Posted on 07/30/2010 4:05:05 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
Yes. And you can bet the younger generation knows the difference because of You Tube etc.
As a person who has worked in film and video, I don’t agree.
An experpt is a section that remains unaltered. Something that has been editied has been changed — they have taken awsay something someone said, or even inserted something that was not in the original piece.
I was once interviewed for a t.v. news piece, and I refuted what someone else had said. To refute them, I had to say what they said, so imagine that I said: “Mr Smith is completely wrong when he wrote ‘Socialism is the solution to all our problems’ because socialism destroys iniaitive and (etc. etc.) and then what comes out on TV is me saying “socialsm is the answer to all our problems” and nothing else in that train of thought. So it looks as if I am saying what was said by Mr Smith. Now, that is editing.
Who knows. But it was a plausible excuse for the gap. At least they think so.
Anyway, I thought the Breitbart recording was not from that source. If so, it should have recorded the missing piece.
Breitbart wasn't sent the whole thing. Only the 2 pieces that he posted.
I have seen many threads hijacked by the punctuation and spelling police, when a simple correction is all that is required.
I don't know why, but some glaring errors that I have made only become apparent after the post is made (or the moment I hit the post button - oops).
the dictionary says that refering to the written word. Film and video are soemthing else. See my previous post about when an interview I gav e was edited to make it look as if I said the opposite of what I did say.
I agree that words have meaning. But in the area of film and video, the word “edit’ has come to mean something else.
And I would say that even for literature, there is a difference between an exerpt of a book (like when Truman Capote published a chapter of “Answered Prayers” in Esquire Magazine and when a piece is taken and sections of it are taken out and then put back together with later sections.
Thank you, well-put. THat is exactly what edit now means — altered.
Now you quit. Quit sticking up for idiocies.
You yourself gave a meandering yet somewhat understandable example of how pure excerpting could change the whole meaning of a extract. In fact the example you gave was about an audio/video edit, yet you expressed it all using the written word.
The words edit and excerpt apply to all media. Audio, video, imaging, written. They overlap in meaning.
Find a leftist article/column where the writer says the tape was ‘excerpted’ and not ‘edited’.....good luck.....
Oh good grief, your need to be right is derailing the discussion.
Brietbart said he just posted the video that was given to him.
Focus on the issue, it’s pretty obvious that this incident will move the discussion to the desires of the administration to shut up conservative media. Remember the fat, racist, money grubbing famewhore was blaming Fox News and Glenn Beck for her firing from the beginning. The fact is that neither aired anything about this prior to her being canned.
The other nugget in the article is the fact that both she and her husband are both community organizers like the POtuS. She’s just doing what community organizers do.
For example the same Webster's 1913 dictionary I used above defines marriage as follows [excerpt]:
Legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife.
But the current Merriam-Webster gives the definition as follows:
(1) the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by lawThat's a whole lot of extra words. And they were added for a reason! The phrase "a person of the opposite sex" is distant, cold, strange and off-putting, isn't it? The old "a man and a woman" is much easier to read and means the same thing. Let me ask you, why use the word "person", rather than "man"?
Is it politically incorrect to be human these days?
And if they really want to be careful, why did they use the word "sex" rather than "gender"? Gender is the more specific in this context. But instead they used "sex."
The old school, clear and concise term used in 1913 was "legal union". Today Merriam-Webster uses the very long circumlocution "a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law". Why? Obviously, to me, or any sharp knowledgeable observer, there is A WHOLE LOT OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS goin' on 'round here.
Here's a clue.
The NEW MODERN definition of marriage leads into and supports a second wholly new meaning of the word in that Merriam-Webster:
(2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
So, yes, I WILL INDEED complain when OUR SIDE ADOPTS policies of destructive word games that reinforce and empower that tactic when the social deconstructionists and Marxists use it.
I see you here with a iron rod pulling up rail and you call me a derailler?
In fact I have some professional experience putting rails BACK ON the tracks. Do you?
The press is playing word games to indict Breitbart. And you are defending the games.
Thank you...
That is actually very good news. Breitbart should get a team of lawyers together and bury this b*tch in discovery requests going all the way back to her days with Stokely Carmichael’s “black power” movement in the 60’s.
Too bad there isn’t an ignore button either.
The story isn’t about editing or excerpting. It’s about the fact that she was canned from a job due to the whole Pigford lawsuit/ reparations issue. The administration probably didn’t really want this to come to light. Hence, the comments about Fox and Glenn Beck.
She was in charge of a slushfund of over 1 billion dollars. Her husband was on tape, saying they got about $15,000,000 out of the deal. Hello, focus here...
” The left is trying to accuse Breitbart of editing/altering the clip. Being precise in language by stating it was an excerpt DOES matter.
The EXCERPT that he posted included Saint Shirley’s “mea culpa” which the NAACP did NOT applaud as they had her racism.”
Good to see someone else pointing this out. James Rosen was on the factor with Bill O’Reilly and mentioned this same point.
One that is not getting fair coverage by any news outlet....
Unfortunately there are even Freepers who don't get it.
Amen...............
Go Andrew
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.