the social media platforms that allow fake news to go viral.

False narratives sometimes seep into the mainstream news. There are lots of news outlets and lots of journalists, and the entire business has been operating since time immemorial. It's probably worse now because of increasing political tribalism, not to mention foreign sourced information warfare, has resulted in more false material. Anyway, it happens, it's happened in the past, and it will happen in the future, from time to time. It was inevitable that someone could find an example or two. That's why I don't care for this whataboutism.

Tell me this, when was the last time we had a POTUS who openly promoted a video he knew full well was doctored? Or for that matter, openly promoted literally dozens of false conspiracy theories? Did Obama ever do that? Did Bush?
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Tell me this, when was the last time we had a POTUS who openly promoted a video he knew full well was doctored? Or for that matter, openly promoted literally dozens of false conspiracy theories? Did Obama ever do that? Did Bush?
No President has ever done what Trump has done. Both parties have had their fair share of PACS and misinformation surrogates to do that dirty work for them, especially during campaign season, but past Presidents at least respected the office enough not to engage in it themselves.

Trump has simply blown up the facade and dived head first into the mud.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
address the question.

be a fucking man for once.

If you guys haven't figured it out yet he is just another user trolling 'the libs' on an Internet Forum. You guys act like talking sense to a troll will make them change their ways.

He is just a more polished version of UC...

Not here to debate, just here for the lulz...
 
Last edited: