One report sums up Main Stream Media.

Run_to_da_hills

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6HquWC_9vE

Quatermain

What's the conspiracy here? Is this yet another sign of how the people who supposedly run the planet are dastardly sods, yet apparently can't find their asses with both hands?

If it's meant as a joke, it's a poor one. If it's meant to be a deception, it's a clumsy one.

Run_to_da_hills

Quatermain wrote: »

What's the conspiracy here? Is this yet another sign of how the people who supposedly run the planet are dastardly sods, yet apparently can't find their asses with both hands?

If it's meant as a joke, it's a poor one. If it's meant to be a deception, it's a clumsy one.

The point here is that they deliberately manipulated the reporting to make it look different to how it actually was.

Nobody is denying there was a flood that was xx ft deep... they deliberately misled the audience to believe something else. So, if they can do something as trivial as this, you can be damn sure these tricks are used all over the news media to manipulate more serious stories to deceive the masses. .

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

So, if they can do something as trivial as this... .

But they couldn't do something as trivial as that. You were able to see through their cunning ruse by watching the report they put out. They failed due to gross incompetence.....

Quatermain

But you can do something as simple as look in the background to see the cars on display the entire time to see that the water barely reaches the hubcaps. As I said, a very poor deception.

So if someone is lying about water depth, clearly they must be lying about the plan to conquer the globe, etc etc. I'm sorry, but there really isn't much here.

Bradidup

Quatermain wrote: »

But you can do something as simple as look in the background to see the cars on display the entire time to see that the water barely reaches the hubcaps. As I said, a very poor

.

In fairness you only really notice this when the camera mistakingly zooms out.

Quatermain

Bradidup wrote: »

In fairness you only really notice this when the camera mistakingly zooms out.

Firstly, it's in the preview picture of the video.

Secondly, why would they zoom out, mistake or not, and then broadcast it to the world if they're trying to lie about it? For the third time, if this is an attempt at a lie, it is one so ham-fisted as to be utterly laughable.

Bradidup

Quatermain wrote: »

Firstly, it's in the preview picture of the video.

No, it's the last position of the cam after it had zoomed out, probably now used as a preview to show its dishonest reporting

Quatermain:80176702 wrote:

Secondly, why would they zoom out, mistake or not, and then broadcast it to the world if they're trying to lie about it? For the third time, if this is an attempt at a lie, it is one so ham-fisted as to be utterly laughable.

How do we even know that this got out?
More than likely this would have been cut and re edited until they got it right.

Quatermain

Bradidup wrote: »

How do we even know that this got out?
More than likely this would have been cut and re edited until they got it right.

Because you're looking at it right now, presumably? Unless men gave their lives to smuggle out this thirteen seconds of damning evidence.

Bradidup

Quatermain wrote: »

Because you're looking at it right now, .

that doesn't prove one bit that this clip went on air,

Quatermain

Bradidup wrote: »

that doesn't prove one bit that this clip went on air,

Then they certainly went to an awful lot of trouble with the graphics, background, and so forth.

What possible reason could anyone have for concealing thirteen seconds of footage including a man walking across the background? What possible sinister motive could be in mind?

I've just realised that this is the single silliest thing I have ever found myself arguing about. There is actually nothing here.

Oh, and by the by.
More of the Bound Brook floods

Quatermain

Quatermain wrote: »

Then they certainly went to an awful lot of trouble with the graphics, background, and so forth.

The graphics actually say "Live" and she appears to be talking to the hosts back in the studio.

Bradidup

King Mob wrote: »

The graphics actually say "Live" and she appears to be talking to the hosts back in the studio.

That means absolutly nothing,

She would be doing the exact same act pn any unedited clip, I have worked on movie sets and stuff Luke this could be repeated several times before they a tually get it right.

Quatermain

But they're not actually lying. Bound Brook was fairly devastated by floods. Many times, in fact.

Bradidup

Bradidup wrote: »

That means absolutly nothing,

She would be doing the exact same act pn any unedited clip, I have worked on movie sets and stuff Luke this could be repeated several times before they a tually get it right.

