60 Minutes busted swapping Harris interview answers

[Bil522]

Trump files lawsuit against CBS for the 60 Minutes debacle

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... -interview

[mostonmike]

Do you support the Press intentionally misrepresenting the facts of the news?

I love debates about the fairness of the media. Some questions you might ponder
1) What was it like in the 1800s?
Surely this has been going on for all of history, every election in every country, ever.

2) Should the Press (CBS in this case) be regulated to ensure fair and balanced reporting?
I kinda think it would be the antithesis of all that it is to be American

3) Are you thinking that the electorate isn't intelligent enough to do its own research and come to its own conclusions?
Maybe take that up with your world renown education system

People end up with the government that the collective intelligence of their country votes for. If your team doesn't win on Tuesday then pat yourself on the head that you are more intelligent than the rest of your country. Easy.

PS "Don't care" is missing from the options.....I thought it was agreed on the Ms forum to include it

[auroraave]

Do you support the Press intentionally misrepresenting the facts of the news?

I love debates about the fairness of the media. Some questions you might ponder
1) What was it like in the 1800s?
Surely this has been going on for all of history, every election in every country, ever.

2) Should the Press (CBS in this case) be regulated to ensure fair and balanced reporting?
I kinda think it would be the antithesis of all that it is to be American

3) Are you thinking that the electorate isn't intelligent enough to do its own research and come to its own conclusions?
Maybe take that up with your world renown education system

People end up with the government that the collective intelligence of their country votes for. If your team doesn't win on Tuesday then pat yourself on the head that you are more intelligent than the rest of your country. Easy.

PS "Don't care" is missing from the options.....I thought it was agreed on the Ms forum to include it

2) Should the Press (CBS in this case) be regulated to ensure fair and balanced reporting?
I kinda think it would be the antithesis of all that it is to be American

This is the key argument. They edited out the embarrassing original answer and replaced it a coherent-sounding sound bite - and we do not know where it came from. Was it from that question? If it was, why doesn't CBS release the transcript proving it? Was it from another question? Since they will not release the transcript that would cover their asses, it's logical to assume it was from another question - CBS can prove it either way - but they won't. Anyone that can prove a case to their benefit does exactly that - ESPECIALLY a 'news' organization.

Why is that a problem? Because this isn't journalism, therefore it should not qualify as a news program - they need to be relegated to "entertainment" status because they are showing blatant and intentional bias. Once you cross that threshold - objectively - you are no longer a viable "news" entity. You show both sides to an argument and let the viewer decide - you don't tell the viewer what to think - and by editing this video from her usual nonsensical word salad to something resembling a coherent thought they are skewing the narrative.

All of the US broadcast/cable media need to be labeled "entertainment" and have 'news' classifications stripped away. 60 minutes used to be the gold standard, now they are just a sad, nonsensical, one-sided propaganda machine in support of the Democratic party - which is fine as an entertainment outlet - but not as a news outlet which is meant to be unbiased and neutral. Wouldn't this also qualify as censorship? They are censoring out a bad answer to make someone look better than they are - what if someone was swayed by her answer? Did they alter other answers? Isn't this also election interference?

This is bad and unjustifiable. Let's see if they release (unedited) transcripts. Again, why would you hide them if you have nothing to hide? Anyone that want to vote for Kamala deserve accurate coverage of what she says, and what she stands for. This is not that.

[mostonmike]

This is the key argument. They edited out the embarrassing original answer and replaced it a coherent-sounding sound bite - and we do not know where it came from. Was it from that question? If it was, why doesn't CBS release the transcript proving it? Was it from another question? Since they will not release the transcript that would cover their asses, it's logical to assume it was from another question - CBS can prove it either way - but they won't. Anyone that can prove a case to their benefit does exactly that - ESPECIALLY a 'news' organization.

Why is that a problem? Because this isn't journalism, therefore it should not qualify as a news program - they need to be relegated to "entertainment" status because they are showing blatant and intentional bias. Once you cross that threshold - objectively - you are no longer a viable "news" entity. You show both sides to an argument and let the viewer decide - you don't tell the viewer what to think - and by editing this video from her usual nonsensical word salad to something resembling a coherent thought they are skewing the narrative.

