4 ms·
The recorded comments were from the 787 days, and LWTN didn't produce those recordings themselves.
by hef19898 3y ago
The recorded comments were from the 787 days, and LWTN didn't produce those recordings themselves.
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoThat doesn't really tell you anything. The way the format works is they take a large amount of material and pare it down to whatever they can find to make the target look stupid or nefarious. It works the same whether they were holding the camera or not. Also: > Sometimes they don't have to because what they're reporting is real, but you can't tell that one way or the other just by watching the segment.
- hef19898 3y agoAs someone who read the official reports on the B737 MAX and the 787 battery fires and who is from the industry, I can tell you that your accusations are completely unfounded in reality. By the way, LWTN was not once found to have wrong reporting on any of their subjects. Last party to pull them to court over it was this cial guy. And it was found that the reporting was factually correct. Not like, say, Fox News with its usual defwnc ein court that boils down to "who in his right mind would take us for a serious news outlet employing journalists".
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago> As someone who read the official reports on the B737 MAX and the 787 battery fires and who is from the industry, I can tell you that your accusations are completely unfounded in reality. You're defending this particular story when I never claimed it was necessarily false. > By the way, LWTN was not once found to have wrong reporting on any of their subjects. Last party to pull them to court over it was this cial guy. And it was found that the reporting was factually correct. That is how "out of context" works. They don't affirmatively lie, they lie through omission. They have lawyers who know how defamation laws work.
- hef19898 3y agoMan, you started all of this by pointing to the interviews in the particular show about Boeing, and you wonder why people keep coming back to that particular show? You did point out those "interviews", which weren't even interviews to begin with but recording of shop floor banter, without realizing they were done by Al-Jazzeera and not LWTN, not realizing they covered the B787 and were done over a decade ago. And then you accusse others of discussing out of context? Difficult to have context when you din't even get your basic facts right, isn't it?
- justinclift 3y ago> I never claimed it was necessarily false. Doesn't real line up with this, which is essentially claiming its false: > ... shows like that have a long history of doing selective editing or purposely taking things out of context.
- leereeves 3y agoLast Week Tonight certainly used the same "we're entertainment, not news" argument in their own defense: > HBO also argued that other statements were opinions and jokes, not factual assertions > HBO said Murray’s accusations were a matter of “hurt feelings about jokes,” and said jokes are protected speech. https://www.thewrap.com/coal-magnates-lawsuit-john-oliver-dismissed/ https://www.thewrap.com/coal-magnates-lawsuit-john-oliver-di...
- hef19898 3y agoSimilar, but not the same. Fox News is repeatily caught lying, and paying through the nose for it, while factually LWTN, so far, never did that. Also, if I remeber correctly, Murray didnnot attack them on the reportes facts, did he?
- leereeves 3y agoOf course they were smart enough not to make a factual claim like Murray was intentionally getting people killed. They were able to convey the same message using jokes and a few cherry picked facts, and thus be immune to defamation suits. With jokes like "looks like a geriatric Dr. Evil", "appears to be on the side of black lung", and "[his political activity is] the equivalent of watching My Girl and rooting for the bees" they suggested that Murray was evil without making any actionable claims. And in their show after the case was dismissed, they embraced the "who in his right mind would take [this] seriously" defense wholeheartedly: accusing Murray of things like being Epstein's prison guard. Factual (even if obviously untrue), but not defamation because, much as the court wrote in the case against Tucker Carlson (and before that, a similar case against Rachel Maddow): “the statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and, as such, are not actionable as defamation”
- hef19898 3y agoThose cherry picked facts came from actual law suites in which Murray and his company was found liable, if I remember correctly.
- kortilla 3y ago>By the way, LWTN was not once found to have wrong reporting on any of their subjects. There is no law for "wrong reporting". LWTN has not lost a defamation suit, which is very narrow. "Wrong reporting" is a much broader ethical category of lying by omission to create a narrative or choosing unreliable sources. Think of things like NYTimes and the Iraq War. Or basically any article of the format "x% of some group wants Y evil thing".
- chatmasta 3y agoWhat do you think of those "man on the street" interviews where they ask people questions like "point to America on a map," and everyone gets it wrong, except the last person in the segment?
- hef19898 3y agoThose are not my kind of humor. To my knowledge, LWT doesn't do those. I could be mistaken, as I honestly do remember all their episodes by heart.
- piva00 3y agoI watched the original report from Al-Jazeera on the 787 (called "Broken Dreams") where those factory line scenes were filmed when it came out in 2014. There's no editing from LWTN to make it look worse, in my opinion the original reporting was much more damning than what the clips show.
- sidewndr46 3y agoThat's how reporting and journalism works. No one watches a multi hour interview with Putin by Tucker Carlson. It's boring as hell and just Putin talking about his dreams. The only known instance of this would be the Frost-Nixon interviews, which occurred after the US elected an actual criminal to the highest office. No one makes a career about reporting how the free coffee in the break room was changed to a pay your own way plan.
- psychoslave 3y ago"Donnez-moi six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre." That is "Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, and I will find something in them to have him hanged." Generally attributed to Richelieu
- hef19898 3y agoWow, Richelieu. You know what, this changes if whatever was written is backed up by actual facts, like recorded quality issues being left unmittigated that let to hull losses and serious incidents as it did in the case of Boeing. That is the context that was provided. If you read the official reports on Chernobyl and Fukushima, you will find the same quotes to drive the reported points home.
- themadturk 3y agoVery true, especially if the authority who does the hanging controls the interpretation of the writing.