 |
|
That wasn't just adding a long stretch of silence, it
Posted on: September 13, 2016 at 18:00:59 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
72164
Member For:
21.41 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
was cutting out their actual answer, telling them to remain totally silent so that they can calibrate their equipment... but substituting that time where they are just standing there totally silent in place of the part where they actually answered the question.
In reality they were posed a question and gave an answer. But Kouric et al edited things, using deception to get them to do the silence part, to make it look like they were clueless and could not answer the question. It is as deceptive has cutting and pasting portions of a talk and putting words in people's mouths. In this case, they were taking words out of their mouths, or putting silence in them, as it were. In effect they were telling the audience that these people were clueless... They asked them a question and they were just baffled, standing there with no answer, when in fact they had indeed answered the question.
My sister worked for a graphic arts company several years ago and a few co workers went around the shop getting interviews from people. At the Christmas party they showed the video, but it had been pretty heavily edited. For the most part they changed the offscreen questions that they asked each of the people to quite the comic effect. She said people were rolling in the aisles laughing at the answers.
For instance the answers the President of the company was giving were to completely different questions than the ones the audience heard. But it wasn't really a lie. The audience knew what had happened which made it all the funnier to see how they and their co-workers had been victimized in this way.
But Kouric was lying to her audience. They had no clue as to her deception, and that was her plan, that was how she wanted it. She was also in effect lying about the people she was interviewing. It would be similar to interviewing someone for a newspaper and then changing the answers they gave.
To me that is immoral and should be illegal. I could certainly see how that could be considered defamation.
In reality they were posed a question and gave an answer. But Kouric et al edited things, using deception to get them to do the silence part, to make it look like they were clueless and could not answer the question. It is as deceptive has cutting and pasting portions of a talk and putting words in people's mouths. In this case, they were taking words out of their mouths, or putting silence in them, as it were. In effect they were telling the audience that these people were clueless... They asked them a question and they were just baffled, standing there with no answer, when in fact they had indeed answered the question.
My sister worked for a graphic arts company several years ago and a few co workers went around the shop getting interviews from people. At the Christmas party they showed the video, but it had been pretty heavily edited. For the most part they changed the offscreen questions that they asked each of the people to quite the comic effect. She said people were rolling in the aisles laughing at the answers.
For instance the answers the President of the company was giving were to completely different questions than the ones the audience heard. But it wasn't really a lie. The audience knew what had happened which made it all the funnier to see how they and their co-workers had been victimized in this way.
But Kouric was lying to her audience. They had no clue as to her deception, and that was her plan, that was how she wanted it. She was also in effect lying about the people she was interviewing. It would be similar to interviewing someone for a newspaper and then changing the answers they gave.
To me that is immoral and should be illegal. I could certainly see how that could be considered defamation.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
That wasn't just adding a long stretch of silence, it - JeffB MU - 9/13 18:00:59