Just explain why they selected that particular quote from Obama to show.
Why did they put that particular quote after the reporter said “Obama doesn’t want to do things halfway”? What was it they were trying to communicate about Obama’s views by putting that clip in there in that location in the spot?
Like you, I wasn’t fooled into thinking Obama was doing anything other than reading a question he himself did not mean to be asking. But I did think “Hey, people might think that’s just his speech he’s reading from!” And I also wondered “Why did they play that clip after that comment from the reporter? What were they trying to say?” I don’t know what they were trying to say. Do you?
I’ll concede that “next to the clip” is an awkward turn of phrase, but c’mon. I suggested a specific clip, quoting language directly from the transcript and that Kimstu had already noted was in the same video. The fact that you still haven’t figured out that I’m talking about the very next line on the transcript is just completely baffling.
Here’s what I wrote:
Here’s what you read that to mean:
Now, I get accidentally making assumptions that aren’t present. Happens to everyone. But given that you read the description of Obama’s plan in the OP’s link, and therefore read the part about the relevance of the distinction from single-payer care, can you see why it might be frustrating that you make those particular assumptions and claim to base them on what I wrote?
One of us is being an asshole. Obviously we disagree about who that is. I’m happy to call it a night on this one and attempt to engage in good faith on the next topic.
I dunno. I can’t impute motivations to the guy that did it, and I don’t know who he so I can’t ask him. It is also not a particularly important question since the clip doesn’t carry any especially negative or unfavorable connotations. I see no reason why they shouldn’t run that clip, or why an alternate one would be better.
I don’t know. Why did I put my right shoe on first? Was it an attack against leftism. It seems so innocuous that the real value here is not in the clip but in the batshit reaction to it.
Cnn does not.
A few months ago, though CNN had a link to the Sports Illustrated swimsuit pictures and Fox did not.
This is why a wise and intelligent consumer of the news samples multiple sources.
Saying you can’t “impute motivations” to “the guy” who put a media clip together is tantamount to saying you have no means by which you can interpret media broadcasts at all. To interpret media–to extract any meaning from it at all–requires, in each case and in every detail, “imputing motivations” to those responsible for putting it together.
I can interpret media broadcasts based on the information they contain. If the broadcast does not contain information concerning the motivations of the person who put it together than I cannot make interpretations about those motivations.
For example:
If I see a news story that a plane crashed in the Hudson, and I verify that story through other independent sources than I may reasonably interpret this to mean that a plane has crashed in the Hudson. However, from the information provided I cannot tell you why the first author chose to run that story rather than one about Obama’s puppy.
That is to impute the motive “this author wants to report facts.” Trivial, but nonetheless true. Interpretation is the imputation of motives.
Why “verify?” Because you think the person who put together the news story is purporting to report facts. Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense to “verify.” Your act of verification, then, shows that you imputed motives to the original reporter.
Perhaps you “verify” in order to find out whether the original reporter was trying to report facts? Then your verification is part of the process of imputing motives to the original reporter, so the point goes through again.
These are trivial examples, and for that reason it almost seems silly to describe these examples out loud as involving the “imputing of motivations.” But my point is that, in fact, motivation imputation is involved in every act of interpretation we engage in. When you write “you’re” followed by “smart,” interpreting what you’ve done requires me to form an idea why you would put “smart” in front of “you’re” like that. The natural answer is it’s because you think I’m smart and want me to know you think so. And in this case there is a natural answer. But I can’t see a natural, easy answer to the question “Why did he put that Obama quote after the statement that Obama doesn’t want to go halfway?” In order to interpret the work, I must ask this question. (Not to ask it is simply not to interpret it. And perhaps that’s appropriate: perhaps there is no interpretation to be done here. Perhaps it was a random conglomeration of events without purpose.) And there are general principles of interpretation available that seem to fit the situation. For example, usually, when a reporter says “X wants Y,” then shows a clip in which X says something relevant to Y, the reporter intends to show by the clip how it is that X wants Y. (In text, when we see an illustration, we can’t understand its place in the text without forming an idea what the writer was trying to do by putting it there. The newsclip case is quite similar.)
You may think the placement of the clip after the reporter’s own statement was a random conglomeration of events. But this is implausible. These guys are professionals, they know what they’re doing, and they are not generally known to juxtapose media without purpose. Juxtaposing media with intent to communicate is what they do, practically by definition.
Verification does not entail imputing motivation. For example, if I conduct an experiment and it produces certain results, I would need to repeat the experiment to verify it and confirm my results. In the case of the verification I am not imputing any motivations to the first experiment.
The act of verification does not entail trust or the lack of it.
Uh-huh, sure. Your serene disdain for “innocuous” glitches in Fox’s reporting would be a little more convincing if you weren’t on record as going equally “batshit” over what you perceive as media misdirection on the other side of the political spectrum.
Warning! Your argument is veering close to deconstruction and semiotics. Unless you have a certificate/training in advanced intellectual pretension DO NOT proceed.
Indeed you did not. Hence the qualifier in the title, ‘intelligent conservatives’. Compare and contrast your perception with that of Sho (Obvious Troll is Obvious) dan. (the lesson for you, being that while you may think the OP was making a fuss about nothing, Shobot’s response clearly shows the OP’s misgivings have merit)