You tube stuff aside (everyone knows it's just home made doctored video with no authenticity) I have often wondered with the technology available what mischeif could be done by government controlled media.

You can make some pretty realistic things with video these days, and a populace with but one source of information could be hoodwinked by all sorts of propaganda.

Indeed Col
I hate to think how much time it would involve to vet each video before it's been out there for a while.

I think they rely on flagging for the trigger.

But the Bush vid illustrates very clearly how low and how far some people will go to deliberately misprepresent a world leader. It would have taken quite a bit of time for them to splice Bush's soundbites together.

At the same time, I think good use can be made of real situations, such as Jacuqi Smith (UK Home Sec) in her 'wilder' moments wearing a hijab.

Col.. regarding the little visit we did to a certain educational institution the other day... I gave them a ring to find out who owns the property.. and also searched .. found out that it was established by an Act of Parliament, and the land is 'Crown Land'.. thus, they come very much under the constitution about promoting or hindering religion.
It seems to me that the protest is seeking something which is contitutionally invalid.. which is why the insitution backed down on its promise.

In terms of this topic.. 'deception'.. the Institution is being portrayed as the 'bad guy' for renegging, but the articles should be pointing out how they simply decided to act consitutionally.

CJ and PERICLES....

there is a difference.. a major and important one.. between moving images of real people speaking real words...about particular subjects in verifiable contexts.. and a simple well chosen image of a man in an angry moment and a whole lot of soundbites spliced together.

It seems you mob throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You all know that world leaders now use Youtube to communicate policy and views.. and that their video's are not in the first instance 'manipulated'.. of course..once activists get hold of them, different points are made.. some legitimate others not so.

If you can't see that then poor you.

You've never told me things I don't know about the tube.. but I have the sense to distinguish between the blatant falsehood and the genuine article.
There are so many 'types' of vids there.. here is a good one where real footage is used to try to smear and blacken McCain.. guilt by association
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFHKLUAWAOo

Now.. who is going to say Falwell's footage was 'made up' ? No one is.. the point is how it's used.
That 'Bush speech' is far more insideous than this kind of thing.

The problem with some of you is, you seem to regard even 'real' footage as sus.. specially if it is used to make a point 'contra' your own views.

Hi Col.. the laws about libel and slander are easily enforcable in the country where they are made.. but I doubt that the US administration would be sending a CIA hit squad after the moron who made that video :)

But of course.. if it were an Author writing 'Jewell of Medina' hmm it might be a different story from Al Qaeda .....Random house deciding 'not' to publish it at the last minute due to fear of reprisal from 'some of a small group' of the community concerned. And stone the crows..that is for what is purported to be a POSITIVE examination of the life of the girl. Though, one wonders how you can fill 400 pages with 'fiction' when it's based only on a couple of pages max of quotes from the person concerned.

This kind of intimidation is the same as that of the Gangsters and Organized Criminal gangs.. so.. it proves one point.. if you want to assert your opinion and view over millions of others.. just call in the 'violence/deaththreat' trump card...

I suggest that when any group of people in society are identified so closely to threats and violence.. even when it is a smallish group of them..... we have a serious problem which must be addressed.

It is estimated by Mohammad Rafiq, a UK government advisor that up to 20% of the Islamic community is at least 'empathetic' to the 'blow up dolls' mob.. this translates in over 100,000 people. His research shows that the time to go from Empathizing to 'action' can be as short as 1.5 weeks!... when the appropriate 'stimuli' such as this Bush Speech and a few gory images of dismembered Muslim children are provided.

Polycarp: "But the Bush vid illustrates very clearly how low and how far some people will go to deliberately misprepresent a world leader. It would have taken quite a bit of time for them to splice Bush's soundbites together."

Actually, there are many, many people out there in internet land with the required skills, and it's just as likely they did it for a joke.
Frankly, you take this too seriously. Misrepresentation occurs at all levels, for many reasons. Sometimes it's for the reasons you describe, sometimes it is just satire, other times it's for political gain.

You state: "The problem with some of you is, you seem to regard even 'real' footage as sus.. specially if it is used to make a point 'contra' your own views."

Actually, it's when footage is used to make a point while glossing over the deceitful bits. That's called propaganda.

Insidious: "Producing serious harm in a stealthy, often gradual, manner; Intending to entrap; Treacherous."

Remember that keyword - stealthy.

You say you think the Bush speech is far more insidious - on that, I disagree entirely.

Cont'd.

It's the work of one crank among the multitude, though this wouldn't be the first time you've taken the work of one crank and inflated it to a conspiratorial level. I tend to think that's one example of something 'insidious.'

Most people with any involvement in politics can see videos such as this as what they are. It's crap. The moment anyone tries to use such a video and is found out, their credibility is shot to pieces.
On the other hand, taking videos out of context without alteration, and using them to back up a prejudice is far more subtle, and much more difficult to detect. It's also more likely to fool people, so for those reasons, it's far more insidious.

Your point in this thread could be summarised as stating it's all about the source material, right? How reliable it is and whether it's fabricated?

So consider this: "http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1596"

Logan the Sky Angel Cowboy.

This was put forth as an example of the beauty of religion, without considering the likelihood that it was as acting piece, most likely coached. Even if it wasn't (which I find highly unlikely), this boy is a young child, so if it was true, then it raises the question of how credible this boy is and whether or not he has the capability to critically evaluate his beliefs - or more simply, is he being manipulated into zealotry.

It's far more subtle. Stealthy, even.

There's many ways to splice together things to make a point, but it doesn't necessarily require audio equipment.

If the topic is the reliability of source information and unknown motivations, it raises the question as to the reliability of individuals with multiple monikers which remain unexplained.