Videos as citations or references

[Charles Anthony]

Inspired by the

#1 video on google.ca in the Bursting Bubbles of Gov't Deception thread.

I do not think there is a right or wrong answer for this one. However, I think it is worthy of debate.

Providing a link to a video as a reference or a citation to support a claim or an argument in an internet forum is lame.

I would still like to afford it some validity but it certainly ranks up there with:

- using poor grammar

- writing illegibly

- writing in a foreign language

- a doctor explaining a diagnosis to a patient with over-your-head technical jargon

- linking to a poor-quality PDF file which is nothing more than a scanned image file as opposed to coded text

- misfiling or hiding your book in the back of the library where nobody can find it

- excessive use of sarcasm

None of these situations condemn the validity of an argument but they make them less convincing.

If a video is to substantiate a claim or an argument, it would be more convincing if a selection of the transcript is provided or a reference to the timing. For example, "Chicken Little explains why the sky is falling -- fast forward to the 3h46m16s mark -- in this highly entertaining but unnecessarily over-produced video." Otherwise it is ridiculous to expect somebody to watch an entire video.

My main beef is that on the internet, the more readily accessible the information, the better it is conveyed. Videos are not as accessible as plain text. Now, when an Opening Post contains only a link to a video, I am prejudiced against the thread and the author. I believe the author should be more responsible by putting more work into substantiating the claim. The reader should not have to repeat the grunt-work of an author's research.

I realize that this is a question of degree. A balance between "more easy" and "less difficult" is subjective. However, I would expect that the longer the duration of the video, the less likely anybody -- other than the choir! -- will endure the preaching.

---

Along the same lines and if we forget about videos, a link to an article without any quoted relevant text is lame also.

---

I would also like to add that linking to anything other than a webpage is lame too. (word-processing files, audio files, picture files, video files are all bad style). However, such is life.

[ScottSA]

It's not ideal, but it's like linking to Time magazine in an academic treatise. It hurts the credibility of the writer, but what are ya gonna do?

I'm far more distracted by Figleaf running around tattling on everyone. Is there something that can be done about that?

[DogOnPorch]

My main beef is that on the internet, the more readily accessible the information, the better it is conveyed. Videos are not as accessible as plain text.

Unless you have high speed internet and a good computer...then it's all about the same.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.

---Bill Gates

[PolyNewbie]

If you are talking about 911 and want to prove higher temperatures than burning fuel, you could get people to see the "meteorite" as in 911Mysteries. Its a big ball of melted concrete and steel that has to be seen to be believed. You can't describe it with text adequately - you need to tell people to watch 911Mysteries to see it.

[Charles Anthony]

If you are talking about 911 and want to prove

No.

I am not talking about that.

[cybercoma]

Posting 'editorial' videos and opinion documentaries should not be considered a relevant citation or reference. If there is a certain fact or piece of information used in the video, the source of that information should be what's cited, not the video itself.

The perfect example is the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, pointing to their favourite opinion videos and trying to use them as facts.

[PolyNewbie]

cybercoma:The perfect example is the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, pointing to their favourite opinion videos and trying to use them as facts.

I've seen most of the 911 videos and I know that they list the piles of actual uncontested evidence that shows 911 was an inside job. The mistake they make is they go to form hypothesis using this evidence. All the evidence does point to 911 being an inside job but every hypothesis for what happened is either incomplete or has evidence to show that it probably isn't valid.

The evidence shows the official version to be highly unlikely based on circumstantial evidence both immediately before(defence stand down, no intercepts) and years before (PNAC etc) as well as immediately after (evidence removal, guilty behaviour, no real investigation, etc). The actual event captured on video (orderly & expedient building collapses) and the hard evidence (thermate, melted beams, "meteorite", pools of molten iron) after the fact shows the official version to be impossible.

The only thing the government story supporters have is the opinion that the fake bin Laden tape is actually bi Laden. None of them will say which confession they believe - the Gitmo confession or bin Ladens confession.

So lets just keep things straight about what is evidence and what is opinion.

[Riverwind]

I've seen most of the 911 videos and I know that they list the piles of actual uncontested evidence that shows 911 was an inside job.

Any idiot can get in front of a camera and make a bunch baseless claims. For that reason, claims made in videos are meaningless unless the are backed up by something written that references sources and explains methodology. Thruthies prefer 'videos' as a way of making their case because it makes it easy to disguise a flawed argument.

[stignasty]

All the evidence does point to 911 being an inside job . . .

Well. . . that's your opinion.

So lets just keep things straight about what is evidence and what is opinion.

My opinion is that in your case this will be unlikely to happen.

[PolyNewbie]

stignasty:Well. . . that's your opinion.

Which 9/11 confession do you believe ?

[stignasty]

Which 9/11 confession do you believe ?

