The example is silly. There are several sources of the same video. If it's not a funny meme, a normal person will look for the original video. In all of the vi

The example is silly. There are several sources of the same video. If it's not a funny meme, a normal person will look for the original video. In all of the videos he applies pressure on the intern's arm, you can see it by how her body moves. To shift blame to Sara Sanders because she shared a GIF instead of a video, is the "spin" that reveal bias. You can put the original video instead of the GIF and the Sanders tweets stands: "[We will] never tolerate a reporter placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern" The article falsely claims that Sanders cite the GIF as grounds for revoking Acosta's press pass. The mentioned grounds for revoking Acosta's press pass can be seen in all videos and cameras. (touch the arm, apply pressure). It's not the GIF, it's what happened. The article implies that the GIF was intentionally modified, but the truth is that: >At BuzzFeed News, Charlie Warzel dug into the creation of the Infowars clip, establishing that it was made by zooming in on a GIF excerpt from the original video. GIFs can drop frames when constructed, and video-encoding methods can introduce other changes. In the end, Warzel couldn’t decide whether the video had been doctored or not. Citing experts, Motherboard concluded that the video wasn’t doctored, but that it was "altered" —a distinction that might confuse as much as it clarifies. The article also falsely claims that "The events described in Sanders' tweet simply did not happen." So, if this article plus its title is meant as an "Study on Irony", then it's a great article.