Pelosi Clashes With Facebook and Twitter Over Video Posted by Trump

HU-885118952

(and loses)


Nancy and her henchman demanded FB take down an edited video from Trump's SOTU, which highlights Nancy's contempt for so many Americans, best illustrated by her ripping up the President's speech in which he recognized these cherished fellow citizens. War heroes, victims of illegal alien crime and young black girl wanting a better education in a school of her choice.

Clearly, they assumed the unwashed masses were unaware of Trumps SOTU, and Nancy's hissy fit, tearing his speech to bits, and would believe the video is what happened in real time, rather than be a mash-up metaphor for her contempt of us, and our country.

Another loss for Nancy.

Nancy's utter hubris is only matched by the irony here. In a feckless attempt to falsely impeach our President, Democrats read a PARODY of his phone call with Ukraine into the OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

And Nancy supported this, what should be a crime.

There are plenty of edited Trump videos floating around on those social media platforms...but not a peep (or tweet) from Nancy or her minions (until now).

Free speech and America, Nancy. Love it or leave it.


Pelosi Clashes With Facebook and Twitter Over Video Posted by Trump

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-clashes-facebook-twitter-over-163011039.html

Facebook and Twitter have rejected a request by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to remove a video posted by President Donald Trump that was edited to make it appear as though she were ripping a copy of his State of the Union address as he honored a Tuskegee Airman and other guests.

The decision highlighted the tension between critics who want social media platforms to crack down on the spread of misinformation and others who argue that political speech should be given wide latitude, even if it’s deceptive or false.

The debate has accelerated during the 2020 presidential campaign, as Democrats in Congress have demanded that Facebook and other tech companies take tougher action while figures on the right have argued that such policing could muzzle conservative viewpoints.

Into that highly politicized environment came the video posted by Trump to his Twitter account Thursday.

The roughly 5-minute clip shows Pelosi repeatedly ripping his speech in between snippets of him paying tribute to the airman, Charles McGee, as well as other guests he had invited to the State of the Union, including military families. In fact, Pelosi ripped a copy of Trump’s speech immediately after his address to Congress on Tuesday.

Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff, on Friday demanded that the video be removed.

“The American people know that the President has no qualms about lying to them — but it is a shame to see Twitter and Facebook, sources of news for millions, do the same,” Hammill wrote on Twitter.

“The latest fake video of Speaker Pelosi is deliberately designed to mislead and lie to the American people, and every day that these platforms refuse to take it down is another reminder that they care more about their shareholders’ interests than the public’s interests,” he wrote.

But both companies rejected the request.

Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesman, responded to Hammill on Twitter, writing, “Sorry, are you suggesting the President didn’t make those remarks and the Speaker didn’t rip the speech?”

Hammill shot back at Stone, writing: “What planet are you living on? this is deceptively altered. take it down.”

On Saturday, Stone said that the video did not violate Facebook’s policy on manipulated media.

The policy states, in part, that Facebook will remove videos that have been edited or synthesized “in ways that aren’t apparent to an average person and would likely mislead someone into thinking that a subject of the video said words that they did not actually say.”

In the case of the video posted by Trump, “the reason I was making the point about the fact that the things featured in this video actually happened is because that’s a key element of our policy on content like this,” Stone wrote on Twitter."


SaveComment44Like4
Comments (44)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

What, Nutty Nancy — does the truth hurt?

6 Likes Save     Thanked by HU-885118952
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

Love this video.


6 Likes Save     Thanked by HU-885118952
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

The video should have ended with pelosi saying, "It was the courteous thing to do."

8 Likes Save     Thanked by HU-885118952
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
margaritadina

Next time Dem will think twice before doing something like that.

Besides, it's illegal to rip an official doc.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
51gerri

just another trump lie

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

I love that video too.

I've also saved this one, and I think it's very beautiful. It's from the last three minutes or so of Trump's 2020 SOTU. I really loved the way he ended that speech, and thought it was too bad that Nancy's act of ripping up the speech may have distracted some from thinking about Trump's closing comments.

If you want to rehear the last few minutes, set to stirring images, you might enjoy this too.



