Are you saying that completely editing an interview - including doing a voiceover to explain what the candidate was “trying” to say - in order to hide obvious, significant incompetence and make the candidate falsely appear more appealing is not “election interference”? Then would you include hiding an incriminating laptop so that the candidate falsely appears to only have engaged in legal activity, as something that is also “not election interference“?
CBS was obviously aware of the negative impact that her original statement could have on the election, or they would not have edited it.
Are you saying that completely editing an interview - including doing a voiceover to explain what the candidate was “trying” to say - in order to hide obvious, significant incompetence and make the candidate falsely appear more appealing is not “election interference”? Then would you include hiding an incriminating laptop so that the candidate falsely appears to only have engaged in legal activity, as something that is also “not election interference“? CBS was obviously aware of the negative impact that her original statement could have on the election, or they would not have edited it.
Isn't this basically how advertising works? Political commercials and messages are heavily edited. Every candidate wants to make themselves look good.
If it’s advertising, then it should be presented as advertising.
Presentation of propaganda as fact should be illegal. And I understand it was illegal until Obama
They are presenting a falsehood as an actual event. This is election interference.
If they had simply cut dead air out of the conversation to keep time limits; that is fair game imho
That is the difference. And the standard that should be applied to anyone’s interview