Following the Las Vegas Democrat debate last week, Democrat candidate Mike Bloomberg’s online team put together a rather funny short video. The video depicts Michael Bloomberg on the debate stage saying: “I’m the only one here that I think that’s ever started a business. Is that fair?”
Obviously, the point of that was to highlight the fact that he was the only one that has any history in starting or even running a business, in response to the idea of having any of the socialists on that stage deciding what tax rates businesses should pay.
While originally, that little moment earned two seconds of silence because no one else on that stage had started a business, the video extended that time, with some scenes of the other candidates just standing there in complete silence and with some cricket noises added in to the background.
Obviously, it was meant to be humorous, which considering the utter lack of charisma and humor from the candidate himself, the campaign was in deep need of.
However, since the Left generally does not have a sense of humor, many in the mainstream media have sought to accuse Bloomberg and his team of producing a “doctored” video, saying he was intending to deceive people into believing there actually were 22 total seconds of silence from all the other candidates, until Bloomberg said “okay”, in the end.
While other MSM sources apart from The Washington Post discussed this in panels (because there definitely aren’t other things to attack Bloomberg over. Buying the primaries? Who wants to talk about that?), let’s focus primarily on what The Washington Post did which was to write an article on it, writing: “Late in the ninth Democratic debate, Bloomberg made this comment: ‘What I was going to say, maybe we want to talk about businesses. I’m the only one here that I think that’s ever started a business. Is that fair?’ Two seconds passed, and no one else on the stage answered. Bloomberg said, ‘Okay,’ and moved on.”
“The video takes that minor moment and stretches it to 22 seconds, with reaction shots that make the other candidates look troubled, embarrassed or confused. The video is silent except for cricket sounds… This is a case of what our guide (to “doctored” videos… yes, they really have one) labels as ‘Deceptive Editing,’ specifically a subcategory of ‘Omission’: ‘Editing out large portions from a video and presenting it as a complete narrative, despite missing key elements, is a technique used to skew reality.’”
Basically, they are completely taking seriously a video that was very clearly intended to poke fun at the other candidates and drive the point that Bloomberg was the only one that actually started a business, so in theory, he should have the most expertise on the topic of how the government ought to treat businesses (which is not necessarily true, because this guy is just as much of a commie as the other people on that stage, just hides it better than the rest). If anyone at all was actually convinced that, for a full 22 seconds, not a peep came out of any of the other candidates, that person needs to get himself an education.
Seriously, no one was deceived by the video because the video was not intended to deceive anyone. And yet, the WaPo says: “More than 2 million people had watched the video seven hours after it had been posted, so this is not a minor matter.” It isn’t a minor matter if you actually believe any one of those 2 million people could be or have been deceived by the video and would be more willing to support Bloomberg because of the “narrative” the video supposedly drives.
This is how little they think of the regular person, that they cannot discern reality from a “doctored” video. They actually believe “manipulated” videos like these can cause harm and willful disinformation. It’s not simply a matter that they do not have any sense of humor at all (though that’s also true); it’s a matter that they outright do not believe people have the intellectual capacity to tell that this video was edited and people need to be told that it was, and that the platform such videos appear on ought to do something about the video, otherwise it could cause people “harm”.
That word has been used so inappropriately and so regularly that it has lost its meaning. It used to be that something was harmful if it caused physical pain or injury, or maybe even psychological pain. But now, something can be “harmful” if it hurts your feelings and if something is simply untrue, even if it’s meant to be funny.
It’s the major reason why comedy is dying, because no one can stand a joke anymore if it isn’t directed at Trump or conservatives in general. Something can be deemed “harmful” for sensitive people if it simply is a matter of disagreement. It’s the excuse given by communists in social media for shutting down conservatives who dissent from the communist thought-group.
That Bloomberg video was, in itself, not harmful to anyone and anyone that claims it is harmful is either ultra-sensitive and would not be taken seriously by anyone who is remotely rational, or someone working for the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, willfully deceiving people (while ironically not being accused of causing any harm as a result of their disinformation).
The Washington Post ultimately gave the Bloomberg video “Four Pinocchios”, saying: “Political ads can be fun and entertaining, but they shouldn’t be misleading. Anyone who had not seen the debate could have been easily misled into thinking the other candidates stood there in stunned silence for nearly half a minute. We’re taking a tough line on manipulated campaign videos before viewers are flooded with so many fakes that they have trouble knowing what is true. The Bloomberg campaign should label this as a parody or else take the video down.”
A few things to say about this. First, that wasn’t a political ad. It was a political video because the topic was the debate, but it wasn’t an ad. Bloomberg has spent far more than anyone else in this race on campaign ads. You know a Bloomberg ad when you see it, and that video was clearly not a political ad.
Second, no, not anyone who did not watch the debate would’ve been easily misled into thinking the other candidates just stood there in silence because no one (I would hope) is quite that stupid. It was pretty clear that the video was not trying to say that they all stood there for a full 22 seconds without saying a word. No one who has seen a debate would believe that anyone would go that long without speaking, including the debate moderators or even the audience.
Third, spare me the b.s. white knighting against “doctored” videos. “We’re taking a tough line on manipulated campaign videos before viewers are flooded with so many fakes that they have trouble knowing what is true.” Give me a break. Do you see why I said that these people think low of you? They really do believe you have the intellectual capabilities of a fish on drugs and you need to be watched over and your hand held throughout these campaign videos so you can be told what is real and what is not.
It only sounds to me like the guy takes far too much pride in the pathetic work that he is doing, believes himself to be a hero draped in a cape, saving the populace by pointing out that an obviously fake video is fake (shall we call him “Captain Obvious”?), and is utterly patronizing of people he believes are nowhere near as intelligent as he is because HE works at the oh, so prestigious Washington Post, which is a bastion of intelligence, integrity and truth (ignoring that they had an op-ed recently saying that the elites in America should have a bigger say in our elections, so Democracy Dies in Democracy, apparently).
No, Glenn Kessler (the guy that wrote this WaPo article), you are not “taking a tough line on manipulated campaign videos." You’re taking seriously something that is not supposed to be taken seriously by anyone because you have no sense of humor at all and could not identify comedy if it threw a pie in your face.
I don’t like Bloomberg at all, believe him to be every bit the communist he says Bernie is (and actually is), and is completely dry in humor and as charismatic as drying paint, but the video that his team put together earned a bit of a chuckle from me because I could understand perfectly well, as well as the other 2 million+ people that watched it, that it was meant to be humorous (again, for a campaign whose candidate is utterly lacking in it).
Next thing you know, the WaPo will give the “why did the chicken cross the road” joke “four Pinocchios” because they question the reason a chicken would cross a road in the first place.
Now, one little theory that I have with regards to this (though I have no tangible proof, so take this with a grain of salt) is that the MSM is actually reacting like this on purpose. We know how much many of them dislike Bernie, and Bloomberg did a terrible job in his first debate. I wouldn't put it past them to run with this as cover to distract people from that terrible debate performance. Whether it was collaboration between the Bloomberg campaign and the MSM, or the Bloomberg campaign with the DNC and the MSM, I have no idea.
Again, I have no proof of this and it very well could be that these people really are just this stupid (they have proven to be this ridiculously intellectually deficient in the past), but it is interesting how the topic of conversation is that video now, and not the terrible performance from Bloomberg.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...