trump lawyer lays out the msm (on both sides).

[ZenMaster]

He's delivering information to the viewers with his own slant. The guy got bent out of shape after this lady defined "doctored evidence" in the context of this trial. She wasn't expressing an opinion of her own there. That was a leap when lawyer goes straight to asking if that's not enough for her. You don't think a PBS anchor would have clarified doctored evidence for their viewers?

I disagree, the way she's laying it out as "what you're referring to as doctored evidence", and then the presents three elements by themselves as something not necessarily particular nefarious.
You are here as well talking about ""doctored evidence" in the context of this trial".

Doctored evidence is doctored evidence, it's that simple.

So this is how she's laying it out for her viewers:
- There was a blue verification check mark which wasn't there originally.
- There was a date that was read as 2021 when it was supposed to read 2020.
- Selective editing is what YOU say, referring to the lawyer.

She could have laid it out like this:
The chairman took a tweet, faked the date and source while adding certain edited clips to the event in order to present is as evidence in this case.

Since she presents it in this way for her viewers where they could be convinced to believing that the lawyer is putting too much into it, "hey it's just a blue check mark and everyone edits video these days", I don't think the lawyer is wrong in assuming that it's not enough for her to cover the situation in the manner it deserves.

If there was an impeachment trial for Obama and evidence was literally doctored against him, you guys would be going nuts.
You simply have no shame and you play partisan politics to a tee, rooting for your side(team).

A government official took events in a tweet out of context, changed the date and source to try and fit the context to todays narrative in order to try and impeach a former President. It's super corrupt, but not really surprising and it won't matter in the minds of people as long as the media downplays it, like in this interview.

[Charlie Sheen]

I disagree, the way she's laying it out as "what you're referring to as doctored evidence", and then the presents three elements by themselves as something not necessarily particular nefarious.
You are here as well talking about ""doctored evidence" in the context of this trial".

Doctored evidence is doctored evidence, it's that simple.

So this is how she's laying it out for her viewers:
- There was a blue verification check mark which wasn't there originally.
- There was a date that was read as 2021 when it was supposed to read 2020.
- Selective editing is what YOU say, referring to the lawyer.

She could have laid it out like this:
The chairman took a tweet, faked the date and source while adding certain edited clips to the event in order to present is as evidence in this case.

Since she presents it in this way for her viewers where they could be convinced to believing that the lawyer is putting too much into it, "hey it's just a blue check mark and everyone edits video these days", I don't think the lawyer is wrong in assuming that it's not enough for her to cover the situation in the manner it deserves.

If there was an impeachment trial for Obama and evidence was literally doctored against him, you guys would be going nuts.
You simply have no shame and you play partisan politics to a tee, rooting for your side(team).

A government official took events in a tweet out of context, changed the date and source to try and fit the context to todays narrative in order to try and impeach a former President. It's super corrupt, but not really surprising and it won't matter in the minds of people as long as the media downplays it, like in this interview.

What the hell is wrong with you? Where did Obama come from?

What do you mean doctored evidence is doctored evidence? That's called obfuscating. I would like to be able to make that decision for myself than have someone from either side manipulate me. Do you accept the premise racism is racism it's that simple?

Again, I'll remind you that any PBS anchor would have laid out what evidence was doctored for their viewers.

I never said it wasn't doctored evidence. I did not discard it as some small thing who cares. All he had to do was say that's correct. He had the goods. Instead he gets bent out of shape and comes across as insecure.

The real irony is you don't want a neutral media. You only cry fake news when you don't like the flavor of the narrative being fed to you Same with the dude posting right above you.

[ZenMaster]

What the hell is wrong with you? Where did Obama come from?

What do you mean doctored evidence is doctored evidence? That's called obfuscating. I would like to be able to make that decision for myself than have someone from either side manipulate me. Do you accept the premise racism is racism it's that simple?

Again, I'll remind you that any PBS anchor would have laid out what evidence was doctored for their viewers.

I never said it wasn't doctored evidence. I did not discard it as some small thing who cares. All he had to do was say that's correct. He had the goods. Instead he gets bent out of shape and comes across as insecure.

The real irony is you don't want a neutral media. You only cry fake news when you don't like the flavor of the narrative being fed to you Same with the dude posting right above you.

Obama was an example of how hypocritic you all would be if something like this happened to him.

If a government official changes the date on a tweet, added a blue verification mark and edited video to fit to the narrative presented, then that's doctored evidence. It's not some opinion you can have whether or not it is, as it's by definition not real evidence when changed put together by a person/entity.

The PBS anchor was laying out what "the layer claims to be doctored evidence". But again, the evidence being doctored is factual, so there's no need for her to refer to it as only a claim, unless she's trying to steer the conversation a certain way that is.

You see this kind of coverage as neutral and that's how they get you, because of this you are here now talking about doctored evidence being used in this case as some kind of opinion and instead of worrying about the issue at hand(that faked evidence was used against a former President in an impeachment trial), we're talking about the behavior of the lawyer like that's the big deal.
It's called controlled opinion.

The interviewer assumes when it fits the narrative she wants to present and acts neutral and as only presenting things objectively for the viewer when that fits her narrative.
Watch the interview again at 1:15, she's explaining the thoughts of the lawyer about whether or not there was an insurrection instead of asking him a question about it.

Edit: And I definitely would like neutral media, I don't watch MSM because of the state it's currently in, trying to get you to think a certain way - and that goes to both sides.

[oldtimer28]

Great video