No it doesn't prove anything, but it means that the evil media are trying extra hard to... do what exactly? What was the benefit to this supposed fakery exactly?

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The point here is that they deliberately manipulated the reporting to make it look different to how it actually was.

Nobody is denying there was a flood that was xx ft deep... they deliberately misled the audience to believe something else. So, if they can do something as trivial as this, you can be damn sure these tricks are used all over the news media to manipulate more serious stories to deceive the masses. .

The water may have been deeper on one side than the other. I think it takes a bit of a leap of the imagination to go from slightly exaggerating the depth of water in a local TV report to the entire world's media collaborating to fabricate 9/11 or whatever.

Monty Burnz

King Mob wrote: »

No it doesn't prove anything, but it means that the evil media are trying extra hard to... do what exactly? What was the benefit to this supposed fakery exactly?

NWO plot to sell more canoes.

cookiecheck

They have to give an impression of whats going on in the relevant location.
So while it may not have been possible to get the right camera shot in the exact place * and time they settle with a bit of fakery to give the viewer the impression. so the random couchpotato might be roused from his vegetative state and buy some products.
Dramatic effect, for their ratings. Yes its a lie, yes the tv media is a disingenuous drama-queen but so what.
(and yes she in the boat is a manipulative wench)


*the bystanders/boatpeople had probably walked to a dryish part of town and had the cheek to not swim for the sake of the camera-man.**










**dramatizationmaynothavehappened

Brown Bomber

Quatermain wrote: »

But you can do something as simple as look in the background to see the cars on display the entire time to see that the water barely reaches the hubcaps. As I said, a very poor deception.

So if someone is lying about water depth, clearly they must be lying about the plan to conquer the globe, etc etc. I'm sorry, but there really isn't much here.

"If"???

Did you watch the video???

Quatermain

Brown Bomber wrote: »

"If"???

Did you watch the video???

Yeah. And saw nothing much. If this is what you consider a "media scandal", you must jump out of your shoes once every ten minutes. Massive floods did happen at Bound Brook, which is undeniable. Also, you could have continued to read the rest of the sentence. It was posed as a fairly rhetorical question. Context is your friend.

Honestly, if whatever "powers that be" let something this clumsy past their nets they don't really pose all that much of a threat. There is nothing here, fella.

Brown Bomber

Quatermain wrote: »

Yeah. And saw nothing much.

Could you watch it again? And describe what you see? It's only 10 seconds long.

Quatermain wrote: »

If this is what you consider a "media scandal", you must jump out of your shoes once every ten minutes.

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? I never mentioned anything about a "media scandal".

That said, fabricating the news is a "media scandal" of sorts wouldn't you agree?

Quatermain wrote: »

Massive floods did happen at Bound Brook, which is undeniable.

So?
What's that got to do with a news crew fabricating their reports?

Quatermain wrote: »

Also, you could have continued to read the rest of the sentence. It was posed as a fairly rhetorical question. Context is your friend.

And ridiculous strawman arguments aren't - which is exactly what the rest of your sentence was.

Quatermain wrote: »

Honestly, if whatever "powers that be" let something this clumsy past their nets they don't really pose all that much of a threat. There is nothing here, fella.

Again, what are you talking about? Why do you keep quoting words that I haven't said??? The "powers that be" in this case should be as obvious to you as they are to me - news crew, editors. When did I say anything about anyone posing a threat? Why do you keep making **** up???

Quatermain

Honestly, you're getting a little bent out of shape about this. There should not be this much debate over a ten second video.

Since you're here, though, what's your analysis?

Brown Bomber

Quatermain wrote: »

Honestly, you're getting a little bent out of shape about this. There should not be this much debate over a ten second video.

The debate is arising because you are disputing that there is doubt over the truthfulness of the report when the reporter is claiming, as she sits in a boat, that the only way people can get home is by boat, meanwhile a man walks into the shot with the water level no higher than his ankles.

Could you please answer some of my questions now?

So what exactly did they fabricate?
Is it possible that the family in the rafts where using them in deeper waters elsewhere, or at least waters deep enough to?
Is it possible the news crew caught them on their way somewhere and where they met was shallower?
Or perhaps they just moved over a street so the camera man could stand and get a good shot of them all in the boats? If so, what exactly is the big deal about that?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So what exactly did they fabricate?
Is it possible that the family in the rafts where using them in deeper waters elsewhere, or at least waters deep enough to?
Is it possible the news crew caught them on their way somewhere and where they met was shallower?
Or perhaps they just moved over a street so the camera man could stand and get a good shot of them all in the boats? If so, what exactly is the big deal about that?

Yeah, and it's possible that they live in Venice and just travel around with a dinghy and that's why they need the boat to get from their homes to the other side of the street.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah, and it's possible that they live in Venice and just travel around with a dinghy and that's why they need the boat to get from their homes to the other side of the street.

Not really an answer to any of my questions...

Are any of those ideas impossible? Yes or no?

And since none of them are and they are all reasonable, the "deception" seems less and less evil.

And we've yet to see hear one plausible reason for any of the fakery to begin with. Especially since it's been shown that the floods happened and were quite serious.

But it is a perfect example of how the MSM is viewed here. Nonsensical claims are made about it. Plot holes are ignored. The motivations are really hazy and vague...

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Not really an answer to any of my questions...

Are any of those ideas impossible? Yes or no?

And since none of them are and they are all reasonable, the "deception" seems less and less evil.

And we've yet to see hear one plausible reason for any of the fakery to begin with. Especially since it's been shown that the floods happened and were quite serious.

But it is a perfect example of how the MSM is viewed here. Nonsensical claims are made about it. Plot holes are ignored. The motivations are really hazy and vague...

The reporter is being filmed with a group of boats saying that those in the boats can't get from one side of the street to the other from their homes.

However, in reality the boats are actually sitting on a few inches of water and they could easily walk or drive around where they are located.

The scene is clearly staged.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The reporter is being filmed with a group of boats saying that those in the boats can't get from one side of the street to the other from their homes.

However, in reality the boats are actually sitting on a few inches of water and they could easily walk or drive around where they are located.

The scene is clearly staged.

And it's not possible that their home is further down the street where the water is deeper because....?

And so what exactly was staged? Did the family not have all those boats? Where they just told to sit in the boats and shut up?
If so, to what benefit?

Or was it staged in that, they came across the people using the boats to cross a deeper or more dangerous section of water, then asked them to come over to a shallower place so the cameraman could stand and get an eyecatching shot of all of them in the boats?

The floods happened and were damaging, do you think that assessment was based solely on that one report or something?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And it's not possible that their home is further down the street where the water is deeper because....?

And so what exactly was staged? Did the family not have all those boats? Where they just told to sit in the boats and shut up?
If so, to what benefit?

Or was it staged in that, they came across the people using the boats to cross a deeper or more dangerous section of water, then asked them to come over to a shallower place so the cameraman could stand and get an eyecatching shot of all of them in the boats?

The floods happened and were damaging, do you think that assessment was based solely on that one report or something?

We don't know how or why it was staged but we can say for certain that all these people in their rafts weren't paddling through where they were filmed.

Do you disagree? Why?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

We don't know how or why it was staged but we can say for certain that all these people in their rafts weren't paddling through where they were filmed.

Do you disagree? Why?

Yes I do disargee with that because it's something you are assuming because you want a preferred conclusion.
We aren't sure it was staged, you are assuming it was based of one out of context shot and statement. (Which again, perfectly sums up how the MSM is dealt with here.)

Can you be sure that they weren't just crossing the shallower point because they didn't want to get out of the boat?
Can you be sure that the water directly out side their house was not much deeper?

And even if we ignore all of the other more reasonable, explanations and assume it was staged we're left with the question you are still ignoring.
Why was the staged? What was the benefit?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Yes I do disargee with that because it's something you are assuming because you want a preferred conclusion.
We aren't sure it was staged, you are assuming it was based of one out of context shot and statement. (Which again, perfectly sums up how the MSM is dealt with here.)

