Bloomberg Circulates Doctored Video Of Debate Moment On Twitter

[rascal_crone]

Very Trumpian.

If I was a billionaire, I think my ego would be a lot less fragile.

[khaaannn]

Keep on Fucking that Chicken.

It was not an “accidental” video, nor was it a “commercial” trying to get you to buy Chic-Fil-A for lunch.

It was a Paid Political Advertisement SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to lie to you, hoping you are too stupid or too jaded to care that a deliberate LIE was being presented as FACT.

It says volumes about Bloomberg and his Organization that they would do this, and arrogantly think they can get away with it.
It also says volumes about you and your motivations for trying to “spin” it.

[zenicetus]

@26degreesrising

I also think that you are conflating the dissemination of doctored videos that purport to be true, and with the express purpose of making people believe that they are true for political advantage, with advertising. To me advertising is something of an art form, and I make judgments of both print and media ads as such. And as advertising I’d say that this ad does make the point it was intended to make, and Bloomberg got his money’s worth.

Even in advertising there are laws to prevent blatant misrepresentation of the thing you’re actually selling. The AFLAC ads aren’t selling a talking duck, or they’d be in big trouble.

I used to work in advertising, one of the grunts behind the camera. We could doctor a great-looking semblance of a steak with painted “sear” lines, glycerin sheen, and dry ice “steam” if it was used in a lifestyle ad selling condominiums, and not the actual steak. I was really good at peripheral “lying” like that in advertisements. I could make anything look fantastic in an ad, but I couldn’t actually doctor the core product beyond what it could ever be in reality, without getting the agency and my art director in trouble.

In a political ad, you’re selling the politician and their policies, their strengths and the weaknesses of their opponents. That Bloomberg clip from the debate makes all the other Dem candidates look weak in response to Bloomberg’s question. It’s a lie, and it shouldn’t be allowed. I repeat that we’ll have no room to criticize the flood of this kind of thing (and worse) from the Republicans, if we allow our own Democratic party candidates to do it.

P.S. I know there is a “fight fire with fire” argument to be made here, but I don’t want to live in that kind of media world if I can help it. Drunk Pelosi was bad enough.

[26degreesrising]

@zenicetus

That Bloomberg clip from the debate makes all the other Dem candidates look weak in response to Bloomberg’s question. It’s a lie

Put that way, I see your point better. I’d still say it’s effective advertising, but I have to admit since the product isn’t cheeseburgers, perhaps this shouldn’t be allowed. I’ve actually always thought that the advent of television enabled the death of honesty in political campaigning. But that’s water over the dam.

I worked in advertising for a while myself. Not production or account management. The creative end, also behind the camera. Were you a food stylist?

@khaaannn

Keep on Fucking that Chicken

Thanks ever so for the input. You go fuck yourself. If you can find that part of your anatomy you need for the activity. Jerk.

.

[cervantes]

@jinnj

regret? maybe a bit … a self inflicted kill shot ? nope

My impression also.

[dannydorko]

In the video, Bloomberg turns to the row of his fellow candidates and asks: “I’m the only one here, I think, that’s ever started a business, is that fair?”

It’s much more fun to watch the video after imagining that Bloomberg said “I’m the only one here, I think, that’s ever sexually assaulted a woman, is that fair?” instead.

[cervantes]

@zenicetus

The AFLAC ads aren’t selling a talking duck, or they’d be in big trouble.

No kidding. Trading in endangered creatures is a federal crime.

[haddockbranzini]

I am beginning to suspect that Bloomberg is the reason the GOP made is so difficult to primary Trump. They must have known he was coming and figured there’s just be no way he’d even attempt to run as a Democrat.

[dannydorko]

I’m inclined to agree with you. But, I would not call it being “smarter” at those three things. I prefer “more adept at” or “more criminally inclined toward.”

[mondfledermaus]

@dannydorko

I prefer “more adept at” or “more criminally inclined toward.”

Totally agree, much more appropriate, but I just getting old and sometimes words fail me. Can’t go to the thesaurus for each word I write…

[aiddon]

Pretty much; this hand-wringing over Bloomberg is pathetic. He is not somehow more electable or qualified than anyone who made that debate last night, in fact he’s shown he is the LEAST electable and qualified out of all of them. If he can’t take Warren doing that to him in a primary he wouldn’t last one minute in a general.

[dannydorko]

@rascal_crone

If I was a billionaire, I think my ego would be a lot less fragile.

If I were a billionaire, I wouldn’t have the time to nitpick other people’s grammar.

[rascal_crone]

Seems to be the pasttime of hundredaires however.

[timorwig]

We hate you but we love your money.

[mondfledermaus]

@dannydorko

If I were a billionaire, I wouldn’t have the time to nitpick other people’s grammar.

Trust me billionaires have a lot of time, they just pretend to be very busy… see Donald Trump.

[timorwig]

@jinnj

a self inflicted kill shot ? nope

I agree. As political fibs go, this is paltry compared to, say, Hillary flat-out lying about being “under sniper fire” in Bosnia, or Biden plagiarizing back in the day.

[dannydorko]

Um, I’m not sure that he is a billionaire.

[jtx]

62 billion can buy alot of editing.

[jtx]

The name spin is appropriate.

[not_so_fluffy]

It’s Florida. The person in the lead never wins. It has something to do with a Supreme Court ruling.