5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
margaritadina

''

51gerri

just another trump lie

''

What part of that video is a 'lie' ?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

The video that Pelosi wanted to have taken down was made by Turning Point. Benny Johnson, whose team made the video, makes some good points in this Newsweek article:

"This video was created by my production team at Turning Point USA in response to Pelosi tearing up President Donald Trump's State of the Union speech. The video was produced by interposing quotable lines from the president's speech with footage of Pelosi tearing up the speech.

That's it. Real clips of real things that happened. The video included no deep fake technology, no motion graphics, no footage or audio from other events.

...The irony here is that if social networks were to comply with Pelosi's authoritarianism, they would be ushering in the death of media as we know it.

Taking footage of things that happened, and placing that footage together in a timeline is quite literally how you create all nightly news packages, sports highlight reels, documentaries and instant replays.

The precedent set here would be horrifying.

Would you call a Super Bowl highlight reel "doctored," because the footage of the big play did not show every play before and after in chronological sequence?

Is a news segment "misinformation" when a reporter clips a small part of a politician's speech and runs it?...Journalists writing these headlines should wake up and realize they're writing the eulogy for the entire media profession. If our video is "doctored" and "manipulated," then literally every minute of every entertainment, sports and political media has been doctored and manipulated as well.

https://www.newsweek.com/if-nancy-pelosi-succeeds-censoring-our-speech-ripping-video-say-goodbye-media-coverage-we-know-1486452?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1581282344

2 Likes Save     Thanked by HU-885118952
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catkinZ8a

But muh Vindmans, Sondland and Yovanovitch.

2 Likes Save     Thanked by HU-885118952
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catkinZ8a

Zuck knows what side his bread is buttered on.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

I think Johnson makes a good point. If cutting portions of a speech, and interspersing them with words from the speech, is considered "doctored" or "misinformation," as Pelosi's staff says....how is that different from all the news clips we see every day on all of the news channels, with footage clipped together with chosen sound segments?

2 Likes Save     Thanked by HU-885118952
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Newsflash! Paul Ryan really didn't throw Granny off the cliff!

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

I think Johnson makes a good point. If cutting portions of a speech, and interspersing them with words from the speech, is considered "doctored" or "misinformation," as Pelosi's staff says....how is that different from all the news clips we see every day on all of the news channels, with footage clipped together with chosen sound segments?

Mudhouse, it's like this: "The Art and Technique of Film editing for Narrative or Persuasive Purposes: Volume I: Very, very easy to understand."

Send you a copy when I write it. I had thought the need had passed once Battleship Potemkin showed so brilliantly how it was done. Sorry Mr Eisenstein. Some people just don't get how easy it is (and oh how happy the advertising industry is that that is the case).

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

Dems have lost it--no longer losing it.

Nancy had her hissy fit at the end of her life for all the world to see.

Now she wants it taken down and poofed.

News clips gone forever? Go pound sand Nancy.

3 Likes Save     Thanked by HU-885118952
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

Rina,

Sounds like you have special knowledge, although you made no effort to explain how assembled clips in President Trumps message are different than messages assembled by the MSM.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Pelosi can't have it both ways. She's an old hand at this, so she knew what she was doing. Her protestations are all part of the show, folks.

You think she didn't see her antics being used in political ads? Of course she did.

But dmn the torpedoes, she was going to do it anyway. So she fidgeted and talked to herself and shuffled the papers and partially tore the papers and looked off into space and rolled her eyes and refused to sit still with a neutral countenance because she wanted the attention.

Well, she got it.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

Exactly!

Another one that doesn't know when to leave the party.

LITERALLY!

1 Like Save     Thanked by HU-885118952
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

Words have meanings. "Hissy fit" can not be made to refer to the very definite, silent, measured, tearing up of a document. That is not what a hissy fit is. This is what a hissy fit is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-gVK4AXpFc.


Of course running the images of her ripping up the speech is not something she can object to. It's the editing she can object to.


Adoptedbyhounds: Yes I have specialist knowledge. I charge for teaching. You need a bit of understanding and background to get it. Go find out something about editing and persuasive communication, you're no student of mine.


4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Pelosi can object to editing all she wants. It's not a misrepresentation of what she did. She did rip up Trump's speech and what did she call it all?

Lies.

That includes every individual mentioned and honored.

Stan, they hypocrisy has never been thicker. Just look at how the Left has and continues to misrepresent and frankly, outright lie about Trump's "very fine people' comment.

