Planned Infanticide hired a "media forensics firm" - Fusion GPS, which normally does oppo research for political campaigns - to analyze some of the videos. You can find their report online. They concluded that the videos were edited - well duh, of course they've been edited. They also noted a few bits of audio that they're not sure were correctly transcribed. This was enough for PP to hand the report to its media surrogates to gin up some favorable headlines. But they also said the "analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation...." They also said there was “no evidence of audio manipulation.”
Hell, the videos are mostly time stamped so you can tell when time has been cut.
you put the ellipses on the wrong end of the actual quote. CMP did too, so prob not your fault.
Fusion GPS outlined 42 instances in which CMP edited out content from the short as well as so-called full versions of the tapes, several of which were secretly recorded. The company also identified instances in which context was eliminated, minutes of film were deleted and transcripts released by CMP did not match what was said on the tapes.
The report concludes that the degree of manipulation means the videos have no "evidentiary value" in a legal context, can't be used in "official inquiries" and lack credulity as journalism. Those findings are a direct response to CMP's arguments in court -- while fighting efforts to prevent it from releasing more video -- that it is protected by the First Amendment.
But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no "widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.
Thank you for including that additional information on the report, but nowhere does it say that any of the edits were misleading. It simply identifies a lot of time cuts (well duh - that's editing), and says that the video have no evidentiary value because of the edits. Again, that doesn't mean the videos were edited in a misleading way - just that the edited versions would not be admissible in a court of law. Again, that's obvious, but irrelevant.
Ultimately - and here's the important part - the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no "widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.Despite this conclusion, the media painted a very different picture of Planned Parenthood's paid report, which appears to have mislead folks like Mocat into believing that the edited videos are actually misleading.