Anti-gun media type gets completely owned in interview.

[steve-o]

That "tv journalist" was an amateur, he didn't have control of his interview for a second. It was GREAT.

 

[GaryH]

That old dude just wasn't very good at his job. The more professional liberal media host would have been talking all over what was being said by the gun proponent making what was said unintelligible.

 

[mitchntx]

<==== been in the biz since 1979.

That old dude just wasn't very good at his job. The more professional liberal media host would have been talking all over what was being said by the gun proponent making what was said unintelligible.

The audio engineer in the booth slowly raisrd the gain on the interviewers voice level and lowering that on the interviewee.

Also, the floor director alters camera angles. Cam 1 was a two shot and was about eye level. Cam 2 was on the interviewer and slightly lower so that it appears the audience is looking up, giving the feeling of importance. Cam 3 was on the interviewee and was slightly raised, looking down on him, giving the appearance of weakness.

An old and almost unperceptable ... inperceptable? ... trick that makes the interviewee appear weak and the interviewer strong.

 

[M. Sage]

But honestly, for the average anti-gun joe or jane out there, fear is their reaction 100% of the time to being around a firearm, especially handguns. Most of them are anti-gun because of the fear. Fear born out of ignorance and fed by being told by the professional anti-gun establishment (those who have an agenda) that a gun is something other then what it is. That it is somehow different then a hammer or wrench or any other implement in a toolbox because this inanimate object possesses intent in a person's hands.

The interviewee was right when he called it projection. I loved that part.

<==== been in the biz since 1979.




The audio engineer in the booth slowly raisrd the gain on the interviewers voice level and lowering that on the interviewee.

Also, the floor director alters camera angles. Cam 1 was a two shot and was about eye level. Cam 2 was on the interviewer and slightly lower so that it appears the audience is looking up, giving the feeling of importance. Cam 3 was on the interviewee and was slightly raised, looking down on him, giving the appearance of weakness.

An old and almost unperceptable ... inperceptable? ... trick that makes the interviewee appear weak and the interviewer strong.

Imperceptible.

 

[mitchntx]

LOL ... knew it didn't sound right ... its been a long day.

 

[M. Sage]

LOL ... knew it didn't sound right ... its been a long day.

I'm a geek.

 

[mitchntx]

I'm a geek.

And I graduated from a Texas High School.

So I guess we both have an excuse.

 

[AcidFlashGordon]

IDIOT... Police are trained LOL! as an officer, i will say i know a lot of officers who cant shoot worth a crap. NYPD had a great example of that a few months ago ey?

Yep. I sent a letter to Mayor BanEverything (Bloomberg) asking him as to whether the NYPD was going to be disarmed as well as civilians, seeing as how ALL the injuries of innocent bystanders at the Empire State Building shooting were caused BY the NYPD officers.

Strange that I've received no response..........

Concerning Morgan, he's a bloody liberal idiot, unfortunately with an audience of similar liberal idiots.

 

[ROGER4314]

That was a good flick and well worth seeing. We need more guys like him representing us!

Flash

 

[General Zod]

Why do people who know absolutely nothing about guns try to argue in a gun debate? Do they realize how stupid they look to the world?

A lot of them simply don't understand their own ignorance. They hear talking points and media phrasings, compare those against what they see in movies and on TV, and assume they know what the facts are. These same people don't react well to being presented with verifiable facts on the subject they've told themselves they know so much about.