Are you still beating your wife?

[geoffrey]

You beat me to it stignasty.

[PolyNewbie]

You beat me to it stignasty.

Good for you guys, the two questions are not even logical equivalents. Someone "did" 9/11. so, which confession do you believe ?

[stignasty]

Someone "did" 9/11. so, which confession do you believe ?

How often do you beat your wife?

[PolyNewbie]

If you can't answer the question you must think someone else did 911 besides Usama or Kahlid or the secret government / corporations.

[cybercoma]

A bunch of guys hopped on planes and flew them into buildings, that's who "did" 9/11. They're all dead.

[stignasty]

A bunch of guys hopped on planes and flew them into buildings, that's who "did" 9/11. They're all dead.

BINGO!!

[PolyNewbie]

So you believe the Usama confession. Now wasn't that easy ?

[stignasty]

So you believe the Usama confession. Now wasn't that easy ?

You like to jump to conclusions, I said no such thing.

[GostHacked]

Kind of getting off topic now aren't we?

I don't see the harm or problem with linking or using photographs or video footage to prove a point in a post. This is the age of multimedia, and we get information in all shapes forms and sizes. So to not allow one to use photos or video should mean that no one should be able to link to a plain text article.

If the video, photo can be worked into a thread and have it relate to the thread, basicly staying on topic (which many many threads have gone to crap because of off-topicness), then I do not see a problem with it.

What happens when you watch the news? Or do you only read newspapers and text news sites? If they further the discussion of the thread topic then no problem here at all.

[Charles Anthony]

What happens when you watch the news?

Television broadcasters have mastered the art of video editing, mixing and montage. They feed the viewer but do not waste the viewer's time. The broadcaster provides a focussed summary or point of view.

[PolyNewbie]

stignasty:You like to jump to conclusions, I said no such thing.

You have said such things in the past. If it wasn't OBL, then who ?

[GostHacked]

What happens when you watch the news?

Television broadcasters have mastered the art of video editing, mixing and montage. They feed the viewer but do not waste the viewer's time. The broadcaster provides a focussed summary or point of view.

Editing mixing and montage. Feeding me is wasting my time. Educating me and giving me all the raw details lets me decide what I think is really going on. Since there really is no form of investigative journalism, the news is really not being reported. I'd say Blog sites like Crooks and Liars attempt to do the job, but often it is rehashed stuff from the MSM. Some editorials with opinions. Hmm sounds like most MSM out there.

Some of us want more information than the MSM gives us. So sites like Youtube and Google Videos provide another souce of information for us. MSM should not pick and choose what stories to hype the shit out of. As of late the MSM has played the VA Tech shootings over and over and over again till we are sick of them. But other things have happened that are important, but get pushed to the side. Like George Tenant's story of the Pre-War-Intelligence, showing how the Bush admin cooked the books.

Other sites, other video, other pictures can show you much much more than the little sound-bites the MSM playes over and over again. CNN's Headline News and CBC's Newsnet are samples of this 'easily digested, we tell you what is what' news coverage.

Hell most articles that are reference here on MLW from sites like CNN, CBC, BBC, FOX, CBS, all use wire services like Reuters and AP for their articles. So it is the same thing just proliferated around like a cheap whore. Everyone uses the same article in their news sites, references AP or Reuters, and tries to take it as their own coverage. Shameful. So other media helps us understand more than what the MSM can give us.

Some of us are not satisfied with how the MSM covers things. I will continue to use alternate videos/sites/pics to help support my point when posting here on MLW.

[Charles Anthony]

Some of us are not satisfied with how the MSM covers things. I will continue to use alternate videos/sites/pics to help support my point when posting here on MLW.

Do all the research you want. However, do not expect somebody else to re-watch all the videos that you did.

Give a transcript or a summary or a cue-counter so that people can fast-forward to the relevent parts to prove your argument.

If I wanted to prove that Redd Sanford suffered from angina it would be my responsibility to watch all of the videos, identify how many times he clutches his chest wincing in pain and to display clips of each attack. If you want to go back to the original source and watch them for entertainment value, go ahead. It would not make sense to give you an entire box-set and tell you to watch them yourself.

That is what people often do with videos to substantiate their claims.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

If I wanted to prove that Redd Sanford suffered from angina it would be my responsibility to watch all of the videos, identify how many times he clutches his chest wincing in pain and to display clips of each attack. If you want to go back to the original source and watch them for entertainment value, go ahead. It would not make sense to give you an entire box-set and tell you to watch them yourself.

That is what people often do with videos to substantiate their claims.

Indeed, just because Mr. Sanford had 'acute angina' doesn''t mean he was a hermaphrodite. I, too, am suspicious of big business media, but a thousand links from certain posters here who believe in 'altenative truth' doesn't make anything they say more credible.