Washington Post article on selective editing by anti-gunners

**Spats McGee** · January 23, 2013, 09:46 AM

Here's an interesting article on The Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...cd5b_blog.html

I can't see the videos here at work, due to our firewall, but the article looks like one of which we should be aware. It deals with selective editing of a video, which was then run as an anti-gun message. It's from the WaPo's "Fact Checker" and the video got a "Three Pinocchio" rating, out of a possible four.

Closing The Gap · January 23, 2013, 09:59 AM

At least they're balanced and link to the misleading NRA ad as well. I think nothing is gained when both sides stray from the facts.

Baba Louie · January 23, 2013, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Mark you this, Bassanio,

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

An evil soul producing holy witness

Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,

A goodly apple rotten at the heart.

Oh, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!

As it is, it has always been, apparently. Eh? Even the Good Bard knew oh so long ago. And yes, it worketh both ways.

Brian Pfleuger · January 23, 2013, 10:21 AM

The most amazing part of that is that they only gave it 3 Pinocchios. If that only gets 3, I can't imagine what it would take to get 4.

carguychris · January 23, 2013, 11:48 AM

Quote:

The most amazing part of that is that they only gave it 3 Pinocchios. If that only gets 3, I can't imagine what it would take to get 4.

It's explained in a link at the bottom of the WP article:

Quote:

The Pinocchio Test
Where possible, we will adopt the following standard in fact-checking the claims of a politician, political candidate, diplomat or interest group.

One Pinocchio
Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.

Two Pinocchios
Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.

Three Pinocchios
Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.

Four Pinocchios
Whoppers.

IOW blatant and outright lies about Rep. Barrow would be required to earn four. The ad falsely twists and exaggerates his positions, but it does so by using symbolism and implying guilt by association, rather than by making any explicit statements. IMHO three is appropriate.

January 23, 2013, 09:46 AM	#1
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	Washington Post article on selective editing by anti-gunners Here's an interesting article on The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...cd5b_blog.html I can't see the videos here at work, due to our firewall, but the article looks like one of which we should be aware. It deals with selective editing of a video, which was then run as an anti-gun message. It's from the WaPo's "Fact Checker" and the video got a "Three Pinocchio" rating, out of a possible four. __________________ I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

January 23, 2013, 09:59 AM	#2
Closing The Gap Senior Member Join Date: January 2, 2013 Location: Las Vegas Nevada Posts: 258	At least they're balanced and link to the misleading NRA ad as well. I think nothing is gained when both sides stray from the facts. __________________ Half the country hates my business, the other half my hobby.

January 23, 2013, 10:21 AM	#4
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	The most amazing part of that is that they only gave it 3 Pinocchios. If that only gets 3, I can't imagine what it would take to get 4. __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley