Is it legal for a Republican ad to take out the word "really" when Michelle Obama

[Quixote1818]

said: "For the first time in my life I am (REALLY) proud of my country."

FOX News did this and now an ad out does the same thing. In the ad, the editing is so perfect, it sounds like she never misses a beat. Seems to me this is more than just taking something out of context but tampering with someone's exact words. Aren't there laws that forbid that kind of thing? After all, if you can take out words from a sentence and splice things together campaigns could have a field day deleting words to make one another look worse. Where do you draw the line?

[RoyGBiv]

1. Yes n/t

[ErinBerin84]

2. I think she did the speech a couple of times at events

and in one version, she said "really" , and in another version, she left out the really. The GOP needs to get over this, most people who wouldn't vote for Obama because of this weren't voting for him anyways, it's making them look desperate.

[TheDebbieDee]

7. I agree with you that anyone using the Ms. Obama's "proud" vs.

"really proud" statement as a reason not to vote for Obama wasn't going to vote for Obama anyway!
and it doesn't make these people look desperate as much as PATHETIC!

[NYC_SKP]

3. Others will correct me if I'm wrong on this.

But I remember really being pissed for the same reason and writing MSNBC.

Later, it became pretty clear to me that she had made more than one appearance on that day, hit some of the same talking points, and used the word, "really", in one but not in the other.

If that's the case, it's still fucked up of them to select the one without the word.

And if it's not the case, then they've misquoted here AND doctored a videotape, and must be punished.

:kick:

[PurityOfEssence]

4. Personally, I think it reeks of revisionism and running for cover on her part

The really damning moment--without the "really"--was first, whereas the one with it was later that day. To me, it seems like she was trying to cover for a mistake; there's something halting in her delivery of the qualified one that just makes me feel like she was trying to provide some plausible deniability.

It's definitely going to be used in a much more arch and insinuating way than she meant it; she was talking about people's political involvement. Even so, it's a truly boneheaded thing to say, and you're going to see it plenty more before November.

[World Citizen]

5. this is old recycled stuff.... what does that tell you

THAT THEY GOT NOTHING!!!!!!

as hard as they are trying, so far they can't make a dent.

be prepared though, much worse is yet to come

[parasim]

6. If it's the video of when she gave the speech in Milwaukee...

they didn't have to edit it out... she didn't say "really" in that speech. However if it the one from Madison, where she did say "really" but the doctored it by lowering the volume of the word "really" then i would think that perhaps it would be illegal...

Still, the whole issue is nonsense because you can still love your country but not be proud of it.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. She gave two speeches.

One in which she said "really" and one in which she didn't.

There is one version of the "really" speech that appears to be edited, but I think it was just a glitch in the audio - which I *think* came from c-span, but I wouldn't swear to it. But the glitch has been in that one version since I first heard it on CNN.

But it's not a deliberate attempt to alter what she said, since she DID say it without the "really".

But more to the point, what law would it break? In theory, she could have a civil action for slander but a few things argue against that:

- she's a public figure, so the bar is much higher
- she actually DID say it without the "really" so it's not a deliberate attempt to defame her
- does the presence or absence of the word "really" substantially change the meaning? I don't think so.

[WinkyDink]

9. Yes. And for MO to correct it would only continue the issue.