How is that "good news"?
Posted on 07/30/2010 4:05:05 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
HOW MUCH DID THE SHERRODS GET FROM US, the TAXPAYERS??
In the common idiom of our time, you "excerpt" something when you pull a contiguous, unaltered piece from a larger piece. It is a specific type of edit, but that specificity is important and relevant to this case.
The more general term "edit" implies much more than simple excerpting, and is being used with ominous and disingenuous overtones in this case.
It is being used that way with intent.
THe example I cited was NOT about an exerpt.
It was a tv interview in which I was asked questions and gave answers.The interview ran from its beinning to its end — but two sentences of a five sentence paragraph of what I said was deliberately edited out to make it look as though a satement that I was condemning was actually my statement. What was shown was an edited version of the interview, not an exerpt of the interview. An exerpt of the interview would have contained the first three minutes, unedited, or the middle three minutes, unedited, or the last part, undedited. Kind of like all of chapter one. or all of chapter two — not chapter one with, say, all the references to nudity edited out.
Edit in film and video has a specific meaning in contemporary media. It means to deliberately alter content that IS SHOWN, not to extract a piece. Think of it that if
the musical numbers from a movie were experpted — that would mean that you didn’t see the movie, just the musical numbers. Then imagine that someone didn’t like the lead actress for some reason, so in the movie her reaction shots and close-ups were cut out, to cut down her part and minimize her importance in the story. That’s editing.
86,000 black “farmers” were awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars each yet there have never been more than 40,000 black farmers in the entire US for the past 40 years. Not only was it reparations, it was flat out FRAUD.
Editing by means of excerpting, right?
Those angels must be the one dancing over at the “On the Pin Club.”
It really doesn’t matter if the extracted product is one part of a whole or multiple parts. It also doesn’t matter if the parts are resequenced.
Even a perfectly whole and of reasonably-high fidelity audio-visual recording is only a piece of of the whole truth. It starts and stops somewhere, the interval it recorded is someone’s choice, a subjective choice. The lighting, the framing, the location of the recording devices — all color and filter the reality as it occurred.
The best we can do in using such recordings is what? Most accepted way of dealing with recordings is (1) to insist on a chain of custody within the reliable hands able to testify honestly under penalty of perjury, (2) insist on a whole unaltered original or a copy of 100% fidelity. Anything less is “edited”, altered, modified.
Still, such conditions rarely accrue. Instead we get reduced fidelity images, cropping in images, extracts in text, audio and video, and even resequencing, old-school air-brushing, modern photoshopping or advanced video editing — products of more filtering beyond the filtering of reality that the original recording was.
This is where human character, personal integrity — the concept of an honest witness — comes into play. Is the prepared product a faithful representation of reality? That’s really the question to ask.
Breitbart, in my current view, presented a faithful representation of the reality of Mrs. Sherrod’s views on race with his edited video. I can say that because the take of people based on the tape — that she is racist, imo — is consistent with her recent actions, and the reports of her activities regarding the lawsuit against the Ag Dept.
“Although 86,000 black farmers are alleged to have received payments, at no time in the last three decades have there been more than 40,000 black farmers.”
Let’s get that factoid into the Fox News cycle...
Liars and cheats...
If you went into the editing room of a film or tv show or news story being worked on, and the producer/director/boss said to the editor, “have you done the edits? Is the piece finished yet?” No editor would then give the boss an experpt from the show as proof that it was finished in its final edit. Because an experpt is something different.
You pretty much echoed what I have read.
LLS
BTTT!
Ping to self
As if they haven't already.
“which showed Sherrod as a recovering racist, not as a practicing one”
freeking laughable.
I’m not sure whether your question is rhetorical, with the video as the answer; I’m sure Shirley and her husband consider these people “Uncle Toms.” The more that comes out in discovery,the more Breitbart’s point is proven , that she is “someone that hasn’t gotten beyond race.”
Yes let's. See the below excerpt from your post.
Usage Note:
Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to refer to the grammatical categories of "masculine," "feminine," and "neuter," but in recent years the word has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as gender gap and the politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories. According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined.
Based on the usage note it is more proper to use 'persons of opposite gender' when referring to marriage as a social contract.
Hope that enlightens you!
Now remember back to what the main point of my posting was..... WORDS HAVE MEANING. If we let the liberals define the words they will win the discussion. We have to maintain control of the terms of debate.
You have provided me an excellent example of losing control of the language.
Prior to redefining "gender" to apply to people, there was no possible way to advance homosexual marriage. Marriage was one man and one woman. "Sex" is genetically determined and immutable. Once a man, always a man.
Gender however can change with the wind. Some of us (not me obviously) allowed "gender" to be applied to people and those who have allowed this have lost control of the discussion. How can you block perverts from marrying if you cannot restrict marriage to a union between the opposite sexes. You cannot.
We lost control of the terms and are losing the debate (Because in the greater public's mind "gender" can now be applied to people.)
So we are back to WORDS HAVE MEANING. Notice that as I excerpted your post I did not edit it. I changed nothing.
Excerpt is not edit. Edit is not excerpt.
Excerpting is a form of editing, both old-school and new PC-correct dictionaries agree on that point.
That's what I missed, discovery.
My apologies. I, too, hope she does sue Breitbart so he can mop the floor with her.
"Eager to appease black voters and prospective jurors in the District of Columbia, which is where any criminal charges brought by Special Prosecutor Ken Starr against President Clinton would have to be tried, ....."
Would be the real reason.
It was also the reason Clinton took his "I'm sorry for America" political safari to (laughing and pointing) Africa, the safari "advanced" by political point-man Joe Wilson.
In 1999, after his impeachment trial, sucking up to black DC voters was what Slick Willie was all about.
Oh, come on, Ann..... Willie's as crooked (if not moreso) than any of them. Back when he was speaker of the California House, earning a grand total of $30K/year in honest salary, the man had a closet stuffed with Armani suits.
Think he bought all those back when he was a trial lawyer repping for pimps and pushers in Gay Bay?
Come on.
The only thing I want to hear from Willie Brown is "Adios, I'm going to try my luck in Botswana/Bermuda/Malaysia."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
