Leaked video showing US helicopter shooting journalists and civilians

[Razgovory]

Aren't jokes supposed to be funny?

Not necessarily.  Wordplay jokes and puns are often designed (as in this case) to elicit a groan rather than a laugh.

Grumbler is all mixed up.  His jokes elicit groans and and his sexual technique elicits laughs.

[Razgovory]

Btw, it wouldn't surprise me if Wikileaks doctored some inconvenient footage to make their point.  While I like the concept behind the website they are extremely unprofessional.  If you want to provide primary sources of hard to get information you don't edit in your two cents about murder or George Orwell.  You let the primary sources speak for themselves and provide only enough information to give context as where, when and what the primary source is.

[grumbler]

Yes, I posted the link a couple pages ago while you guys were fighting.  The 39 minute video supposedly has 30 minutes chopped off, where the Apache pilot does not engage two targets because of possible civilian casualties.

The problem is that this is gun camera footage.  Where the gun camera isn't employed (as in decisions not to engage) there will be no footage.

"Edited" means more than just incomplete. 

[DGuller]

Btw, it wouldn't surprise me if Wikileaks doctored some inconvenient footage to make their point.  While I like the concept behind the website they are extremely unprofessional.  If you want to provide primary sources of hard to get information you don't edit in your two cents about murder or George Orwell.  You let the primary sources speak for themselves and provide only enough information to give context as where, when and what the primary source is.

Agreed.  They really shot themselves in the foot by inserting such blunt editorial commentary.  They made it so much easier for people who want to avoid thinking about the footage to avoid thinking about the footage.  You don't reach out to people by making them all defensive beforehand.

[Berkut]

Btw, it wouldn't surprise me if Wikileaks doctored some inconvenient footage to make their point.  While I like the concept behind the website they are extremely unprofessional.  If you want to provide primary sources of hard to get information you don't edit in your two cents about murder or George Orwell.  You let the primary sources speak for themselves and provide only enough information to give context as where, when and what the primary source is.

Agreed.  They really shot themselves in the foot by inserting such blunt editorial commentary.  They made it so much easier for people who want to avoid thinking about the footage to avoid thinking about the footage.  You don't reach out to people by making them all defensive beforehand.

I disagree. Their editorializing will be appreciated by the very people who are their audience - those who have made their conclusions about what the video shows before they even watched it.

I don't look at this like "Oh, they made an error because they are going to fail to convince some people by doing that..." because I don't think organizations like this are looking to "convince" anyone of anything - they are looking to create some more hysteria and reinforce a certain image of the world that they accept as a matter of course.

In other words, you say their editorializing fails at their goal, and I say it actually does exactly what they want it to do. And it succeeded wonderfully, in this case.

[crazy canuck]

Is the 39:14 one alleged to have been edited as well?

Yes, I posted the link a couple pages ago while you guys were fighting.  The 39 minute video supposedly has 30 minutes chopped off, where the Apache pilot does not engage two targets because of possible civilian casualties.

Anyone remember the argument me and Jake had a long time ago about the media distorting the story about an Apache pilot who killed some civilians who had congregated around a damaged Bradley?

I am simply STUNNED to find that the video would be doctored to put the US pilots in the worst light possible.

Raises a point I have been thinking about for a while now.  Increasing numbers of people are getting their news outside of traditional news outlets from sources that do not necessarily have the same degree of professionalism or journalistic integrity.

This thread is a perfect example.  The internet is a wonderful thing.  I get to exchange views with people like you as easily as I talk to my neighbours.  But this story highlights the increased importance of critical thinking in an age when anyone can post "news".

[Razgovory]

Btw, it wouldn't surprise me if Wikileaks doctored some inconvenient footage to make their point.  While I like the concept behind the website they are extremely unprofessional.  If you want to provide primary sources of hard to get information you don't edit in your two cents about murder or George Orwell.  You let the primary sources speak for themselves and provide only enough information to give context as where, when and what the primary source is.

Agreed.  They really shot themselves in the foot by inserting such blunt editorial commentary.  They made it so much easier for people who want to avoid thinking about the footage to avoid thinking about the footage.  You don't reach out to people by making them all defensive beforehand.

I disagree. Their editorializing will be appreciated by the very people who are their audience - those who have made their conclusions about what the video shows before they even watched it.

I don't look at this like "Oh, they made an error because they are going to fail to convince some people by doing that..." because I don't think organizations like this are looking to "convince" anyone of anything - they are looking to create some more hysteria and reinforce a certain image of the world that they accept as a matter of course.

In other words, you say their editorializing fails at their goal, and I say it actually does exactly what they want it to do. And it succeeded wonderfully, in this case.

Maybe they created the video out of whole cloth

[Berkut]

Is the 39:14 one alleged to have been edited as well?

Yes, I posted the link a couple pages ago while you guys were fighting.  The 39 minute video supposedly has 30 minutes chopped off, where the Apache pilot does not engage two targets because of possible civilian casualties.

Anyone remember the argument me and Jake had a long time ago about the media distorting the story about an Apache pilot who killed some civilians who had congregated around a damaged Bradley?

I am simply STUNNED to find that the video would be doctored to put the US pilots in the worst light possible.

Raises a point I have been thinking about for a while now.  Increasing numbers of people are getting their news outside of traditional news outlets from sources that do not necessarily have the same degree of professionalism or journalistic integrity.

This thread is a perfect example.  The internet is a wonderful thing.  I get to exchange views with people like you as easily as I talk to my neighbours.  But this story highlights the increased importance of critical thinking in an age when anyone can post "news".