All of the US broadcast/cable media need to be labeled "entertainment" and have 'news' classifications stripped away. 60 minutes used to be the gold standard, now they are just a sad, nonsensical, one-sided propaganda machine in support of the Democratic party - which is fine as an entertainment outlet - but not as a news outlet which is meant to be unbiased and neutral. Wouldn't this also qualify as censorship? They are censoring out a bad answer to make someone look better than they are - what if someone was swayed by her answer? Did they alter other answers? Isn't this also election interference?

This is bad and unjustifiable. Let's see if they release (unedited) transcripts. Again, why would you hide them if you have nothing to hide? Anyone that want to vote for Kamala deserve accurate coverage of what she says, and what she stands for. This is not that.

All of which is a good assessment but isn’t it against that First Amendment right to press freedom. If they want to broadcast a political speech, edited and with clown clothes superimposed over the speaker, they are entitled to do so, aren’t they? Isn’t the rule that it’s fine as long as it’s not malicious? I wouldn’t know what the threshold is and maybe you are suggesting this crosses that threshold. I see your point, and remember I am not from round here but it seems equally as unjustifiable to be telling a media company how they should frame a story.

Over here it would be punished, we have a rule in elections called Purdah https://uk.news.yahoo.com/election-pur ... 9nWmOfMs in which there has to be a modicum of impartiality in the run-up to an election. But again I think if you considered something like this, it would be accused of the same censorship and breach of the First Amendment.

You probably can’t win.

[bpj]

Grok, please explain what Obama did to the Smith Mundt act in 2013 which allowed propaganda to be spread in the US by the US.

In 2013, the Smith-Mundt Act, formally known as the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, was effectively amended through a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013. Here's what happened:

1. **Original Smith-Mundt Act (1948):**
- This act was initially designed to counter Soviet and foreign propaganda during the Cold War. It authorized the U.S. government to engage in information warfare abroad by creating entities like the Voice of America to broadcast news and propaganda to foreign audiences.

- A key aspect of the original act was the prohibition on domestic dissemination of materials intended for foreign audiences. This meant that materials produced for overseas audiences by entities like the State Department or the Broadcasting Board of Governors could not be shown within the U.S., aiming to prevent the government from propagandizing its own citizens.

2. **2013 Amendment (Smith-Mundt Modernization Act):**
- This amendment, which was not widely publicized at the time, significantly altered the domestic dissemination restriction.
- The change was introduced under the guise of "modernizing" the act to reflect the new media landscape where information could easily cross borders due to the internet and global media.

- The amendment lifted the ban on domestic dissemination of these materials. This meant that:
- U.S. government agencies involved in public diplomacy could now legally share their content with audiences inside the United States.
- News content, analyses, and other materials intended for foreign audiences could now also be used to inform or shape public opinion within the U.S.

3. **Implications:**
- **Increased Transparency or Propaganda?** Proponents argued this would allow for greater transparency in what the U.S. was saying abroad, potentially educating Americans about international efforts. Critics, however, warned that this could lead to the U.S. government using propaganda tools at home, potentially manipulating public opinion.

- **Public and Media Reaction:** There was significant debate around this amendment. Some viewed it as a necessary step in the digital age for transparency, while others saw it as the government gaining a new tool for domestic influence, possibly without sufficient oversight.

- **Legacy and Concerns:**
- This legislative change has since been discussed in the context of information warfare, fake news, and the role of government in media.
- Critics argue it has blurred lines between information and propaganda, potentially allowing government agencies to engage in what could be seen as domestic propaganda without the previous legal barriers.

The amendment under Obama's administration has thus been a focal point for discussions on media, government transparency, and the ethics of information dissemination, especially in how it might affect democratic processes by shaping public perceptions within the country.

[mostonmike]

Thanks for that bpj. Interesting stuff.