6 ms·

It's one sided because it was edited by someone with an obvious bone to pick with no context. Frankly, the name itself is editorialized. What's sad is that we

It's one sided because it was edited by someone with an obvious bone to pick with no context. Frankly, the name itself is editorialized. What's sad is that we could be looking at a terrible incident, but that fact that it was released out of context with an obvious political motive (and name) discredits it.

namdnay 13y ago
This argument is shot down by the fact that they released the unedited video at exactly the same time on the same website.
- stinkytaco 13y ago
  That doesn't make the edited version, or the name, any less unconscionable for an organization that wanted to find the truth. To quote Stephen Colbert, it was "emotional manipulation". If they wanted to address a point they should have put out the 39 minute version as is or release to to a news organization. Instead they decided to selectively highlight things, give it an inflammatory name and try to drum up some donations from it. That makes it suspect in my eyes and hopefully the eyes of reasonable people everywhere. Doesn't mean that I think what happened was right or than I'm trying to defend those soldiers (we can have that argument elsewhere), but that as a reasonable person the editing and name should raise a giant red flag that makes me ask further questions. I feel the same about this situation. The dramatic talk ("they might render me") and the fact that we're looking at this in a very narrow, uninformed context means we should question everything, including his credibility.
  - angusangus 13y ago
    > they should have put out the 39 minute version as is As the previous commenter said, they did. Wikileaks' stated journalistic method has always been to provide editorialized/pre-digested material along with complete unedited sources.
    - stinkytaco 13y ago
      >Wikileaks' stated journalistic method has always been to provide editorialized/pre-digested material along with complete unedited sources. That's not a "journalistic method". I don't know that I have a name for it, but it's not journalism. I said "put out the 39 minute version as is". If I wasn't clear, that means there should have been no need for an editorialized version at all.
      - DominikR 13y ago
        Journalists don't expect that most people are willing to watch several 40 minute long pieces of unedited material in the evening news. That's why you will usually see editing. It is great that Wikileaks also released the unedited material for those that are interested.
jessaustin 13y ago
Talk about "one sided". When innocent people die from gunshot then it isn't "editorializing" to call it "murder". There is no reasonable definition of murder that does not include that incident. It's pretty clear where your loyalties lie, and you aren't going to convince reasonable people to doubt Snowden's account with this namby-pamby whinging about his choice of idiom. Neither will reasonable people believe you're prepared to be "sad" about "a terrible incident" that you wish had been kept secret.
- stinkytaco 13y ago
  >that you wish had been kept secret. At what point did I say that? At what point did I defend anyone involved? It was a battle. People were shooting at each other. Of course there is a reasonable definition that doesn't include this incident. Ones in which there is not a battle going on, for example. There are at least 20 minutes of footage that are not available to us. All I'm asking is that we get rid of the idiom and see the information. I don't need the words "Collateral Murder" to be outraged by this. I'm smarter than that. Incidentally, at no point in this discussion did I ever resort to a personal attack on you or question your motivations or loyalties. At no point did I ever say anything about you personally and I'm offended that you have decided to tell me what I think. That's a shameful way to have an argument.
  - foobarqux 13y ago
    Can you explain the argument of how the killing of the man in the bongo truck is not murder and a war crime?
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    That's a shameful way to have an argument. Boo-fuckin-hoo. Get a grip, Nancy.

namdnay 13y ago

This argument is shot down by the fact that they released the unedited video at exactly the same time on the same website.

stinkytaco 13y ago
That doesn't make the edited version, or the name, any less unconscionable for an organization that wanted to find the truth. To quote Stephen Colbert, it was "emotional manipulation". If they wanted to address a point they should have put out the 39 minute version as is or release to to a news organization. Instead they decided to selectively highlight things, give it an inflammatory name and try to drum up some donations from it. That makes it suspect in my eyes and hopefully the eyes of reasonable people everywhere. Doesn't mean that I think what happened was right or than I'm trying to defend those soldiers (we can have that argument elsewhere), but that as a reasonable person the editing and name should raise a giant red flag that makes me ask further questions. I feel the same about this situation. The dramatic talk ("they might render me") and the fact that we're looking at this in a very narrow, uninformed context means we should question everything, including his credibility.
- angusangus 13y ago
  > they should have put out the 39 minute version as is As the previous commenter said, they did. Wikileaks' stated journalistic method has always been to provide editorialized/pre-digested material along with complete unedited sources.
  - stinkytaco 13y ago
    >Wikileaks' stated journalistic method has always been to provide editorialized/pre-digested material along with complete unedited sources. That's not a "journalistic method". I don't know that I have a name for it, but it's not journalism. I said "put out the 39 minute version as is". If I wasn't clear, that means there should have been no need for an editorialized version at all.
    - DominikR 13y ago
      Journalists don't expect that most people are willing to watch several 40 minute long pieces of unedited material in the evening news. That's why you will usually see editing. It is great that Wikileaks also released the unedited material for those that are interested.

jessaustin 13y ago

Talk about "one sided". When innocent people die from gunshot then it isn't "editorializing" to call it "murder". There is no reasonable definition of murder that does not include that incident. It's pretty clear where your loyalties lie, and you aren't going to convince reasonable people to doubt Snowden's account with this namby-pamby whinging about his choice of idiom. Neither will reasonable people believe you're prepared to be "sad" about "a terrible incident" that you wish had been kept secret.

stinkytaco 13y ago
>that you wish had been kept secret. At what point did I say that? At what point did I defend anyone involved? It was a battle. People were shooting at each other. Of course there is a reasonable definition that doesn't include this incident. Ones in which there is not a battle going on, for example. There are at least 20 minutes of footage that are not available to us. All I'm asking is that we get rid of the idiom and see the information. I don't need the words "Collateral Murder" to be outraged by this. I'm smarter than that. Incidentally, at no point in this discussion did I ever resort to a personal attack on you or question your motivations or loyalties. At no point did I ever say anything about you personally and I'm offended that you have decided to tell me what I think. That's a shameful way to have an argument.
- foobarqux 13y ago
  Can you explain the argument of how the killing of the man in the bongo truck is not murder and a war crime?
- jessaustin 13y ago
  That's a shameful way to have an argument. Boo-fuckin-hoo. Get a grip, Nancy.