3 ms·
While I don't know if the paper is "stupid", or not, I think nobody in the last two decades has ever seen an uncut interview. So I don't see how this light woul
by ahofmann 1y ago
While I don't know if the paper is "stupid", or not, I think nobody in the last two decades has ever seen an uncut interview. So I don't see how this light would help or proof anything.
- bee_rider 1y agoI think it is a current propaganda or messaging strategy: you say “In the uncut recording of the interview, I made really good points, but they spliced it up to make me look stupid,” or “In the uncut version of the interview, my opponent said a bunch of nonsense, but they cut it out.” This works because the broadcaster isn’t going to play the uncut version, and even if they did, nobody would bother watching it.
- LorenPechtel 1y agoThe broadcaster doesn't need to run the unedited video--anyone can keep a copy. Somebody edits the wrong answer onto a question, produce your unedited recording and point out what they did. (And, in a perfect world, sue for defamation.)