Tape issue my ass, their editor just watched a Max Headroom marathon.

the washington post got a full-on kick to the balls by matt taibbi from rolling stone magazine:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/washington-post-blacklist-story-is-shameful-disgusting-w452543

and washpo comes back with a doubling down and STILL no sources!
washpo is down!
washpo is down!

washpo is trying to get back up and recover some credibility by a condescending and defensive editors note!
from washpo:"Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list."

oooh no folks...washpo's facile excuses simply cannot muster any belief in their integrity!
they have been exposed as the muppets they are....those poor real journalists!

Okay

I just took a long walk to have lunch. As I walked, I noodled and noodled on my Homeland comment (if it isn't obvious by now, I use that comment all the time.) How to give it context so as to not give the wrong impression? How to keep it short, given how complicated the context is?

Finally realized the power of the snark. Parentheses. Those communicate quickly.

Still needed more. Has to be short.

I sat to eat my lunch, and opened the book of essays I was reading. (I always read while eating if alone.) And there it was.

So. Would you be interested in being my editor for this project? Help me hone it? Get it succinct? (If you are interested, I have a great story about the Broadway musical Guys and Dolls struggles to be succinct. Came to mind when I stumbled on the idea of parentheses.)

Okay. Here goes. Let me know if you would like to help me get it right:

As "Homeland Security" says, if you see something, SAY something. (Meant to be read snarkily. Because here is the truth: As Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel said: "Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.")


It is still long. I'll have to copy and paste a long time before I remember it. But it provides context and I hope it communicates that you cannot confuse me with a Brownshirt.

Some of it is bad editing, but even perfect editing can't fix something that is broke. For example, he talks about the hard cut from Flagg realizing they'd made a mistake bringing Witch along, to learning what happens on the radio... what if that scene wasn't filmed? The editors couldn't keep it on that scene if the only one filmed was the radio reaction. Now if it was filmed, then cutting to the radio reaction was a bad choice.

if some of the payoffs weren't written or filmed, that isn't bad editing, that is bad film making.

Also, black text on a dark background on the thing isn't the editor, that's somebody else's job... who messed up.

Now of course perhaps when he's talking about editing, he's not specifically talking about the job the editor did, but the decisions that may have forced their hand, or perhaps the editor should have caught those things and ordered a reshoot to fix them...

There were some bad cuts where I'd have to think they'd have coverage, but there was so much going on with this movie, it's hard to tell what went wrong where.

This is a movie that I really wanted to love, and while I didn't hate it, I wasn't really impressed, it was meh, and on the bad side of meh at that. I think the short script period is to blame, then the studio jumping in when it hadn't allowed for proper development.

Now what I'd love to see is his take on Alien 3, and how good that could have been before the studio jumped in and started changing stuff. so even a good edit couldn't fix it (I still enjoy it okay, but I think the path the script was heading down before the many re-writes was far more interesting).

So I'm at 3 minutes and Cenk has laid out a (pretty reasonable IMHO) argument about why he's voting Hillary.

Any reason I need to watch the next 16 minutes?

'cos TYT still really needs an editor who understands the word "concise"...

I love Snopes. Of course, the devil is in the details:

"The editor of the biographical text about Barack Obama which was included in the booklet maintained that the mention of Kenya was an error on her part and was not based on any information provided to her by Obama himself:

"Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients.

"'You're undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time," Goderich wrote. "There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.'

"A New York Times article about Barack Obama published in 1990, a year before the Acton & Dystel promotional booklet was issued, correctly identified his birthplace as Hawaii.

"A variant of this item paired the image shown above with the statement "Big Oops! Harvard Law Review did not cleanse its 1991 yearbook which states he was born in Kenya." As noted above, the biographical sketch pictured above was put out by a literacy agency; it was not part of any yearbook published by Harvard."

! Nice. Technically, no, but I see how it could be read that way. They need a better editor. They should call my mom, she worked at Stanford for decades as lead editor.
Clearly what it means is , 'the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher from those associated with daily consumption of processed meat. (for example, for lung cancer from smoking, there's about a 20 fold, or 2000% increased risk, while for colorectal cancer from daily eating processed foods there's about an 18% increased risk).
I'm pretty sure you're intelligent enough to understand that.

