Copied below is an anonymous outlined message I received regarding “An Open Letter to Diana Medley of Sullivan, Indiana.”
Subject line: Diana Medley was set up.
“They [WTWO-TV/NBC 2] abused the power of mass media and the right of exclusive report. In order to “make” story, they capitalized on the tensions of the controversy and emotions (or hurtful experience) of [the] community, defamed Diana Medley and provoked public outrage.”
WTWO-TV/NBC2 News’ report would be just another bland, common story about conflicts between homosexuals and Christian values, if not for the shining part – Diana Medley’s short interview clips. As all viral videos are man-made, let see if this hot story is different.
1. The focal point of the report is always Diana.
- It was planned this way. The News team would agree, as shown from their work:When doing controversial story, the least a reporter wants is getting him/herself (or his/her image) caught in association with either party. See how Paige Preusse managed to disappear from the picture throughout the whole report? Not only did we never see her face, we did not even have a chance to hear her voice recorded live in any interviews (but narrated) EXCEPT when she asked Diana the controversial question.Paige asked, “… you know … a gay person, umm, you know, do you consider them, maybe, they are … they have some sort of purpose? …in …in life, do you think it’s just a … “Remember how neutral, calm, or even cold Paige’s voice was throughout the report? Not here. She stuttered it out and could not even say the last word… it must not be anything good but sensitive. Then, why didn’t they replace her voice by narration like in all other interviews? Because the viewers have to see and hear it themselves to believe, otherwise, they may question or doubt the creditability. Hot story or not, this clip with Diana is the key. Hence, Paige took the risk here. This is the only place in the whole video where her voice was recorded live. Diana was picked.
2. For time restriction (and other concerns), you don’t get (or need) to see the whole picture.
- In answering Paige, Diana shared her belief about homosexuality.She said, “I believe it’s a choice that she made. I don’t believe that they were bo… born that way. I think that life circumstances made them choose, and I think God made everybody equal.”Do you notice Diana mentioned “she”, and then used a broader term “them”. Paige must have been asking her a question that involved a homosexual woman. Diana answered, in response to that woman’s case, and thinking that the belief also applies to all homosexual people in general, she switched from “she” to “them”. What exactly did Paige ask? Who was the homosexual woman she mentioned? Viewers would never know since that part was edited out.TV time is money. Better squeeze in more commercials than keeping trivial or unwanted parts. This is an obvious spot to notice this technique in use. If you pay attention, you’ll find it everywhere.
3. Show shorter version on TV broadcast. Trimmed with style.
- At one point in the interview, Diana shared her belief and stand point.She said, “I have kids come to me because of their sexual preference. And they know, I don’t agree with it, but I care about you. Hmm… and the same thing for special need, you know. God put those people in our lives for different reasons.”This part is omitted on TV broadcast [missing at timestamp 01:47]. (See it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsnDntYSP9E, uploaded by a Youtuber, 1969AKP)
- Why a different version for TV viewers (more TV viewers than online visitors?) and why this part?Let say they must reduce the length of this report for unknown reason, which interview would they trim out? The one with high school students? With Jim Davis or with the Pastor? Well, from item 1) above, we know Diana was already chosen. But Diana has several appearances: one is neutral, one can be neutral or negative (depends on the viewer), one is negative, and the said one is positive. Which one would you choose? Well, the News team chose to remove the one above that makes positive impression (that shows she is caring and respectful but also stands on her ground). So what left for TV viewers to see are only bad (and neutral) impressions of Diana.Notice it was edited out at video timestamp 01:47. In other video transitions, one clip dissolves quickly into another, but here, they use a different transition, a bright flash. It’s like a video editor’s signature, whenever we see this signature; we know that something important was edited out. Let’s call this signature, “You’ve been had”.
4. Incomplete question, incomplete answer. No explanation allowed but put on a new spin.
- A man spoke frantically into the phone: “My wife is pregnant and her contractions are only TWO MINUTES APART!”“Is this her first child?” the doctor asked.“No! No!” the man shouted. “This is her husband!”It’s funny to see how the same statement was interpreted in different contexts.
