When he said

"Watters will literally atomize the interviews - pulling a word here
and a sentence there, inter-cut with comedy or horror films
clips for editorial emphasis. The final piece will not
necessary reflect the intent of any of those
interviewed, but rather Watters impression
on the issue, within the bounds of O'Reilly and
Fox News editorial policy."

LAGC

(5,330 posts)

3. I actually didn't think that was too bad of a hatchet job.

Reply to brettdale (Original post)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 12:18 AM

Apr 2012

Compared to most of O'Reilly's pieces, they at least got some diversity of opinion, good shots of some of the signs and costumes, and marveled at the size of the crowd.

I guess I'm kind of of the "even bad press is positive" for the greater exposure mindset.

At least let the Faux News viewers know that we are here and coming out of the closet.

brettdale

(12,373 posts)

4. What smug jackcass Watters is though

Reply to LAGC (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 12:25 AM

Apr 2012

Not sure how I feel to be interviewed by him, while he is smirking and laughing, knowing full well that he is going to edit the video to
make you look bad.

LAGC

(5,330 posts)

5. True.

Reply to brettdale (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 12:25 AM

Apr 2012

I'd probably be hesitant to allow ANYONE from Faux to interview me, no matter how benign their stated intentions.

brettdale

(12,373 posts)

6. No matter how nice they may come across

Reply to LAGC (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 03:17 AM

Apr 2012

You know its an act, and you know they think nothing of you , and of course you know its going
to be edited to make you look like an idiot.

soc7

(53 posts)

7. That actually wasn't bad at all...

Reply to brettdale (Original post)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 05:18 AM

Apr 2012

I don't think anyone came across as stupid - maybe a little goofy, but I think some were trying to do that anyway.

It's not quite in the category of splicing 911 tapes...

Reply to this discussion