I don't understand something. In the past couple of years, a couple of very conservative types have released doctored up videos of various individuals (Shirley Sherrod) or organizations (Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and NPR). The videos hit the media with wings, and in no time flat, people lost their jobs or people were proposing laws against and/or talk of suspending funding.
Then, sometimes too late to save face, the uncut (or as close to uncut as could be found) video is found and there is the realization that the actual events were quite the opposite of what the first "edited" versions appeared to report. But, by then, the American public (and the media) has moved on to the next big sensation. Problem is, the original "scandal" stays in people's minds . . . and some folks don't get their jobs/lives back.
What I don't understand is why our media isn't more critical of these videos when they are first released? And, why hasn't there been more fallout for the people who intentionally put together heavily edited videos to create a wholly false story?
I mean, when even Glenn Beck's web site posts the uncut version and posts a report showing how dishonest the released version was, surely the mainstream media should wise up, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment