What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Editing Footage For Commercial - Ok? (1 Viewer)

Is it ok for candidates to edit footage like this?

  • Of course. Totally ok.

    Votes: 14 21.9%

  • Mostly ok.

    Votes: 11 17.2%

  • On the fence.

    Votes: 7 10.9%

  • Mostly not ok.

    Votes: 14 21.9%

  • Of course not. Totally not ok.

    Votes: 18 28.1%
  • Total voters
    64
Joe Bryant

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
This happens to be something Michael Bloomberg did but my question isn't about Bloomberg. I'm interested in if you think it's ok if anyone did this.

Bloomberg is promoting this on Twitter. https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1230515129877434368?s=20

It's footage of him from the debate saying "I think I'm the only one here that's started a business Is that fair?"

Then it's amusing clips of the other candidates looking bewildered and saying nothing while you can faintly hear crickets in the background.

Then it goes back to him and he says "Ok" and then moves on.

I'd guess most people will get the crickets thing and understand it was a mashup. But certainly lots of people won't. 

What's your take on taking footage like this of other candidates and editing it to make your point?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Voted mostly okay. Funny thing is I had this exact thought for a spot of his. I have no idea why. Independent creation, for sure. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
This happens to be something Michael Bloomberg did but my question isn't about Bloomberg. I'm interested in if you think it's ok if anyone did this.

Bloomberg is promoting this on Twitter. https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1230515129877434368?s=20

It's footage of him from the debate saying "I think I'm the only one here that's started a business Is that fair?"

Then it's amusing clips of the other candidates looking bewildered and saying nothing while you can faintly hear crickets in the background.

Then it goes back to him and he says "Ok" and then moves on.

I'd guess most people will get the crickets thing and understand it was a mashup. But certainly lots of people won't. 

What's your take on taking footage and editing it to make yourself look better?
Click to expand...
From CNN reporter Daniel Dale regarding the above video:

Daniel Dale‏  @ddale8 6h6 hours ago

If it wasn't obvious, this video is altered. There was about a 2-second silence after Bloomberg asked this question, not a 20-second silence. The others were shown smiling or being impassive, not sniffling/shuffling papers/raising and lowering their hands.

(People making fun of me: yes yes clearly there were no crickets in the hall, but I don't think it'd be obvious to every viewer that a) these reactions were from other moments in the debate, not this one; b) the real-life silence was a tenth the length of the silence here.)

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1230542465301729286

 
Joe Bryant said:
I'd guess most people will get the crickets thing and understand it was a mashup. But certainly lots of people won't. 
Click to expand...
People think that Obama endorsed Bloomberg based on the commercials so I agree that lots of people will not realize this is fake. 

I really really despise the campaign tactics Bloomberg is employing. 

 
TheMagus said:
People think that Obama endorsed Bloomberg based on the commercials so I agree that lots of people will not realize this is fake. 

I really really despise the campaign tactics Bloomberg is employing. 
Click to expand...
We might as well as just give up on democracy if this is really the case.

 
Oof. I don’t think the internet will be kind to him on this one. There will easily be another video that will circulate virally for free with bloomberg looking like a doofus talking about bad jokes. Maybe not, but I’ll be surprised. 

 
I think it's OK, classified well within the rights of freedom of speech.

If you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar and it blows back negatively then that's an oopsie.

 
I mostly disapprove.

I didn't see the original footage that it's based on, so I have no idea how different the edited clip is from the original.

I assume the edited clip is so different that, to people who've seen both, it's an obvious parody.

But to me, it's only funny to the extent that it's true in spirit. Did the other candidates in the original just stare blankly for an awkwardly long time? If not, then the clip is misleading and lame. If they did, the clip might be a humorous exaggeration, but not knowing the extent of the exaggeration, I feel like I'm not in on the joke.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I mostly disapprove.

I didn't see the original footage that it's based on, so I have no idea how different the edited clip is from the original.

I assume the edited clip is so different that, to people who've seen both, it's an obvious parody.

But to me, it's only funny to the extent that it's true in spirit. Did the other candidates in the original just stare blankly for an awkwardly long time? If not, then the clip is misleading and lame. If they did, the clip might be a humorous exaggeration, but not knowing the extent of the exaggeration, I feel like I'm not in on the joke.
Click to expand...
3-4 seconds of no response. Might have been one or two mouths agape. It's very exaggerated, but like you suspect very obvious satire/parody.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I mostly disapprove.

I didn't see the original footage that it's based on, so I have no idea how different the edited clip is from the original.

I assume the edited clip is so different that, to people who've seen both, it's an obvious parody.

But to me, it's only funny to the extent that it's true in spirit. Did the other candidates in the original just stare blankly for an awkwardly long time? If not, then the clip is misleading and lame. If they did, the clip might be a humorous exaggeration, but not knowing the extent of the exaggeration, I feel like I'm not in on the joke.
Click to expand...
They were mostly laughing and rolling their eyes.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I mostly disapprove.

I didn't see the original footage that it's based on, so I have no idea how different the edited clip is from the original.

I assume the edited clip is so different that, to people who've seen both, it's an obvious parody.

But to me, it's only funny to the extent that it's true in spirit. Did the other candidates in the original just stare blankly for an awkwardly long time? If not, then the clip is misleading and lame. If they did, the clip might be a humorous exaggeration, but not knowing the extent of the exaggeration, I feel like I'm not in on the joke.
Click to expand...
Yes, @Maurile Tremblay  For the original, the actual pause after he asked the question was just a couple of seconds. https://www.nbcnews.com/video/bloomberg-says-he-s-against-redlining-clarifies-past-quote-79050821604

Nothing like the dumbfounded looks his clip shows.

For people that see both, it'll be obvious.

But I'd guess a TON of people that see Bloomberg's mashup didn't see the original. That's why it'll be so effective.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mostly ok but also a continuing sign of how stupid we are. The best memes will win the race for president in 2028.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I voted "totally okay."  It's obviously humor with no intent to deceive.  

Then again, I was a big fan of the shtick of editing people's quotes to make a point in a funny way, so my guess is that you and I are going to disagree on this one.  ;)  
Click to expand...
They should have added a laugh track then.

 
Sheriff Bart said:
They should have added a laugh track then.
Click to expand...
Well there actually was a laugh track that was real from the audience, but I don't think they were laughing "with" Bloomberg if you know what I mean. They seemed to be laughing at the reactions from the other people on stage who were like, "Seriously with this guy?"

 
Not ok at all but that is funny as heck, especially bernie & biden.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheMagus said:
Well there actually was a laugh track that was real from the audience, but I don't think they were laughing "with" Bloomberg if you know what I mean. They seemed to be laughing at the reactions from the other people on stage who were like, "Seriously with this guy?"
Click to expand...
:laughtrack:

 
One of the candidates should make a copy of the ad and turn it into their own and then show Ronald Reagan standing there with a blank look as well.  

 

 
In all seriousness, I've been arguing for years in various "Voter ID" threads that we should actively purge incompetent voters from the electorate, and that overall we should opt for a little less direct democracy and a little bit more rule-by-our-intellectual-elites.  If you believe that a substantial number of voters will interpret this video as real, you're making it too easy for me.

Folks who have a problem with this should explain why very carefully.  "I was fooled by this" would be a solid, acceptable answer, but I doubt anybody will want to go on the record with that.  "I'm a Democrat, and I think a lot of people who vote in my party's primary will be fooled by this video" is also a respectable answer, and I welcome folks stating as much forthrightly.  "I'm a Republican and I think Democrats will be hoodwinked by this video" is a lot less credible.  

 
Huff Post says this video would likely fall under new Twitter Rules requiring a disclaimer.

A deceptively altered video tweeted Thursday by presidential hopeful Mike Bloomberg would “likely” be labeled as manipulated media under new Twitter rules that take effect next month, according to a company spokesperson.

The video — which has already amassed nearly 2 million views and uses clips from Wednesday night’s debate among Democratic White House hopefuls — has been edited to change the other candidates’ responses to a question from Bloomberg.

“I’m the only one here that, I think, that’s ever started a business, is that fair?” Bloomberg asks. In the video, his remark is followed by 20 seconds of footage pulled out of context, showing Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, former Vice President Joe Biden and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg each reacting in silence, as crickets chirp in the background.
Click to expand...

 
IvanKaramazov said:
In all seriousness, I've been arguing for years in various "Voter ID" threads that we should actively purge incompetent voters from the electorate, and that overall we should opt for a little less direct democracy and a little bit more rule-by-our-intellectual-elites.  If you believe that a substantial number of voters will interpret this video as real, you're making it too easy for me.

Folks who have a problem with this should explain why very carefully.  "I was fooled by this" would be a solid, acceptable answer, but I doubt anybody will want to go on the record with that.  "I'm a Democrat, and I think a lot of people who vote in my party's primary will be fooled by this video" is also a respectable answer, and I welcome folks stating as much forthrightly.  "I'm a Republican and I think Democrats will be hoodwinked by this video" is a lot less credible.  
Click to expand...
Interesting. Can you unpack in detail: "overall we should opt for a little less direct democracy and a little bit more rule-by-our-intellectual-elites."?

Are you saying an adult citizen must pass a form of intelligence test to be able to vote? 

Is there something like that in place now? Quick google search returns stuff like this.

Are you saying change the threshold? If so, where exactly do you think the line should be?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
In all seriousness, I've been arguing for years in various "Voter ID" threads that we should actively purge incompetent voters from the electorate, and that overall we should opt for a little less direct democracy and a little bit more rule-by-our-intellectual-elites.  If you believe that a substantial number of voters will interpret this video as real, you're making it too easy for me.

Folks who have a problem with this should explain why very carefully.  "I was fooled by this" would be a solid, acceptable answer, but I doubt anybody will want to go on the record with that.  "I'm a Democrat, and I think a lot of people who vote in my party's primary will be fooled by this video" is also a respectable answer, and I welcome folks stating as much forthrightly.  "I'm a Republican and I think Democrats will be hoodwinked by this video" is a lot less credible.  
Click to expand...
There are things 1000x more obviously fake/wrong than this that people believe every day.

For instance this came across my feed on facebook today.  Thousands upon thousands of people are sharing/commenting on it, completely unironically.

 
Joe Summer said:
No problem with it whatsoever. It's not like he put words into their mouths.
Click to expand...
I agree, but what about all those videos where Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton basically say the same thing or worse about immigration than Trump?  We don`t need those edited and popping up over and over again.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
"I'm a Democrat, and I think a lot of people who vote in my party's primary will be fooled by this video" 
Click to expand...
I mean, come on IK. Biden and Bloomberg are convincing a combined 1/3 of the electorate to support them over all the other candidates out there as being the most "electable" which shows a serious lack of judgment. I've mentioned a couple of times that when questioned, Bloomberg supporters give their primary reason for support as the "Obama endorsement." There's a whole bunch of people that either don't pay attention or just aren't very smart, but they vote. And it is screwing up this primary.

I also somewhat agree with your sentiment, but I differ in the solution -> put an age limit on voting. And maybe some mandatory internet safety training for seniors. I'm not trying to disparage older people, but it seems like the older folks are less savvy when it comes to propaganda. Some of the crap my older relatives see on the internet and believe is shocking. I think this one is a pretty slam dunk that a large swath of people would believe is real. They are fooled by much more obvious garbage on a daily basis. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
Interesting. Can you unpack in detail: "overall we should opt for a little less direct democracy and a little bit more rule-by-our-intellectual-elites."?

Are you saying an adult citizen must pass a form of intelligence test to be able to vote? 

Is there something like that in place now? Quick google search returns stuff like this.

Are you saying change the threshold? If so, where exactly do you think the line should be?
Click to expand...
The US has a god-awful history with literacy tests, and I don't trust the government to devise a test that would accurately weed out folks who shouldn't be voting. 

That said, a very large proportion of voters are incompetent.  Not in the sense that they have any mental disabilities like autism or Down syndrome, but more in the sense that they just aren't intellectually sophisticated enough to rightly exercise coercive power over the rest of us.  (Quick disclosure -- my wife works with high-functioning autistic and Down's folks.  That isn't what I'm talking about here).  What I'm talking about are folks who don't know who the current VP is, or who can't identify the Speaker of the House.  People who can't name a single Supreme Court Justice.  These are people are so completely disconnected from the government as it actually exists that I don't trust their judgement and don't want them voting.

On a higher level, people who have no working understanding of basic government and basic economics worry me.  People who fly coach should not be voting for who gets to fly the plane.

The best argument I have run across for this viewpoint is Against Democracy by Jason Brennan.  I don't find this book completely persuasive because it requires that you buy in to a series of philosophical parlays, but it gets the overall point across. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
allIn seriousness, I've been arguing for years in various "Voter ID" threads that we should actively purge incompetent voters from the electorate, and that overall we should opt for a little less direct democracy and a little bit more rule-by-our-intellectual-elites.  If you believe that a substantial number of voters will interpret this video as real, you're making it too easy for me.

Folks who have a problem with this should explain why very carefully.  "I was fooled by this" would be a solid, acceptable answer, but I doubt anybody will want to go on the record with that.  "I'm a Democrat, and I think a lot of people who vote in my party's primary will be fooled by this video" is also a respectable answer, and I welcome folks stating as much forthrightly.  "I'm a Republican and I think Democrats will be hoodwinked by this video" is a lot less credible.  
Click to expand...
Wow,  If that were the case though we would lose much of the Democratic base. I think we rely on the low income and uneducated vote as much or more than the GOP.   We just need to get them out to vote more.

 
Summer Wheat said:
Wow,  If that were the case though we would lose much of the Democratic base. I think we rely on the low income and uneducated vote as much or more than the GOP.   We just need to get them out to vote more.
Click to expand...
I have grown to like most of the people who post on this forum, so they are nearly always exempt from broad, over-arching statements that I make about any particular political party.  In my opinion, the Republican base is not demonstrably more competent than the Democratic base.  I'm honestly unsure how a government-by-smart-people would shake out.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I have grown to like most of the people who post on this forum, so they are nearly always exempt from broad, over-arching statements that I make about any particular political party.  In my opinion, the Republican base is not demonstrably more competent than the Democratic base.  I'm honestly unsure how a government-by-smart-people would shake out.
Click to expand...
I agree.  Actually I am becoming very disillusioned with both parties right now. I don`t see any one candidate I like or relate to on either side.

 
While the posted example is rather tepid, this editing and current/future deepfake work is getting really really scary.

It’s bad enough today there are folks who believe Wikipedia and snopes are completely false/biased and never to be believed, but pretty soon no one is going to believe anyone or anything. Trust me when I say we haven’t hit the bottom yet. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
In all seriousness, I've been arguing for years in various "Voter ID" threads that we should actively purge incompetent voters from the electorate, and that overall we should opt for a little less direct democracy and a little bit more rule-by-our-intellectual-elites.  If you believe that a substantial number of voters will interpret this video as real, you're making it too easy for me.

Folks who have a problem with this should explain why very carefully.  "I was fooled by this" would be a solid, acceptable answer, but I doubt anybody will want to go on the record with that.  "I'm a Democrat, and I think a lot of people who vote in my party's primary will be fooled by this video" is also a respectable answer, and I welcome folks stating as much forthrightly.  "I'm a Republican and I think Democrats will be hoodwinked by this video" is a lot less credible.  
Click to expand...
Yeah, start down this path. First you need to be smart, then you need to own land, white, etc, etc, we're back in 1810.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
IvanKaramazov said:
I have grown to like most of the people who post on this forum, so they are nearly always exempt from broad, over-arching statements that I make about any particular political party.  In my opinion, the Republican base is not demonstrably more competent than the Democratic base.  I'm honestly unsure how a government-by-smart-people would shake out.
Click to expand...
If you have any questions about how easily people will believe absurd things just consider that there are a ton of flat earthers out there.  And at the risk of offending some, A whole whole lot that believe in the literal stories of the Bible.  It's not like this video even comes close to the obvious fiction taken as fact as either of those or many other things.

And FWIW, the electoral college was really designed to do exactly what you're talking about.  Protect the election from dumb people and ultimately leave it up to a handful of smart guys who are guided by the will of the people but don't really have to adhere to it.  Of course our modern "electoral college" is no longer anything of the sort and is really just a funny way of counting rather than any semblance of what it was designed to be.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
If you have any questions about how easily people will believe absurd things just consider that there are a ton of flat earthers out there.  And at the risk of offending some, A whole whole lot that believe in the literal stories of the Bible.  It's not like this video even comes close to the obvious fiction taken as fact as either of those or many other things.

And FWIW, the electoral college was really designed to do exactly what you're talking about.  Protect the election from dumb people and ultimately leave it up to a handful of smart guys who are guided by the will of the people but don't really have to adhere to it.  Of course our modern "electoral college" is no longer anything of the sort and is really just a funny way of counting rather than any semblance of what it was designed to be.
Click to expand...
The distance of the public from the immediate selection of the president seems to have been a good thing, by and large. If I'm not mistaken, the state legislatures picked the delegates, ensuring that our interests stayed local and at a remove from the federal machinations of politics. 

 
The commercial is free speech which should be 100 percent protected.   The proper response is to laugh at the caricatures and also to realize Bloomberg is not the type of person we should be electing to the highest office in the land.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ShamrockPride said:
Yeah, start down this path. First you need to be smart, then you need to own land, white, etc, etc, we're back in 1810.
Click to expand...
Can you explain how you make the leap from "should be reasonably knowledgeable about how government works" and "need to own land?"  Those two things are unrelated.

For example, I think doctors should have a decent level of medical knowledge before treating any patients.  I don't care if they're land-owners, and I definitely don't care what race they are.  Maybe you do, but I don't see any logical reason why I should.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
  • Poll
Is It Ok To Publish A True Story Meant To Be Private?
2
Replies
61
Views
1K
johnnycakes
johnnycakes
GordonGekko
CNN: Obama On Republicans "Just Beat Them" Because They're "Mean, Racist, Sexist, Angry" (10/10/22 17:48 PST)
Replies
6
Views
478
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
ren hoek
I think voters are worse than nonvoters
Replies
22
Views
991
ren hoek
ren hoek

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top