You don't need to wait for the Internet, most large media groups are propaganda tools for their own political side. No need to do any "deep fake", "selective editing" is all that's needed to take things out of context and publish a different narrative based on what you want to portray.
Now the question is, what do we do about propaganda, regardless of the medium?
This sounds like a clever attempt to "both sides do it" a way out of actually admitting that this video and its pushing by a bunch of partisans (right up to and including the office of the President of the United States) was awful.
You agree this is awful, right?
You don't have to look too far to see large media groups selectively editing videos, or at least choosing to not display portions of video that exonerate someone. Nicholas Sandmann, the MAGA-hat wearing teen, was said to be part of a group confronting a Native American protester. When you look at the full video, it was the Native American who was confrontational. He walked over into the middle of the group rather than the group confronting him.
No, I don't have anything that specific in mind, but there's enough examples even in recent history of "selective editing" clearly aimed at taking people down, out of context. And yes, let me say it again, "on both sides".
This is probably driven by the fact that outrage brings views, and views bring money + influence to such media groups, and then it's just an extra step to manufacture outrage for your own benefits. That's why all sides do it: same incentives at play.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" translates to "one person's information is another person's propaganda."
No, most "large media groups" are not.
Whoever receives and watches this video on Facebook is engaged in right-wing groups/pages/circles and was unlikely to vote for Pelosi anyway.
(I'm not American so I don't know who she is, I guess the continuation of Clinton?)
She has represented San Francisco in the US congress since the late 80s, and has been in national democratic congressional leadership for about 20 years, so, legislative rather than executive.
For that same 20ish years Republicans have been trying to use her as a symbol of vilification in various media or campaign material, in my opinion it's all very over the top.
Both sides are guilty of smear campaigns. One little flub or gaffe and a video taking it out of context will start circulating.
Just go to /r/politics if you want examples of the left smearing the right
They already tailor exactly what everyone sees on their feed. If they are going to decide exactly what people see, we can restrict exactly how they do that.
So back to the mantra of, "trust us, we'll show you what you need to know"? I thought that was exactly the attitude that got them in to this mess in the first place?!?
https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-is-not-the-same-as-f...
- misattributed to Mark Twain, 1921