They have no moral high ground on which to stand and in fact, Pelosi once again attacked Trump with that lie, in defense of her despicable and treasonous act.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

lol!

Trump had a hissy fit.

Words do have meaning and not all "teachers" know these meanings. Obviously.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

Rina,

Thanks for confirming you have special knowledge about persuasion and editing.

I had hoped you could give us an informed opinion on what makes the MSM using edited clips different from the President using the same editing techniques and resources. I didn’t anticipate a pay wall.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

Stan, they hypocrisy has never been thicker. Just look at how the Left has and continues to misrepresent and frankly, outright lie about Trump's "very fine people' comment.

Hmmmmm? and Hillary's 'basket of deplorable' comment doesn't ring a bell? Pot or Kettle?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
margaritadina

/\/\ no, Hillary's statement doesn't ring the bell. It's very different in nature.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Rina, yes, anyone who selects footage and sound, and assembles it into a product, can control the meaning of the final piece by making those decisions. They can use that product to persuade.

The point made by Johnson is, that same process of choosing and assembling is what happens every day with the news presented by the main stream media.

Do the presentations differ, depending on the narrative preferred by the reporter, editor, or network they're aired on? Of course they do.

That's why you can see the same exact event reported on different news networks, and come away with completely different understandings. It's why we argue here about which networks are more truthful.

We live with the understanding that decisions are being made when presenting clips and choosing audio. We can also live with that understanding when we're watching a political video as well. People have brains.

Telling people something has to be pulled from public view because they disagree with the opinion of the person who assembled it is blatant censorship.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

Yes--Pelosi demands blatant censorship to deprive people of evidence of her behavior and words in a most public setting acting in a publicly entrusted role.


Her demands are also shameless desperation to hide the latest of her series of stupid decisions.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Dear Nancy,

Sarah Palin never actually said, "I can see Russia from my house". And Pelosi came out against that misinformation, right?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

Pelosi come out against an SNL skit? Nah, those only upset trump. Nancy has a sense of humor, trump has no sense at all.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
margaritadina

''Nancy has a sense of humor''

Been anti-American is now called ''having a sense of humor''? OK.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

I call poppycock on this.

trump at one of his rallies said this: "...knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise. They won’t be so much, because the courts agree with us too — what’s going on in this country.”

So if I edited in trump saying that on tape with, oh, say other images of a bunch of KKKers beating up on a black guy, you'd be fine with that because both are true, both happened, no different than edited tape on the nightly news?

Somehow I don't think so.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

Adopted, I apologise for being snippy yesterday. I have a health problem and my filters are way down.

You have to look at the specific intent in each particular case to determine if there is or isn't a difference that would be relevant here. It could be argued, and would be by many sensible people, that the edit in question is an attempt to lie -- to make the statement that "while the president was saying these fine things" Pelosi was tearing up the speech in which he said them -- i.e. it makes a direct and inaccurate statement about what it was Pelosi was rejecting.

Stan: Yes--Pelosi demands blatant censorship to deprive people of evidence of her behavior and words in a most public setting acting in a publicly entrusted role. Utterly inaccurate, she hasn't asked for the suppression of any footage that merely shows her behaviour. What she wants suppressed is a completed creative work -- the edit -- that uses footage of her to imply something that isn't true.

Mudhouse: The point made by Johnson is, that same process of choosing and assembling is what happens every day with the news presented by the main stream media.

The comparison is disingenous. The process is neutral.

Telling people something has to be pulled from public view because they disagree with the opinion of the person who assembled it is blatant censorship.

The editor's opinion is not the problem. The problem is the implication of simultaneity to state a motivation on Pelosi's part for which there is no evidence.

Now, is that enough for her to have the right to have it pulled merely because it's a lie? I don't have a strong opinion on that -- there are obvious limits to freedom of speech; I'm not sure this a lie too far


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

RINA

Stan: Yes--Pelosi demands blatant censorship to deprive people of evidence of her behavior and words in a most public setting acting in a publicly entrusted role. Utterly inaccurate, she hasn't asked for the suppression of any footage that merely shows her behaviour. What she wants suppressed is a completed creative work -- the edit -- that uses footage of her to imply something that isn't true.

No, you are inaccurate.

