6 ms·

I found this conversation to be a really worthwhile read (when it came out). It's a refreshing demonstration of the 'empirical journalism' that Assange describe

by state 13y ago

I found this conversation to be a really worthwhile read (when it came out). It's a refreshing demonstration of the 'empirical journalism' that Assange describes in this conversation. As time goes on I find it even more interesting in contrast to the public images of both Assange and Schmidt. I'm much more interested in the raw, unedited dialogue between these people than the way they are reported on.

drzaiusapelord 13y ago
I like how the guy who editorializes with terms like "Collateral Murder" and carefully edited video considers himself doing "empirical journalism."
- state 13y ago
  I know! It really doesn't make any sense! That's what's so intriguing about it. If I forget about all the awkwardness of WikiLeaks, I'd be so excited about this brilliant guy who's going to change the way we consume current events. But...
- bainsfather 13y ago
  The gun camera video at http://www.collateralmurder.com/ http://www.collateralmurder.com/ is 39mins long and is described as 'unedited' - it looks continuous to me - are you saying this is untrue? 'Carefully edited' does not appear to be an accurate description.
  - thecoffman 13y ago
    IIRC they released two versions simultaneously - one was edited for "maximum impact" and the other was the complete, uncut footage. I think the former is good in a TL;DR sort of way as long as the full material is made available for scrutiny by the public as well.
    - cobrausn 13y ago
      Yeah, it's a great TL;DR that can cause people to hate you for misrepresenting a situation forever. If he had just released the full, unedited video and a shorter unedited snippet of the video, would we still be seeing attacks on his credibility this long after the fact? The shorter video he released lacked some much needed context as to why the pilot of the gunship chose to fire.
      - Crito 13y ago
        "If he had just released the full, unedited video and a shorter unedited snippet of the video, would we still be seeing attacks on his credibility this long after the fact?" The number of times I have seen people either flat out lie and claim that the 39minute video does not exist, or lie by omission by never mentioning the release of the 39minute version when criticizing wikileaks for releasing an edited video leads me to believe the answer to your question is "Yes." These people are already grasping for complaints, playing fast and loose with reality to do it. No matter how wikileaks released that video, there would always be a portion of the population with an interest in discrediting it.
        cobrausn 13y ago
        Releasing the unedited video doesn't get rid of the fact that he released the edited one for 'maximum impact' that happened to obscure the truth of the situation a bit by omitting context and details. 'Lie by omission' indeed.
        Crito 13y ago
        It's not exactly lying by omission if there is no omission, is it? By your logic, headlines would be banned for not containing the entirety of the content of the full article. You people keep on clinging to the idea that the additional footage somehow dramatically changes the narrative. Maybe in your mind it really does, but most people who have actually watched both would likely disagree.
  - Crito 13y ago
    If I recall correctly, at the same time that video was released they also released a sort of "highlights reel". Detractors of wikileaks consider this a grave unforgivable crime of sorts, you are only allowed to editorialize if you are saying something that they like!
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    That's not the version people criticize. The 9 minute edited video is the one that people criticize.
    - bainsfather 13y ago
      The full 39min unedited version was released at the same time though, wasn't it? (eg the video on youtube, shown on the 'collateral murder' webpage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=is9sxRfU-ik https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=is9s...) says it was uploaded 3April2010. Releasing source material, in support of edited content, seems a reasonable way to do 'empirical journalism'. I have not seen a 9minute edited video - could you link to it please? The wikipedia page mentions the 17minute edited video - as is on the 'collateral murder' website. I have watched it twice, and it seems consistent with the 39minute one. i.e. it has not been edited to grossly misrepresent the evidence in the full 39minute version.
      - drzaiusapelord 13y ago
        >The full 39min unedited version was released at the same time though, wasn't it? "Sir, how many times did you beat your wife" but in the other room he said "Sir, how many times did you beat your wife at chess?" So... that makes it alright? No, it doesn't.
        bainsfather 13y ago
        Your example is of a 'gross misrepresentation'. I really do not think Assange did this. Maybe you dislike his editing, but surely you are not arguing that it was like your example?

