^ I'll defer to your knowledge on hard light filters, but Palin looked better inside than she did when they were walking outside. Maybe the sun is a liberal? Seriously, I went back and watched a clip and the only difference I could pick up was Couric's darker complexion.

More than I think of Obama.

I love your arguments in this thread, nothing defending or supporting Palin, just more of, "Well, Obama said this..."

^ I'll defer to your knowledge on hard light filters, but Palin looked better inside than she did when they were walking outside. Maybe the sun is a liberal? Seriously, I went back and watched a clip and the only difference I could pick up was Couric's darker complexion.

 

:laugh: That would explain the whole "solar energy" push that libs promote and why the cons are more into fossil fuels.

I did not see this interview in its original context, and only saw brief snippets of it after the fact, so I can't comment so much on what was said. What I did see however, that struck me boldly was the very real "Star Trek Chic" soft focus effect on Katie Couric and the very hard light and lack of softness on Palin. I literally sat up and laughed when I saw this on television. It is not as obvious in the computer clips.

 

You can say what you want about the mainstream media being unbiased, but stunts like this suggest otherwise. Such an effect is virtually unnoticeable to the average viewer, but subconsciously, it creates a feeling of harshness toward the woman without the filter.

 

Hi-larious I say... hi-larious. :lol:

 

I think you might be right. My harshness towards Palin definitely stems from the lighting. Not the ridiculous nonsense that comes from her mouth.

I love your arguments in this thread, nothing defending or supporting Palin, just more of, "Well, Obama said this..."

 

I don't have the time or the inclination, but it would be instructive to take a look at how many times a P&R thread topic gets jacked with the "but your guy/gal does it, too" mantra. This is generally the response of someone who is either unwilling or unable to defend their guy/gal; so they take the easy way out - the way that offers nothing to the debate. So many of these threads go something like this:

 

Thread topic - Palin performs poorly in interview.

 

Poster 1 - I don't think Palin made any sense in the interview.

 

Poster 2 - I agree - I couldn't figure out what she was saying.

 

Poster 1 - I wish she could clearly articulate her position

 

Poster 4 - Biden is worse.

 

Poster 5 - :thumb:

I don't have the time or the inclination, but it would be instructive to take a look at how many times a P&R thread topic gets jacked with the "but your guy/gal does it, too" mantra. This is generally the response of someone who is either unwilling or unable to defend their guy/gal; so they take the easy way out - the way that offers nothing to the debate. So many of these threads go something like this:

 

Thread topic - Palin performs poorly in interview.

 

Poster 1 - I don't think Palin made any sense in the interview.

 

Poster 2 - I agree - I couldn't figure out what she was saying.

 

Poster 1 - I wish she could clearly articulate her position

 

Poster 4 - Biden is worse.

 

Poster 5 - :thumb:

 

 

I just went back and looked at the evolution (or devolution, if there is such a word) of the "Palin Should Step Down" thread. If you think the above is an exaggeration, check out that thread.

I love your arguments in this thread, nothing defending or supporting Palin, just more of, "Well, Obama said this..."

What more do I need?

She did not do well. In the words of RockPride "noughsaid"

What more do I need?

I'm just curious as to why you attack Obama/Biden so often and never defend Palin but only attack Obama again. IMO it seems to only strengthen the arguments against Palin.

^ I'll defer to your knowledge on hard light filters, but Palin looked better inside than she did when they were walking outside. Maybe the sun is a liberal? Seriously, I went back and watched a clip and the only difference I could pick up was Couric's darker complexion.

I said that it wasn't as noticable on the computer as it was on the television. Maybe Couric has it in her contract. You guys can laugh and mock all you want... keep your heads in the sand. It was there. :thumb:

I said that it wasn't as noticable on the computer as it was on the television. Maybe Couric has it in her contract. You guys can laugh and mock all you want... keep your heads in the sand. It was there. :thumb:

 

OK.

I said that it wasn't as noticable on the computer as it was on the television. Maybe Couric has it in her contract. You guys can laugh and mock all you want... keep your heads in the sand. It was there. :thumb:

 

And what about those of us that simply read the transcript and concluded that there are serious misgivings in Palin's knowledge of information needed for a commander in chief of our country?

And what about those of us that simply read the transcript and concluded that there are serious misgivings in Palin's knowledge of information needed for a commander in chief of our country?

That's awesome. :thumb:

 

You guys are missing the whole point. I honestly couldn't care less whether you love Palin, hate Palin, or fall somewhere in between. I'm all for reading transcripts ( if they are unedited ) and drawing any conclusion you want to draw.

 

The point is, that's not enough for some people. They have to try to tilt the field beyond the words and thoughts of each candidate, and try to amplify the positives or the negatives to suit their viewpoint. This also indicates the bias with which they edit reams of taped interviews to create the best or worst possible shortened clips.

 

Whether that's for a candidate I embrace or a candidate I disdain, I find it unacceptable.

 

The fact that some people choose to deny or ignore this is very disappointing.

And what about those of us that simply read the transcript and concluded that there are serious misgivings in Palin's knowledge of information needed for a commander in chief of our country?

 

:thumb:

 

You may also notice the false choice Fastbreak's argument presents. A person can either agree with Fastbreak that CBS manipulated the lighting to make Palin appear worse, at least at the subconscious level, or not believe it and thus be a head-in-the-sand liberal. Also, it is a bit curious that after Palin's performance we've veered off on this red herring. Remarkably, FB has created the ultimate logical fallacy: we're all idiots and we aren't talking about Palin's responses anymore.

That's awesome. :thumb:

 

You guys are missing the whole point. I honestly couldn't care less whether you love Palin, hate Palin, or fall somewhere in between. I'm all for reading transcripts ( if they are unedited ) and drawing any conclusion you want to draw.

 

The point is, that's not enough for some people. They have to try to tilt the field beyond the words and thoughts of each candidate, and try to amplify the positives or the negatives to suit their viewpoint. This also indicates the bias with which they edit reams of taped interviews to create the best or worst possible shortened clips.

 

Whether that's for a candidate I embrace or a candidate I disdain, I find it unacceptable.

 

The fact that some people choose to deny or ignore this is very disappointing.

 

I don't know if anyone is denying it or ignoring it...just didn't see it. You are right though...if purposeful editting is done by a news organization to make someone look bad, it is unethical.