I didn't see any left wing support for President Trump when the left wing media repeatedly showed his Igor schtick and then accused him of intentionally making fun of a handicapped man.

EVERYDAY media shows actions out of sequence and audio as well.

Even the dumbest of people know that Nancy Pelosi was not allowed to stand up and rip up that speech after each one of those people was introduced. How ridiculous!

The video did not even suggest that--it was emphasizing that that is what Pelosi thought of each of those human stories contained in the speech, which was EXACTLY what she did to dishonor them, AND President Trump AND his supporters.

The American public knows exactly what she did and exactly what the clip demonstrated. To contend otherwise is an insult to the voting electorate of THIS COUNTRY. To adopt her non existent position is trying to save an already drowned victim.

Now that Nancy has had her hissy fit seen across the world (by the way setting back decades of women contending they can contain their emotions in the work place and here--the world stage)--which it WAS--she wants her hyper indulgent fit expunged because it only played to lib base and now--well general election and all.

Nancy proved she is no stateswoman--Nancy Pelosi proved she is now just the lead bitter old bat.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Rina, I hope you feel better. I find it hard to participate on discussions here when I'm not at my best (sometimes, even when I am) and I appreciate your replies. I think it's an interesting topic because it deals with persuasion, and important because it deals with censorship.

The comparison is disingenous. The process is neutral.

It would be a better world if the process really was neutral, but it's not. MSM is influenced by the pressures of financial reality, and most of the news they present is shaped into a product that appeals to one side or the other. They all have a brand, and they all have bills to pay.

Scott Rassmussen: "78% of voters say that what reporters do with political news is promote their agenda. They think they use incidents as props for their agenda rather than seeking accurately record what happened. Only 14% think that a journalist is actually reporting what happened... If a reporter found out something that would hurt their favorite candidate, only 36% of voters think that they would report that.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/08/18/rasmussen_new_poll_shows_voters_trust_national_political_media_about_the_same_as_they_trust_wikipedia.html

That's the actual backdrop behind Pelosi's request to pull the video, claiming it presents 'doctored' or 'misrepresented' information. That's why nobody believes (including Twitter and Facebook) that her claim is accurate enough to do what she asked.

People know that Nancy didn't re-rip the speech seconds after each American story in Trump's SOTU. To meet the standards that Pelosi is claiming are required to be fair, most of the country's main stream media (and most of the content currently allowed on Facebook and Twitter) would have to be shut down.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

Been anti-American is now called ''having a sense of humor''? OK.

Laughing off an SNL skit is now anti-American? Nyuk, nah, Nancy is just Anti-trump.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

Adopted, I apologise for being snippy yesterday. I have a health problem and my filters are way down.

Rina- no matter how much we disagree on Trump or perhaps on many things, I wish you the best with your health problem. Stay strong!

2 Likes Save     Thanked by HU-885118952
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl (FL zone 9B)(9b)

If Nancy could run against Trump she would win hands down. She is a goddess.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

lol! Good one. :^)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

Pelosi a "goddess?"

More like a decrepit succubus.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
margaritadina

''Rina

I have a health problem and my filters are way down.'' Hope you have a speedy recovery, Rina. I myself am recovering from the surgery, and I am with you on filters lol: )))))

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl (FL zone 9B)(9b)

Nah, the squinting succubus lives in the White House.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

Who would that be?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl (FL zone 9B)(9b)

The one wearing the mop on her head.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

I have no idea of whom you reference.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

Thanks, Margaritadina, and a quick recovery to you, too. And thanks to Mudhouse and QueenM and forgive me if I've missed anyone. I'm a tad wobbly so not going to continue my part of this conversation now -- a pity, it is a fascinating topic. It just needs saying that the audience does not have to believe that what they are seeing is literally true for the connection to me made as though it were, powerfully in the conscious mind and (I've read) and rock solid in the subconscious.

Save    
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
Most Popular 7 Tips to Sell Your Home Faster to a Younger Buyer
Draw today's home buyers by appealing to their tastes, with these guidelines from an expert decorator
Full Story
Life The Question That Can Make You Love Your Home More
Change your relationship with your house for the better by focusing on the answer to something designers often ask
Full Story
Decorating Guides Holding Out for Quality
Cheap furniture has its place, but more shoppers are waiting to invest for the long haul
Full Story