There's a lot of video here on the 'Grok - a lot of it is YouTubed but a fair amount that is also on our own server because it is way too long. We are in favor of video as it gives a more complete experience of what interests / amuses us.
Thus, when I saw this, I just smiled and thought "hmm, we've been doing this for at least two years now....". Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit wrote a piece that talks to this as well based on the interviews of ABC's Charlie Gibson interviewing Governor Sarah Palin - there are a lot of complaints of editing that tried hard to put Palin in a bad light.
The "BlogFather" (and Doug and I) have a solution for this:
CHARLIE Gibson's ABC interview with Republican veep candidate Sarah Palin produced a lot of complaints from Palin fans. There's not much anyone in the campaign can do about journalists like Gibson misstating candidates' "exact words," but there is something that candidates - and anyone else interviewed by a possibly hostile media - can do to make sure that things get played straight in the editing process.
You just have to break the camera monopoly. Luckily, that's become easy.
And it is EXTREMELY easy! The great thing about the present Internet technology is that almost ANYONE can use a relatively common vidcam, there's software to transfer the WMA / JPG files onto a website, and most browsers pretty much know how to handle it when clicked.
This takes vid (and audio, btw) journalism out of the hands of well funded organizations with fancy dancy stuff and into the hands of ordinary schlubs like Doug and I, and you!
An episode of "The Simpsons" a few years back centered on Homer facing bogus sexual-harassment charges. A TV news show ("Rock Bottom") interviewed him and edited his innocuous statements to make them sound incriminating. (To make the joke clear, the hands on a clock in the background were in a different position for almost every word). Ultimately, Homer was saved only because Groundskeeper Willie turned out to have shot video that exonerated him.
Real life isn't "The Simpsons" (though politics are seeming more and more cartoonish these days). Still, TV is all about the editing - and even modest tweaks can drastically change how an interviewee comes across.
As what seems to have happend, once again, by the MSM to keep their narrative alive. Can you say, however, "boomarang" for the results it got them?
So, when you sit down for an interview (unless it's live), you're putting yourself, like Homer, at the mercy of the editors. Usually they're honest, but not always.
But there's a remedy now, with technology being what it is. If I were a candidate, I think I'd bring my own camera to interviews, shoot the whole thing and post the unedited raw video on the Web.
The technology for this is easy - I've got a little Sony HD video camera that records on a chip and fits in a coat pocket or purse - and putting video on the Web is a snap, too.
Of course, the knowledge that this will happen is likely to be enough to keep people honest - but if anything is edited unfairly, the full video will tell the tale. No need to wait for Groundskeeper Willie to appear.
TV journalists won't be happy with this, of course, but it's hard to see a principled basis for objecting.
Yeah, they are one of "those groups" that feel that they can hold other people accountable to what they believe to be right - but hate it when they are held to the same standards. After all, they are "Journalists".
There's more:
Continue reading ""Bring your own" - so we did!" »
Kevin Harvick emblem on his jet tail
