60 Minutes busted swapping Harris interview answers

[auroraave]

to make her sound coherent. This is a pretty big deal. What used to be the gold standard of TV journalism, has now backslid into nothing more than pro-democrat propaganda. Doesn't matter who you are voting for - this is wrong. Because she constantly fumbles with no answer word salad - she needed help. Too bad, because the dude interviewing her was asking good, hard questions - which CBS edited in her favor. Brutal. This is especially disappointing for those of us who were journalism majors.

What is truly despicable, is using a soundbite of Harris suggesting she wants to end the war - which simply is not true. Under Biden they have spent 4 years trying to start wars - she has NO intention of ending any conflict - that is utterly absurd to suggest and an outright lie. The dems have proven to be rabidly PRO WAR.

This brings up two points - if Trump is soooooo bad, and he is certainly flawed, why do they need to edit him into a bad light with complete misrepresentations of what he said (like the endlessly debunked charlottesville speech), and why, if Kamala is so good, do they have to constantly edit her to look good? 8 years of misrepresenting Trump negatively, and now to make Harris look better than she is. Why would that be necessary? Shouldn't we be the judge? Let them speak, let us decide.

Secondly, Trump's response, although he is right, is not done well. He needs to handle these situations with a gentler, more nuanced hand. It drives me nuts that he cannot have a more humble approach with his social media. He is correct in his 'outrage' but he can also let the people judge for themselves and let himself play the victim here - leading with anger is the wrong tone IMO - lead with humbleness - play the victim. Tactically, I think it creates more sympathy for the individual wronged and drives people to his side. If he could handle moments like this better I think his numbers would be higher.

But let's be clear - this is a major fuck up by CBS - anyone not pissed off about this trickery - regardless of who you are a fan of - is in the wrong. Objectively - this is blatant misrepresentation of the facts and manipulation and - dare I say - election interference. Right?

No matter who you are voting for - this should piss you off - you are being lied to in service of a political party.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLrIoXB ... sAustralia

[D-train]

Sadly the only people that will find out about it are people that weren't going to vote for her any way....

Yes both 60 minutes and CBS Sunday morning were formally legendary shows, now every political story is just an extended Dem campaign add. Pathetic.

[Seattle or Bust]

to make her sound coherent. This is a pretty big deal. What used to be the gold standard of TV journalism, has now backslid into nothing more than pro-democrat propaganda. Doesn't matter who you are voting for - this is wrong. Because she constantly fumbles with no answer word salad - she needed help. Too bad, because the dude interviewing her was asking good, hard questions - which CBS edited in her favor. Brutal. This is especially disappointing for those of us who were journalism majors.

What is truly despicable, is using a soundbite of Harris suggesting she wants to end the war - which simply is not true. Under Biden they have spent 4 years trying to start wars - she has NO intention of ending any conflict - that is utterly absurd to suggest and an outright lie. The dems have proven to be rabidly PRO WAR.

This brings up two points - if Trump is soooooo bad, and he is certainly flawed, why do they need to edit him into a bad light with complete misrepresentations of what he said (like the endlessly debunked charlottesville speech), and why, if Kamala is so good, do they have to constantly edit her to look good? 8 years of misrepresenting Trump negatively, and now to make Harris look better than she is. Why would that be necessary? Shouldn't we be the judge? Let them speak, let us decide.

Secondly, Trump's response, although he is right, is not done well. He needs to handle these situations with a gentler, more nuanced hand. It drives me nuts that he cannot have a more humble approach with his social media. He is correct in his 'outrage' but he can also let the people judge for themselves and let himself play the victim here - leading with anger is the wrong tone IMO - lead with humbleness - play the victim. Tactically, I think it creates more sympathy for the individual wronged and drives people to his side. If he could handle moments like this better I think his numbers would be higher.

But let's be clear - this is a major fuck up by CBS - anyone not pissed off about this trickery - regardless of who you are a fan of - is in the wrong. Objectively - this is blatant misrepresentation of the facts and manipulation and - dare I say - election interference. Right?

No matter who you are voting for - this should piss you off - you are being lied to in service of a political party.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLrIoXB ... sAustralia

He wouldn't be competitive as a candidate if he didn't act that way.

