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.

 

Absolutely. But if it did happen, one could possibly advance the argument that it was done not to make someone (Palin) look bad, but to make someone (Couric) look good. Especially if, as Fastbreak suggested, it is in her contract.

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.

That's all I was attempting to point out.

 

If I could get an original taped segment from CBS on high quality digital stock, I have no doubt that I could prove it to even Habib.

 

The fact that it is so subtle and therefore so accepted is what makes it all the more nefarious IMO.

 

As far as floating a logical fallicy to divert the topic of this thread, sorry... not guilty. The title and topic were the interview. My comments were about the interview. The fact that they didn't align with some people's predetermined mindset does not make me a threadjacker... :lol:

That's all I was attempting to point out.

 

If I could get an original taped segment from CBS on high quality digital stock, I have no doubt that I could prove it to even Habib.

 

Oh, yes. Even to Habib. He's quite dense.

Oh, yes. Even to Habib. He's quite dense.

 

Dude, what's with the chip on your shoulder this evening? I said that because you jumped on my initial post with several smart aleck comments culminating in this most skeptical response.

 

Seriously, I went back and watched a clip and the only difference I could pick up was Couric's darker complexion.

 

I was merely addressing your stated skepticism, not your intellectual depth.

 

It would be like me getting upset that you were suggesting that I'm a racist because Couric had a darker complexion. :lol:

Dude, what's with the chip on your shoulder this evening? I said that because you jumped on my initial post with several smart aleck comments culminating in this most skeptical response.

 

Um, yeah. Watched the video and didn't see the lighting difference. Then:

 

You guys can laugh and mock all you want... keep your heads in the sand.

 

Which seems to contradict this:

 

I was merely addressing your stated skepticism, not your intellectual depth.

Fastbreak, I have to agree with Habib. Everytime we get slammed with a "you all keep your head in the sand" and the like, it just get's old and gives less credibility to an argument.

Um, yeah. Watched the video and didn't see the lighting difference.

After I clearly stated that it wasn't as noticable on the (very low resolution image on the ) computer as it was on television where I originally saw it. As hard as it may be for you to accept, I do happen to have some knowledge on this specific subject, and the hard and soft focus effect was utilized.

Which seems to contradict this:

I have yet to attempt to suggest that you are a fool, merely that you are free to see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. Choose wisely or choose foolishly. It's up to you. :thumb:

Fastbreak, I have to agree with Habib. Everytime we get slammed with a "you all keep your head in the sand" and the like, it just get's old and gives less credibility to an argument.

No doubt that is a tired cliche.

 

I'll try to do better.

 

The fact is, the effect was employed by some cameraman or producer at CBS. I saw it very clearly on television. I pointed it out. You guys jumped on me and completely disregarded the legitimacy of my message.

 

Habib accused me of a logical fallacy, when he himself attempted to discredit the messenger and then accuse the messenger of diverting from the subject and then accuse the messenger of insulting him.

 

I had no intention of insulting any of you, but if you guys choose to be insulted, I'm too weary to attempt to persuade you otherwise.

 

Now we're really off topic... good job. :thumb: :lol:

After I clearly stated that it wasn't as noticable on the (very low resolution image on the ) computer as it was on television where I originally saw it. As hard as it may be for you to accept, I do happen to have some knowledge on this specific subject, and the hard and soft focus effect was utilized.

 

That's why I said:

 

I'll defer to your knowledge on hard light filters.

 

That's right, Habib doesn't know anything about lighting and has no reason to question your knowledge of it. But, I did watch the video and noticed she looked worse outside than inside.

 

I have yet to attempt to suggest that you are a fool, merely that you are free to see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. Choose wisely or choose foolishly. It's up to you. :thumb:

 

Your argument requires one to believe that there is a liberal bias to CBS' interview or that one is a liberal themselves. I'm sorry, but my skepticism of your conclusion does not make me either.

 

The fact is, the effect was employed by some cameraman or producer at CBS. I saw it very clearly on television. I pointed it out. You guys jumped on me and completely disregarded the legitimacy of my message.

 

I jumped on the framing of your message. It is prima facie at this point and you don't allow for other conclusions or disagreement.

 

Habib accused me of a logical fallacy, when he himself attempted to discredit the messenger and then accuse the messenger of diverting from the subject and then accuse the messenger of insulting him.

 

You did, and continue to, present a false choice. And no, my recognition of that doesn't constitute an ad hominem attack. I'll take your word for it about diverting attention from Palin's answers.

Wow...

 

My argument simply suggests there is a bias to CBS' interview.

 

You questioned me... sarcastically I might add. I merely suggested that you can believe what you want to believe.

 

I stand by that.

 

You're making this a much bigger deal than it should be.

 

FWIW, I have yet to suggest or attribute "liberal" in any post in this thread.

Palin has no clue. Maybe the long cold Alaska winters has frozen her brain!

Anyone see Tina Fey and Poehler reenacting the interview on SNL tonight? Quite funny. For those of you who still maintain that Palin was great, watch the sketch to see how the rest of the world saw it.

Anyone see Tina Fey and Poehler reenacting the interview on SNL tonight? Quite funny. For those of you who still maintain that Palin was great, watch the sketch to see how the rest of the world saw it.

 

Dang UK/WKU replay! I knew I would miss something good.

Just watched the interview. It was almost a total implosion. If she studies-up thus week and learns to relax, she may be o.k. for this Thursday. If not, it will be another bump in the polls for Obama-Biden.

Anyone see Tina Fey and Poehler reenacting the interview on SNL tonight? Quite funny. For those of you who still maintain that Palin was great, watch the sketch to see how the rest of the world saw it.

I'm not sure what is worse, Palin's performance or thinking an SNL skit proves how the world feels.