Given Pretti’s past interactions with law enforcement, I found this blog post very interesting. I have never heard of this guy Hudson & cannot verify if he’s real. He makes a cogent argument for the tragedy that unfolded. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QePoawDA_48
Love your writing and explanations - joined Substack *just* to give you some props, and it shows a very interesting trend.
The really sad part is that only ~238k people have even *viewed* the directors-cut version of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2TRbFmutrw, much less watched the thing throughout. The key thing here is that *only* that one has requirements and licensing -- "To use this video in a commercial player or in broadcasts, please contact licensing@storyful.com."
People are so busy focusing on AI or not that they're missing the core question - who would say this and why? Your boy Dan was *absolutely* there, a journalist would actually ask the unidentified man "Sorry to bother you, but what's going through your mind?" at which point you'd have something *insanely* useful for a documentary, and meet the journalism criteria 100%. Also, this story conveniently drops right when the government is trapped in trying to convince people to disbelieve what multiple people saw from their own eyes and ears with *multiple unaffiliated* perspectives. It's another award if you get his mental state before his murder. That never happens.
I like how Dan goes on to explain why he's not AI, and has a really... odd shot in the first video. Where he's fully there and has a full face in-camera shot where nobody else has that. Fun fact: AI detectors are notoriously garbage. Humans have better vision for it because they can evaluate context *outside* of the shot. Nobody ever shows the full 19 minute video, because it's super weird and *100%* not AI and has a licensing fee. The context of the others gets cut every time.
Context:
- Storyful is "social news and *strategic intelligence*" - a News Corp shop to whitewash/obscure/"protect businesses" using AI and OSINT (hint, I love how all these investigative reporters claim to be OSINT specialists but can't even do the most basic checks) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storyful - "define the news, not react to it" - the client list is hilarious "CNN, ABC, Fox News, NYT, WaPo, ABC, BBC, YouTube" etc. Also that neat little diddy about how Storyful actively compromised reporters to *watch what they were looking at*.
- "But they're still not us!" -- you're right. That's just a convenient second-source you can cross-reference when people press X to doubt. (Before the Shapiro footage "shows up"). It *might* be of importance that your present founder/CEO came straight from Storyful so he knows the game.
- It would be a shame if your CEO's stated objective was to "monetize" your followers. https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/the-news-movement-caliber-investment/. Hope you liked Substack, because "what if we could monetize people's trust in us and selectively 'enforce' those values" - plus that Qatari money hits different.
Video Highlights:
- There are ~5 people there at the start, the framing is pretty good. Note how nobody's really... doing anything?
- Dan shows up at 14 minutes (calibrates your cameraman at ~15:30) - probably does an interview at 16:40)
- Has *zero reaction* to someone coming up and yelling at ~17:00. Points straight at camera 2 *while it's zoomed in* at 17:16 (probably just coincidental - but the massive camper on top of that RAV4 is probably where the filming gear was stored)
https://substack.com/home/post/p-184478672 - your previous post says it perfectly - "You can call it journalism, but if it lacks any of the defining features of the profession — you know, interviews, analysis, explanation, fact-checking, historical context, effort — does it really deliver on the fundamental promise to capture our life and times for your audience?" -- "Protest coverage with no interviews or insight, dreadful indeed." But hey, "creator economy" pays.
The news blowup isn't even worth mentioning. It's basically "anonymous sources" that report to an agency, who reports to another, who reports back to / cross references the other, with stories they dynamically update in the "new media!" format to make it retroactively coherent. I'd love the old TNM video before it was re-uploaded short-form on the 29th. The one that every "agency" ran with. That camper-top on the (RAV4? Maybe?) is camera crew 2. Photo gear is expensive. Lies can travel the world before the truth can get out of bed. Every other reported story gets something else wrong (did he stop his car? where was the family? where's the context?)
I wish you the best. Seriously. I'm not asking "Walter Cronkite" level stuff, because we're navigating a post-truth economy and he actually went out there and took truth to power. Media capture has been functionally completed (as well as regulatory capture, and executive capture).
What did the story functionally do?
- Brought a lot of focus to TNR to build the brand
- Kept the left on something they agreed on already "don't kill innocent people"
- Left the rabid members on both sides saying insane shit.
- Sparked an AI vs. non-AI thing which wasn't even the point (although it's funny that everyone's demanding AI regulation, but the powers that be refuse to implement it - more information asymmetry). If you could make an AI god you would make more money than Christianity and the Mormons and Musk ever did *combined*.
- Gave the current administration something to distract with, then have to further retract, so that one's kind of cool but idk.
Subversiveness and showing people how to think for *themselves* is really hard to do, and the "alternate universe" part of your writeup is the best.
can you send me an email? would love to chat through all of this. sooo much good stuff in your reply, i feel very honored that you took this time to reply and want to give that attention back!!
Given Pretti’s past interactions with law enforcement, I found this blog post very interesting. I have never heard of this guy Hudson & cannot verify if he’s real. He makes a cogent argument for the tragedy that unfolded. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QePoawDA_48
Love your writing and explanations - joined Substack *just* to give you some props, and it shows a very interesting trend.
The really sad part is that only ~238k people have even *viewed* the directors-cut version of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2TRbFmutrw, much less watched the thing throughout. The key thing here is that *only* that one has requirements and licensing -- "To use this video in a commercial player or in broadcasts, please contact licensing@storyful.com."