Half the people who vote for him love that he behaves like a child.

[gil]

I have not gotten into the weeds on this, but if 60 minutes edited the Harris interview to make her look better, that would be horrible, terrible, unethical, a violation of professional norms.

The question to me is whether that is true. The interview clearly was edited. Does the editing fall within normal, standard editing that news shows do? Or was the result purposefully pro-Harris? (Or even "unintentionally" pro-Harris.)

Things I'm looking at:

Snopes says it was edited but hasn't published a conclusion as to whether there was a pro-Harris effect
https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/10/11/ ... is-answer/

Politifact says it was not a campaign finance violation (as Trump claimed)
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... -violated/

[bpj]

[D-train]

At least SNL is unbiased. lol

[auroraave]

I have not gotten into the weeds on this, but if 60 minutes edited the Harris interview to make her look better, that would be horrible, terrible, unethical, a violation of professional norms.

The question to me is whether that is true. The interview clearly was edited. Does the editing fall within normal, standard editing that news shows do? Or was the result purposefully pro-Harris? (Or even "unintentionally" pro-Harris.)

Things I'm looking at:

Snopes says it was edited but hasn't published a conclusion as to whether there was a pro-Harris effect
https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/10/11/ ... is-answer/

Politifact says it was not a campaign finance violation (as Trump claimed)
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... -violated/

Your response is particularly interesting for two reasons - first you give the generic outraged-if-this-is-true statement, maybe you are, maybe you aren't, but it's the only answer anyone can give of they at least trying to look objective. What's particularly interesting is the two links you posted. Let's look at those, but first, let's clarify that both Harris videos were running on line simultaneously - so we KNOW they were edited. This seems to be a baseline reality.

Your first link, you claim draws no conclusion - basically a completely neutral take - which in and of itself favors Harris by suggesting "no advantage was given' which is patently false and beyond absurd in that it ignores the REAL PROBLEM OF CENSORSHIP. Her rambling, nonsensical word salad answer was covered up and a lie about wanting to get out of the war was put in it's place. The majority of americans are anti war - they took a net negative and replaced it with a net positive - to gain a favorable reaction. That is not debatable.

Second, and this is my favorite because it continues to prove my point about you - "it was not a campaign finance violation as Trump said". Again, you make it about "trump said" while ignoring the elephant in the room - THE CENSORSHIP IS THE PROBLEM.

Both of your posts refuse to acknowledge the problem - which is the point I have been making for weeks - ignoring the actual issues. CBS cheated on behalf of a political party. That's an undeniable fact. Have they issued a statement addressing it? If they didn't do it, isn't that the first thing the PR department would be doing is issuing a denial or accepting responsibility? The video speaks for itself and they aren't denying it.

What's most fascinating to me is you likely did a google search - and out of all the possible results, you post two that refuse to acknowledge the offense - editing and LYING about what a candidate said - and one of your links even "makes it about Trump" - who had NOTHING to do with this. SO either you CHOSE to pick those out of all the possibilities, and that says a lot about you, as it's clearly covering for CBS which is clearly running covering for the dems, or your google search algorithm is intentionally avoiding showing results that paint CBS/Dems in a bad light.

Which is it... did you intentionally avoid posting links that acknowledge the problem, thus painting Harris/dems/CBS in a bad light, or did google censor your search results?

[gil]

I have not gotten into the weeds on this, but if 60 minutes edited the Harris interview to make her look better, that would be horrible, terrible, unethical, a violation of professional norms.

The question to me is whether that is true. The interview clearly was edited. Does the editing fall within normal, standard editing that news shows do? Or was the result purposefully pro-Harris? (Or even "unintentionally" pro-Harris.)

Things I'm looking at:

Snopes says it was edited but hasn't published a conclusion as to whether there was a pro-Harris effect
https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/10/11/ ... is-answer/

Politifact says it was not a campaign finance violation (as Trump claimed)
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... -violated/

Your response is particularly interesting for two reasons - first you give the generic outraged-if-this-is-true statement, maybe you are, maybe you aren't, but it's the only answer anyone can give of they at least trying to look objective. What's particularly interesting is the two links you posted. Let's look at those, but first, let's clarify that both Harris videos were running on line simultaneously - so we KNOW they were edited. This seems to be a baseline reality.

