14 ms·
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://ww
by 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 agoYour 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?