1. I tend not to like lists like these, so I always ensure that at least some answers are completely made up. In protest I will not reformat this list to make it more readable.
2. I was quite good at fencing. I was Irish national sabre champion, but that's a lot less impressive than it sounds.
3. I won Miss Fencing Intervarsities 3 years running. I'm male.
4. I'm a Monty Python fan to an unhealthy degree. I co-wrote the first Python FAQ online, based on actual questions that were asked frequently.
6. I have called every living member of Monty Python 'Michael' except Michael Palin. I called him Terry. None of them called me on it.
7. I have what amounts to a secret crush on someone here on the sift. They always say what I'm thinking, but far more eloquently than I ever can. I grin when they upvote me.
8. I have a Scaramanga-style extra nipple.
9. I have a son. My girlfriend's waters broke while I was watching Alien. I'm more proud of the second part than the first... lots of other people have tiny pet humans.
10. I was once kicked in the head by Armand Assante (a b-list-ish actor).
11. I can sing the names of about 20 particularly nasty diseases.
12. I'm batman.
13. I've been online since the 80s, but at this stage the web is pretty much read-only for me. I'm more active here on the sift than anywhere else, and that's not saying much.
14. I was in Russia during the 'invasion of Georgia' in 2008. In fact, I was in the mountains bordering the two countries and saw the situation almost first-hand. Before then I had little confidence in the news we get here in the west; now I have almost none. Stuff broadcast as fact was (to me) easily proven false at the time, and the subsequent UN report backs up my side of the story.
15. I teach tai chi.
16. One of my happiest memories is not sleeping with a hot (and very cool) Norwegian woman.
17. I once ran a marathon backwards. It's not as easy as it sounds.
18. My grandmother owned race horses, including one who holds a significant record in Cheltenham. She's quite famous here in Ireland (to a certain generation at least).
19. Online (and sometimes off) I tend to use anagrams of my name. The idea is that it's hard to find Noims from my real name (until someone ruins that), but not too hard to go the other direction. My avatar is based on the same principle. There are at least 3 other Noimses online, but I was the first.
20. My favourite piece of software is the vi editor (specifically gvim). I have no idea what my favourite book, music, or non-python film are.
21. I'm a keen gamer, but most offline. I hate Steam. I've been playing Nethack since the 80s, and still play in the devnull competition yearly... it's the longest running online game tournament there is.
22. I think one of the worst facts in the world is that marketing works.
23. I was in a metal band called the Bubonic Duck-Fuckers from Hell (BDF).
24. I used to be big into RPGs (role playing - not rockets). I once got first prize in 3 games in a single weekend convention with 4 game slots.
25. I love the number 12, and know all the powers up to 12^12. Consequently I dislike the number 5. I strongly tend to favour multiples/powers of 12 over those of 5.

@newtboy
@ChaosEngine

It's incredibly chilling to me that your comments got any upvotes at all. Yeah, I get it's a joke. But in the current political climate where people (i.e. Trump and his frighteningly large number of supporters) are actually talking about walling off an entire nation to keep out "undesirables" and killing the relatives of terrorists in some misguided attempt at revenge, it's a joke in poor taste.

Furthermore the anger behind the joke (and there is clearly anger since you guys are joking about sterilizing and killing people) is misguided as well--you put a camera in front of any political supporter and try to goad them into saying something that is clearly in direct opposition to what their party's line is and you're going to get a bullshit answer, regardless of whether you're interviewing a Democratic or Republican.

On that note, it would be interesting to see this same bit at the DNC with the reporter asking questions about gun control and the NRA--I'm sure you'd get some great clips of people being uninformed and stubbornly resistant to facts as well. And make no mistake-- what we're seeing here are the "best of" clips that some editor picked out to show Republicans in the worst possible light. I would really love to see the raw footage and see how the people they chose not to show on TV reacted during the interviews.

