Well, Meet the Press has now admitted the error and apologized for it. "Very disappointed by the deceptive editing/commentary by @ChuckTodd and @MeetThePress on AG Barr’s CBS interview," Kerri Kupec tweeted. "Compare the two transcripts below. Not only did the AG make the case in the VERY answer Chuck says he didn’t, he also did so multiple times throughout the interview." A short while later, the official "Meet the Press" Twitter account posted an apology. "You’re correct. Earlier today, we inadvertently and inaccurately cut short a video clip of an interview with AG Barr before offering commentary and analysis," the tweet said. "The remaining clip included important remarks from the attorney general that we missed, and we regret the error." Link: https://justthenews.com/accountabil...mits-deceptive-edit-barr-video-doj-cries-foul
Yep, people are scared. All coverage shrinks back quickly now at any perceived outrage. Meanwhile, false statements are officially given every day and are shrugged off.
The show itself admitted the error, and (correctly) applogized for it. But you still want to debate that they were being dishonest? Do I understand your position, here, IP?
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/circular-reasoning-fallacy-examples.html In the context of an AG and the DOJ, it wouldn't be good if it were unlawful. It wouldn't be bad if it were lawful. It's a meaningless statement, and thus a deflection from actually stating why it is the lawful course of action for this case and apparently not others.
They have to be able to get guests. What is the context of his "history is written by the victors" line? If it isn't in the context of the interview in which he said it, in response to the question he was just asked, what IS the context one should properly put it in?
Hmmm. Well I asked you to start at the very, very beginning and you really didn't. Was he asked to explain how his case upheld the law? No. Do you think this was the only question he was asked in the interview? If not, do you think he should have repeated himself in order to address a question that he'd answered earlier and that was totally different than the one he was just asked? This was the very last question from the interview (save a couple of follow-ups questions stemming from this query). Earlier in the interview he specifically addressed why he made the decision he did, who was involved, a timeline, and a bunch of other details. He also specifically mentioned that there is one standard of justice for everyone and specifically mentioned that being from one political party or another doesn't mean you get treated differently. You know, he basically said exactly the stuff they said he didn't say.
He was implying that he may or may not receive a fair accounting in the history books. He then provided an answer as to what he felt a fair recording of his actions would be.
Pretty clear from the current discussion that there are people out there that would rather this event be remembered differently.
Like how the Democrats opposed every anti-racist legislation but now claim it was Republicans? Do you mean like that?
If only there were civil rights activists still around to help us understand. Wonder what they think?
Different like saying he couldn't offer an explanation other than admitting it was a political ploy when he specifically said it wasn't a political ploy and offered a very lengthy explanation.
Tough to say. We'll need to search through their responses for a comment we can edit down and take out of context and then get back to you.
I explained it already and it's completely validated by the news covering this so badly they had to apologize. He said an honest account of the situation would mention that this decision was the right one because it was the lawful thing to do. He preceded it by saying he may not get an honest account, because history often reflects what those in power want to be written.
