I don’t think that most people would consider showing only part of something to be editing.
Anything that changes context is editing imo. Even a direct (partial) quote can be significantly different in meaning with full context.
Shudders hundreds of new posts in the Trump thread.
Opens Thread All about the British Royal Family for some reason.
4 Likes
I’m getting the sense Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source.
1 Like
I am sure the daily mail has never partially quoted anyone.
Seems like their case is nonsense.
1 Like
Except only using part of a quote is a daily tool of media. Representing that might mean something more or less than it does is the livelihood of a place like the DM.
Their argument is to quote someone requires you to list the whole quote and all surrounding context is hypocritical and absurd.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ImIncorrigible/status/1370775408916975622
https://mobile.twitter.com/Nadine_Writes/status/1370677878145363970
3 Likes
Maybe Oprah should not stoop down to the level of the Daily Mail.
Perhaps, but that’s not a question for a lawsuit.
There’s a middle ground for sure.
So basically this became the low content lets discuss scumbags thread, no longer specific to Trump? I’m cool with that, maybe time for a title change though?
Well they should be at least Trumpian with Trump adjacent behavior. Racist Ron Johnson, etc. ??
Holy shit , I had no idea Bill Hicks was this awesome. He would have wrecked Trump if he was still alive.
7 Likes
- So brutal
1 Like
Bill Hicks GOAT
3 Likes
Doesn’t look orange enough. Cheeto dust must cover that, usually.
Lol, this same post has been tweeted about Trump since the day after his election in 2016.