Both. They must interpret the meaning/definition of the law before they can interpret whether actions are in compliance.
No, that IS judicial scope. It's what those that lose call 'judicial activism', but you never hear a winner call it that.
Judges interpret the words AND the meaning of laws. They often 'read between the lines' to determine what they think was intended, not just what was specifically written. That's not new or out of line, it's how it's always worked.
True, it creates a minefield of interpretation of written laws that may not completely jibe with the exact verbiage in the written laws, but they are documented in the decisions.
No, I'm not forgetting those laws, I'm disputing your statement that "Again, it's a matter of what people are willing to enforce.....If everyone is on board with twisting the rules, then that's the norm." Populist feelings do NOT effect the law, only legislation and interpretation do.
Until recently, there was nothing to show that the 2nd amendment addressed individuals. That's why Washington DC had a complete hand gun ban, and that case is what changed the meaning to include individuals instead of simply regulated militias.
Eminent is a word I might use to say 1) conspicuous or 2)prominent (especially in standing above others in some quality or position). I think the latter is how it's used in this case, not the former. EDIT: I expect most people confuse it with the word "Imminent".
My mother is a professional editor, so I admit I'm more familiar with odd words than many people. (Most people didn't have to read the dictionary or encyclopedia while they sat in a corner for being bad as a child). I think if you ask the populace about many legal terms, or really any >3 syllable word, most people won't know the actual definitions.

The game is fucking awesome, but I think you are right that it doesn't really warrant a $60.00 price tag. I feel more convinced of this after paying $25 for the latest Fallout 4 expansion, Far Harbor - DOOM for $60, Overwatch for $40 and Witcher 3's latest expansion Blood and Wine for $19.99.

Blood and Wine is a god damn exemplary piece of video gaming. The amount of content and quality in that *expansion* surpasses most AAA games and all of the aforementioned games - for less.

Anyway, back to DOOM gripes; most of the side missions are fucking way too linear and aggravating. There's nothing special about the multiplayer and the Snapmap thing is basically a level shitter-outer.

That said, the multiplayer was created by an external team but Id software are working on correcting the multiplayer. If they correct the multiplayer and make something interesting out of it, release a real editor to get a decent mod scene going - then I think the game would be worth $60.00 for quite a while and they could go all Blizzard about it and keep it at that price for years.

Where to start……
The forced laughter when someone’s buddy is filmed wiping out - AH hahaha AH hahaha

99.9% of “selfies”, I despise that word. I don’t want to see your pasty bloated pimply mug so close-up like we’re jammed in a fuckin elevator and I can count your nose hairs. Wearing either the blank dumb look people have when looking at their computer screen or camera phone, or the overly gleeful shit-eating ventriloquist dummy look, All it takes is a camera lens to make people go ape-shit, like a baby making faces in a mirror. When did that shit become normal?

Any kind of rambling monologue with the subject weighing in on the stupid shit of the day, like they are some wise head of state being interviewed on some crisis. Or filming themselves narrating at the scene of some non-event, like they are Edward Murrow reporting on the London Blitz.

The vast majority of trend videos, like “Things New Yorkers Say”, etc. They generally have high production values but ZERO talent on the actual writing. The “punchlines” are usually weak or non-existent, apparently there’s no such thing as out-takes anymore. It’s usually weak material followed by long pauses, which I guess if you drag it out long enough it somehow becomes funny. “Modern Family” and “The Office” have beat that non-punchline pause to death. “Spinal Tap” was the only mock-umentary that ever worked, everything else is just weak.

Idiots who edit videos and who don’t have the basic sense to accommodate people who haven’t seen the material. I’m watching a video on YouTube of vacation snaps from someone’s trip to the mountains of Chile, and they leave each photo onscreen for about 1.2 seconds, with the editor’s goal to use every single transition available in the editing palette to move on to the next picture. It’s amateurish.

Someone else mentioned videos with overly long intros\titles and I agree. It's not "Gone With the Wind", it's a video of your dog pissing in your living room, just get to it.

Back in a few, going to pour my second cup of the day. :-)

First up, "directionless YT rambling".... agree so much. This show really needs an editor. "concise" is not a bad word, guys!

As for the rest of the comment, much as I don't like it personally, employers have a right to set a reasonable standard of dress, especially if your job is public facing. So yeah, if she turned up to present the weather topless or something, I think they could reasonably ask her to cover up.

Personally, I think people in general need to get the fuck over our collective hangup about nudity (and especially the idea that strangers of the same gender can see you naked, but those of a different gender can't, i.e. changing rooms etc).

But that's not the way the world works at the moment.

Your video, How does a film editor think and feel?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 21 Badge!

This thing needs english subtitles!

BTW this has to be the saddest stage and lighting I have ever seen for a PV. They got the good camera angles, and an editor who knows his shiat, but those lights...I have seen better in highschools! And almost no time spent on the routine.