People are so busy focusing on AI or not that they're missing the core question - who would say this and why? Your boy Dan was *absolutely* there, a journalist would actually ask the unidentified man "Sorry to bother you, but what's going through your mind?" at which point you'd have something *insanely* useful for a documentary, and meet the journalism criteria 100%. Also, this story conveniently drops right when the government is trapped in trying to convince people to disbelieve what multiple people saw from their own eyes and ears with *multiple unaffiliated* perspectives. It's another award if you get his mental state before his murder. That never happens.
I like how Dan goes on to explain why he's not AI, and has a really... odd shot in the first video. Where he's fully there and has a full face in-camera shot where nobody else has that. Fun fact: AI detectors are notoriously garbage. Humans have better vision for it because they can evaluate context *outside* of the shot. Nobody ever shows the full 19 minute video, because it's super weird and *100%* not AI and has a licensing fee. The context of the others gets cut every time.
Context:
- Storyful is "social news and *strategic intelligence*" - a News Corp shop to whitewash/obscure/"protect businesses" using AI and OSINT (hint, I love how all these investigative reporters claim to be OSINT specialists but can't even do the most basic checks) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storyful - "define the news, not react to it" - the client list is hilarious "CNN, ABC, Fox News, NYT, WaPo, ABC, BBC, YouTube" etc. Also that neat little diddy about how Storyful actively compromised reporters to *watch what they were looking at*.
- "But Caliber isn't Storyful!" -- you're right, it's not on paper. It just so happens that The News Movement launched their own holding company. Only found out about you through their PR release - https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/caliber-launches-as-a-holding-company-for-the-news-movement-the-recount-capsule-and-the-caliber-collective-with-a-view-toward-global-expansion-302559868.html Dan (and you) better have gotten *paid* for that.
- "But they're still not us!" -- you're right. That's just a convenient second-source you can cross-reference when people press X to doubt. (Before the Shapiro footage "shows up"). It *might* be of importance that your present founder/CEO came straight from Storyful so he knows the game.
- It would be a shame if your CEO's stated objective was to "monetize" your followers. https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/the-news-movement-caliber-investment/. Hope you liked Substack, because "what if we could monetize people's trust in us and selectively 'enforce' those values" - plus that Qatari money hits different.
Video Highlights:
- There are ~5 people there at the start, the framing is pretty good. Note how nobody's really... doing anything?
- Dan shows up at 14 minutes (calibrates your cameraman at ~15:30) - probably does an interview at 16:40)
- Has *zero reaction* to someone coming up and yelling at ~17:00. Points straight at camera 2 *while it's zoomed in* at 17:16 (probably just coincidental - but the massive camper on top of that RAV4 is probably where the filming gear was stored)
- A total of *one* snowball was thrown. It wasn't 15-25 people pelting agents with snowballs. As claimed by Mr. Shapiro "Shapiro said he witnessed several in the crowd of 15 to 20 people lobbing snowballs at agents. Then, he said, a bearded man positioned in the street — wearing a brown coat, black hat and sunglasses — proceeded to kick out the taillight of an agent’s SUV." https://www.startribune.com/bystander-video-reveals-confrontation-between-alex-pretti-and-federal-agents-11-days-before-killing/601572009.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-184478672 - your previous post says it perfectly - "You can call it journalism, but if it lacks any of the defining features of the profession — you know, interviews, analysis, explanation, fact-checking, historical context, effort — does it really deliver on the fundamental promise to capture our life and times for your audience?" -- "Protest coverage with no interviews or insight, dreadful indeed." But hey, "creator economy" pays.
The news blowup isn't even worth mentioning. It's basically "anonymous sources" that report to an agency, who reports to another, who reports back to / cross references the other, with stories they dynamically update in the "new media!" format to make it retroactively coherent. I'd love the old TNM video before it was re-uploaded short-form on the 29th. The one that every "agency" ran with. That camper-top on the (RAV4? Maybe?) is camera crew 2. Photo gear is expensive. Lies can travel the world before the truth can get out of bed. Every other reported story gets something else wrong (did he stop his car? where was the family? where's the context?)
I wish you the best. Seriously. I'm not asking "Walter Cronkite" level stuff, because we're navigating a post-truth economy and he actually went out there and took truth to power. Media capture has been functionally completed (as well as regulatory capture, and executive capture).
What did the story functionally do?
- Brought a lot of focus to TNR to build the brand
- Kept the left on something they agreed on already "don't kill innocent people"
- Left the rabid members on both sides saying insane shit.
- Sparked an AI vs. non-AI thing which wasn't even the point (although it's funny that everyone's demanding AI regulation, but the powers that be refuse to implement it - more information asymmetry). If you could make an AI god you would make more money than Christianity and the Mormons and Musk ever did *combined*.
- Gave the current administration something to distract with, then have to further retract, so that one's kind of cool but idk.
Subversiveness and showing people how to think for *themselves* is really hard to do, and the "alternate universe" part of your writeup is the best.
One love. Keep at it :)
can you send me an email? would love to chat through all of this. sooo much good stuff in your reply, i feel very honored that you took this time to reply and want to give that attention back!!
Important note. Timing!