Your first link, you claim draws no conclusion - basically a completely neutral take - which in and of itself favors Harris by suggesting "no advantage was given' which is patently false and beyond absurd in that it ignores the REAL PROBLEM OF CENSORSHIP. Her rambling, nonsensical word salad answer was covered up and a lie about wanting to get out of the war was put in it's place. The majority of americans are anti war - they took a net negative and replaced it with a net positive - to gain a favorable reaction. That is not debatable.

Second, and this is my favorite because it continues to prove my point about you - "it was not a campaign finance violation as Trump said". Again, you make it about "trump said" while ignoring the elephant in the room - THE CENSORSHIP IS THE PROBLEM.

Both of your posts refuse to acknowledge the problem - which is the point I have been making for weeks - ignoring the actual issues. CBS cheated on behalf of a political party. That's an undeniable fact. Have they issued a statement addressing it? If they didn't do it, isn't that the first thing the PR department would be doing is issuing a denial or accepting responsibility? The video speaks for itself and they aren't denying it.

What's most fascinating to me is you likely did a google search - and out of all the possible results, you post two that refuse to acknowledge the offense - editing and LYING about what a candidate said - and one of your links even "makes it about Trump" - who had NOTHING to do with this. SO either you CHOSE to pick those out of all the possibilities, and that says a lot about you, as it's clearly covering for CBS which is clearly running covering for the dems, or your google search algorithm is intentionally avoiding showing results that paint CBS/Dems in a bad light.

Which is it... did you intentionally avoid posting links that acknowledge the problem, thus painting Harris/dems/CBS in a bad light, or did google censor your search results?

I think you are making assumptions about me. I consider snopes.com a good source for checking what is accurate. I went there first, as I often do when I see something and wonder what is true. Snopes published the transcripts in the article I linked to. They link to the video comparison that bps published to start this topic. I think it's straightforward (i.e,, true) that CBS did some serious editing. Was it beyond what is standard practice when you turn 40 minutes in tape into 20 minutes for broadcast. I don't know. Was it to make Harris look better? I don't know. I'm open to being convinced.

[auroraave]

This is what is so amusing to me "I am open to being convinced".... yet the evidence is sitting in front of you - CBS changed her answer. What do you need convincing of? That it happened? Is there some "question" that the edited answer is not better, or shows her in a more competent light? What am I missing? This isn't an opinion, this is fact. You need convincing of a fact? How does that make sense.

This is such an intriguing situation to show people's true colors. Gil needs convincing that the tape was edited in her favor - rather than just admit this is blatant malfeasance. Why is that? Likely the same reason Seattle or bust won't condemn it - notice how he completely skips the fraudulent editing to go right into Trump rage, which speaks volumes in and of itself.

Neither will acknowledge the problem here - the glaring problem - the media attempting to change narratives and perceptions into the dems favor. Seattle and Gil won't acknowledge that - because they are fine with lies and misconceptions - as long as they favor their party. Lying is okay - when they benefit. Neither can acknowledge that - neither will condemn this - because then they would have to admit it's happening, admit it's been overwhelming pro-dem and anti trump, and to acknowledge the total misrepresentation - would be to admit the media are lying to us about both Trump and the Dems. So, if the media are lying, people need to look inward and ask why are they perpetually outraged at Trump? It's because they know they are being manipulated into it - and they won't admit that.

And they would have to admit the lies like "OMG - Russian Collusion" or the brazenly edited "Charlottesville" footage - are misrepresentations of the truth. Isn't that what we all want? The truth?

It's pretty clear there are some people that don't want the truth. Why would that be? Why are these guys so afraid of the truth? Because it shows the blatant hypocrisy? You're both fine with the news lying when it fits the narrative you want - but what are you going to do if/when Trump wins, and all the narratives and lies go against you? Info is repressed or changed, info is censored against you? You'll have NO recourse to complain - because you allowed it to being with. That's what you don't get. It's not a one way street.

[D-train]

Once again 60 minutes airs a 20 minute anti Trump attack ad last night:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pennsylvan ... ranscript/