Can you be sure that they weren't just crossing the shallower point because they didn't want to get out of the boat?
Can you be sure that the water directly out side their house was not much deeper?

And even if we ignore all of the other more reasonable, explanations and assume it was staged we're left with the question you are still ignoring.
Why was the staged? What was the benefit?

Why is it more reasonable?

What is it exactly that you think happened? And why is more reasonable?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why is it more reasonable?

What is it exactly that you think happened? And why is more reasonable?

The family's house was surrounded by deeper water so they needed the boats to get out and across the street. When they got to shallower waters they didn't get out cause they didn't want to get wetter than they needed to be as perhaps they only had the one set of clothes on them or they would need to be in them for a while. Or perhaps the water was faster moving is some spot making it dangerous or more tricky to walk through.
They come across the reporters who ask if them can take some shots then ask if the lady could get into the boats with them to make it more eyecatching.

It's more reasonable because it doesn't require the assumption that the reporter was dragging around the boats to set up a shot. Or that they tricked the family into going to shallower waters. Or as one poster suggested, where even faking being live.
Nor does my explanation have a gaping hole in it such as the camera man blowing the entire operation by panning back slightly.
Nor does it require an unknown motivation which you've yet to actually provide.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

The family's house was surrounded by deeper water so they needed the boats to get out and across the street. When they got to shallower waters they didn't get out cause they didn't want to get wetter than they needed to be as perhaps they only had the one set of clothes on them or they would need to be in them for a while. Or perhaps the water was faster moving is some spot making it dangerous or more tricky to walk through.
They come across the reporters who ask if them can take some shots then ask if the lady could get into the boats with them to make it more eyecatching.

It's more reasonable because it doesn't require the assumption that the reporter was dragging around the boats to set up a shot. Or that they tricked the family into going to shallower waters. Or as one poster suggested, where even faking being live.
Nor does my explanation have a gaping hole in it such as the camera man blowing the entire operation by panning back slightly.
Nor does it require an unknown motivation which you've yet to actually provide.

Right, so your guesswork is more reasonable even though it comes solely from your own imagination. I mean every single aspect of it. How can I argue with that?

The "motivation" is obvious either - they wanted to/were under pressure to get some sensational shots of the flooding and by the time they got there either a) the flooding had subsided and the water was only a few inches deep or b) to save themselves hassle they filmed in a relatively flood free area and staged it too make it look like the more severely flooded areas in the locality.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, so your guesswork is more reasonable even though it comes solely from your own imagination. I mean every single aspect of it. How can I argue with that?

No, it's more reasonable because of the reasons I listed.

Please point out the bits that are not reasonable or impossible.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The "motivation" is obvious either - they wanted to/were under pressure to get some sensational shots of the flooding and by the time they got there either a) the flooding had subsided and the water was only a few inches deep or b) to save themselves hassle they filmed in a relatively flood free area and staged it too make it look like the more severely flooded areas in the locality.

How are these explanations more reasonable?
How do you fill in the plot holes?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

No, it's more reasonable because of the reasons I listed.

Please point out the bits that are not reasonable or impossible.

What evidence do you have to support you imaginative claim?

My evidence is people sitting in boats in mere inches of water for a news report. Which obviously gives the impression that the water is far deeper than it its.

This is corroborated by the reporters sensational claims that the people in the boats can't cross the street from their house any other way (even though they are sitting in rafts in a few inches of water)

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What evidence do you have to support you imaginative claim?

None, but it's most reasonable explanation that fits all the facts and doesn't have any plots holes.

Again, please point out what about it is unreasonable or impossible.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My evidence is people sitting in boats in mere inches of water for a news report. Which obviously gives the impression that the water is far deeper than it its.

This is corroborated by the reporters sensational claims that the people in the boats can't cross the street from their house any other way (even though they are sitting in rafts in a few inches of water)

So how do you know that their house is not further down the street where the water is deeper and/or more dangerous?

Cause unless you can show this, you don't actually have any evidence.

Further you are making a lot of assumptions about what the report claims and implies considering you've only seen an edited few seconds...