by state 13y ago

drzaiusapelord 13y ago

I like how the guy who editorializes with terms like "Collateral Murder" and carefully edited video considers himself doing "empirical journalism."

state 13y ago
I know! It really doesn't make any sense! That's what's so intriguing about it. If I forget about all the awkwardness of WikiLeaks, I'd be so excited about this brilliant guy who's going to change the way we consume current events. But...
bainsfather 13y ago
The gun camera video at http://www.collateralmurder.com/ http://www.collateralmurder.com/ is 39mins long and is described as 'unedited' - it looks continuous to me - are you saying this is untrue? 'Carefully edited' does not appear to be an accurate description.
- thecoffman 13y ago
  IIRC they released two versions simultaneously - one was edited for "maximum impact" and the other was the complete, uncut footage. I think the former is good in a TL;DR sort of way as long as the full material is made available for scrutiny by the public as well.
  - cobrausn 13y ago
    Yeah, it's a great TL;DR that can cause people to hate you for misrepresenting a situation forever. If he had just released the full, unedited video and a shorter unedited snippet of the video, would we still be seeing attacks on his credibility this long after the fact? The shorter video he released lacked some much needed context as to why the pilot of the gunship chose to fire.
    - Crito 13y ago
      "If he had just released the full, unedited video and a shorter unedited snippet of the video, would we still be seeing attacks on his credibility this long after the fact?" The number of times I have seen people either flat out lie and claim that the 39minute video does not exist, or lie by omission by never mentioning the release of the 39minute version when criticizing wikileaks for releasing an edited video leads me to believe the answer to your question is "Yes." These people are already grasping for complaints, playing fast and loose with reality to do it. No matter how wikileaks released that video, there would always be a portion of the population with an interest in discrediting it.
      - cobrausn 13y ago
        Releasing the unedited video doesn't get rid of the fact that he released the edited one for 'maximum impact' that happened to obscure the truth of the situation a bit by omitting context and details. 'Lie by omission' indeed.
        Crito 13y ago
        It's not exactly lying by omission if there is no omission, is it? By your logic, headlines would be banned for not containing the entirety of the content of the full article. You people keep on clinging to the idea that the additional footage somehow dramatically changes the narrative. Maybe in your mind it really does, but most people who have actually watched both would likely disagree.
- Crito 13y ago
  If I recall correctly, at the same time that video was released they also released a sort of "highlights reel". Detractors of wikileaks consider this a grave unforgivable crime of sorts, you are only allowed to editorialize if you are saying something that they like!
- dragontamer 13y ago
  That's not the version people criticize. The 9 minute edited video is the one that people criticize.
  - bainsfather 13y ago
    The full 39min unedited version was released at the same time though, wasn't it? (eg the video on youtube, shown on the 'collateral murder' webpage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=is9sxRfU-ik https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=is9s...) says it was uploaded 3April2010. Releasing source material, in support of edited content, seems a reasonable way to do 'empirical journalism'. I have not seen a 9minute edited video - could you link to it please? The wikipedia page mentions the 17minute edited video - as is on the 'collateral murder' website. I have watched it twice, and it seems consistent with the 39minute one. i.e. it has not been edited to grossly misrepresent the evidence in the full 39minute version.
    - drzaiusapelord 13y ago
      >The full 39min unedited version was released at the same time though, wasn't it? "Sir, how many times did you beat your wife" but in the other room he said "Sir, how many times did you beat your wife at chess?" So... that makes it alright? No, it doesn't.
      - bainsfather 13y ago
        Your example is of a 'gross misrepresentation'. I really do not think Assange did this. Maybe you dislike his editing, but surely you are not arguing that it was like your example?