- Let’s go back to the Diana’s interview, the controversial part.Paige asked, “… you know … a gay person, umm, you know, do you consider them, maybe, they are … they have some sort of purpose? …in …in life, do you think it’s just a … “. (As dictated from the TV broadcast).This question is not complete. There are holes in it. It is common sense that we all have purpose in life. (How did they come up with such peculiar question in the first place?) When a question against common sense is asked, (and then someone actually answers it), certainly a previous conversation exists. In addition to common sense, other information was based to develop to that discussion/question. Do viewers get to see what Paige and Diana were talking before? They do not. As pointed out in item 2) above, unwanted parts are omitted in interviews. Hence, viewers do not have enough information to understand their conversation in the right context, but have to fill in the gaps by drawing from own experience and imagination.Watch Diana’s expression. She took deep breath, looked at Paige, smiled, thinking, breathed out, all in a short moment, and said: “… I … I … I don’t. I… I… I personally don’t. I’m sorry. I just … umm. I don’t understand it.”Diana could grasp the idea of the question without Paige first completed it. By this action alone, again, we know a prior discussion exists. But again, since it’s omitted in video, viewers do not have enough information to understand the question and the answer in right context but have to guess.So far, Diana never gave runaround or smooth talk. She had always been giving specific answers with details and supporting reasons. She would not just stop at saying “… I don’t understand it” and end the conversation. She was expected to elaborate on her answer. As a matter of fact, she was about to. But check the video at 00:39. What do you see? Yes, you know it! “You’ve been had” again! Instantly after Diana said, “… I don’t understand it”, before she had time to say anything else, we see a quick flash of bright light, and then the video jumps to another clip of Diana on another topic. Her explanation was intentionally removed. That next clip of Diana, elaborating on an otherwise irrelevant topic, was placed there as a dummy (It feels unnatural and out of place), in case any careful viewers, looking for Diana’s explanation on her incomplete answer, raise questions.
Her incomplete answer is put on a discriminating spin, being singled out from prior discussion and her explanation.
5. Polish and polish, until it looks professional and trustworthy.
- Read the official report online here: http://mywabashvalley.com/fulltext?nxd_id=292862
- It is ok to revise report before publishing. (Notice how interview dialogs are summarized all over places in the report). But it should not cross the line where the story or meaning of a person’s dialog gets altered.
- As discussed in item 4) above, in regard to controversial portion of the interview, we understand there was a previous discussion (omitted), then Paige’s incomplete question, then Diana’s incomplete answer, then Diana’s explanation (omitted), (then maybe some other discussions), then Diana’s elaboration on another topic.
- In the report, all of above are oversimplified into one polished, complete paragraph. This paragraph officially turns Diana’s incomplete answer into the most discriminating comment:“’So the same goes for gays? Do you think they have a purpose in life?’ No I honestly don’t. Sorry, but I don’t. I don’t understand it. A gay person isn’t going to come up and make some change unless it’s to realize that it was a choice and they’re choosing God,” said Medley.The stutters, hesitation, incompleteness (and the actual meaning of what she said) are all gone (that explanation glued there is still irrelevant and out-of-place), yet something she never said was added. Diana never used the word “honestly”. The News team crowned her as “honestly offensive”.Furthermore, Paige’s own voice in the live audio was edited.Paige asked, “… you know … a gay person, umm, you know, do you consider them, maybe, they are … they have some sort of purpose? …in …in life, do you think it’s just a … “.
You’ll find Paige’s “umm, you know” in the TV broadcast version [01:49] but not in the web version.(Does it make it sounds more professional? less dubious? Or, more faithful to the written report?)
This story was reported by WTWO-TV/NBC2 News exclusively, meaning they are the only source, we do not have a second opinion. It appears professional, neutral and authoritative at first, but is it genuine, truthful and does it report the true story? Unfortunately, the answer is No. And it’s far from it.
As explained above, WTWO-TV/NBC2 News team intentionally removed Diana Medley’s credit, singled out her comment to distort meaning, hid key information from viewers to mislead; changed her dialog on written report, manipulated and even edited live audio footage.
They abused the power of mass media and the right of exclusive report. In order to “make” story, they capitalized on the tensions of the controversy and emotions (or hurtful experience) of community, defamed Diana Medley and provoked public outrage.
Is it fair to judge a person’s whole being by less-than-a-minute appearance on an edited video interview from one source? Did we give her the benefit of doubt, or give her an opportunity to explain?
Who benefits from this? Who got expended? What’s your role in this?
May justice prevail.
- What if… After long years serving God in church, community and school, in turn of events, everybody misunderstood, despise; even some church people drew their lines… What’s the point? (There’s still hope)
- What if… Striving for success using all means, but when the truth revealed in the end, all trust that’s built gradually over long years was lost… What’s the meaning? (There’s still hope)
- What if… Excelling in and enjoying life, fighting to convince others of own life style, rejected salvation. After life ended, and then realized the Bible is true, there is a God, He is righteous. And people not saved are responsible for their own sins, and suffers in hell for eternity… the life that’s lived… What’s the purpose? (It’s too late)“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” – Romans 3:23“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” – Romans 6:23“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” – John 3:16“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” – Romans 10:9
Be encouraged to read the Bible, which is from God. If you disagree with or have question in the Bible, ask God. Ask Him to answer your questions. Read it, see for yourself. Give God a chance, give yourself a chance. If the Gospel / Bible is not true, you lose only hours; but if it is true, you cannot afford to miss it. May you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior.
Official report: http://mywabashvalley.com/fulltext?nxd_id=292862
TV broadcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsnDntYSP9E
Diana Medley’s controversial interview: http://vimeo.com/60358100