Well, I am not sure I agree that critical thinking is more important now than ever, but yeah, the ability to understand the context and goals of those who are giving you information so you can evaluate it for yourself is of course incredibly important.

For most people, it doesn't really matter though - they simply choose their sources based on what they want to be true, and find one that will tell them what they want to hear.

[sbr]

From the article DP posted a link to :  http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-video-is-missing-30-minutes-of-footage

You've all seen the edited, 17 minute video of U.S. Apache helicopters killing two Reuters journalists in Iraq. Some of you may have sat through the 39 minute 'Full Version.". But even this video has a full half-hour of footage cut out from the middle. At 31:08, the video fades to black and—according to the time-stamp on the footage—resumes about 30 minutes later to show an additional missile attack.

The gap was pointed out by The Jawa Report, which clearly has an axe to grind. (They call the video a "perverse and evil slight of hand.") But the fact remains that Wikileaks has passed off this video as the "full version," while the 17 minute clip is the "edited"—even though both are clearly edited mid-footage.

What happened during that missing half-hour? The Jawa Report cites the sworn statements of the pilots involved in the attack. One pilot said in his statement that between the attack on the journalists and the second attack, two events occurred which may have softened the picture of the pilots provided by the video: 1) The pilots went to assist soldiers under attack, but saw a child and other "noncombatants" and held their fire. 2) The pilots saw a red SUV that may have contained insurgents, but held their fire because they couldn't get a positive identification

Update: Wikileaks editor Jullian Assange told CNN yesterday that the 39 minute video is "everything we have. It is a continuous take except for one 20 minute interval." So, Wikileaks did not edit the video themselves—their source did. But the point still stands: both the "edited" and the "full" version appear to have been selectively edited. Why leave in the second attack after the cut? And how can this be called an "uncut" or "unedited" version—the implication being that this video depicts what "really happened"—when 20 minutes of less-incriminating footage was removed? It also deepens the mystery of Wikileak's military source: Who is so disgruntled as to not only leak the video, but also edit out the slightest bit of redeeming footage?

[DGuller]

I disagree. Their editorializing will be appreciated by the very people who are their audience - those who have made their conclusions about what the video shows before they even watched it.

I don't look at this like "Oh, they made an error because they are going to fail to convince some people by doing that..." because I don't think organizations like this are looking to "convince" anyone of anything - they are looking to create some more hysteria and reinforce a certain image of the world that they accept as a matter of course.

In other words, you say their editorializing fails at their goal, and I say it actually does exactly what they want it to do. And it succeeded wonderfully, in this case.

I disagree with that.  This isn't some anti-war blog we're talking about, this is an organization that tries to promote all kinds of whistle-blowing, and which extends far, far beyond US military actions. 

That's why making editorial comments like they did is so counter-productive.  When you're in the business of blowing a whistle, your objectivity is by far the #1 asset.  You want people to listen when you've got something damning to say.

[crazy canuck]

Well, I am not sure I agree that critical thinking is more important now than ever, but yeah, the ability to understand the context and goals of those who are giving you information so you can evaluate it for yourself is of course incredibly important.

For most people, it doesn't really matter though - they simply choose their sources based on what they want to be true, and find one that will tell them what they want to hear.

I am thinking about this in the context of the way I obtained the news when I was young and how my boys now obtain it.  When I was young there was no such thing as choosing a source of news.  There was the CBC - the only channel we got and the Vancouver Sun newspaper.

The CBC had a very good reputation for reliable accurate reporting.

In the US, during the same time, were mor major networks to watch and more papers to choose from, but all were mainstream highly professional news organizations.

You are quite right that now people have choice.  It is that ability to choose the requires the ability to sift credible news from the rest.

[DGuller]

Sure, there were less sources back then, but I'm not sure how reliable they really were.  I suspect that we simply had less means to double check those rare few sources back then due to the oligopoly of the news.

[crazy canuck]

Sure, there were less sources back then, but I'm not sure how reliable they really were.  I suspect that we simply had less means to double check those rare few sources back then due to the oligopoly of the news.

Well, I can only comment on the news I obtained.  Because the CBC was the only news network that was accessable by all Canadians it was subject to a high degree of scrutiny which, in part, added to its reputation for reliability and accuracy.

But in today's 24/7  news network, blogging, online news kind of world a similar form of scrutiny of our news sources not practical and so the burden falls entirely on the consumer of news - which leads me back to my comment about the increased need for critical thought.

[Berkut]

I disagree. Their editorializing will be appreciated by the very people who are their audience - those who have made their conclusions about what the video shows before they even watched it.

I don't look at this like "Oh, they made an error because they are going to fail to convince some people by doing that..." because I don't think organizations like this are looking to "convince" anyone of anything - they are looking to create some more hysteria and reinforce a certain image of the world that they accept as a matter of course.

In other words, you say their editorializing fails at their goal, and I say it actually does exactly what they want it to do. And it succeeded wonderfully, in this case.

I disagree with that.  This isn't some anti-war blog we're talking about, this is an organization that tries to promote all kinds of whistle-blowing, and which extends far, far beyond US military actions. 

That's why making editorial comments like they did is so counter-productive.  When you're in the business of blowing a whistle, your objectivity is by far the #1 asset.  You want people to listen when you've got something damning to say.

I look at it differently.

You say "Hey, your objectivity is really important to your mission of being whistle blowers, you shouldn't do things that damage it so much!" and I look at it and say "If they cared about appearing objective, they clearly would not do something that is so obviously NOT objective - QED, they don't care about objectivity, QED they aren't really in the business of being objective whistle blowers" even if appearing to be in that business might be useful to their actual business.

[Razgovory]

Some people are so entrenched in their position that they no long know what being objective is.