"we would never deliberately distort a quotation"
You know, before seeing this video, I would have believed that they don't "deliberately" distort quotations.
I used out of context quotes all the time in my public talks, and I had no idea this was dishonest or wrong since this is what the society did!
But to create a video that gives EXPLICIT EXAMPLES of distortions they have actually used (citing evolutionists, atheists) and then to say "we would never want to take these quotes out of context" -- they know exactly what they're doing.
We know that they have a terrible reputation for miss-quoting their sources, so if this is a new leaf they are turning over I welcome it.
We note, however that they have said something similar before :
Yearbook 2011 p13
In summary, the Writing Department insists on using only material that is accurate and truthful, even regarding seemingly insignificant details. As a result, “the faithful and discreet slave” can consistently supply spiritual food that brings honor to “the God of truth,”
How have they acted since then? Perhaps not as many as in some past years but that maybe due to the shortage of hard facts and solid information in the literature these days. A department such as they show in the video has evidently been there some time yet take this from a recent Watchtower.
In the article "Winning the Battle for Your Mind," Watchtower 2017 July page 28 includes a quote regarding propaganda:
"Keep in mind that Satan does not want you to think clearly or reason things out well. Why? Because propaganda “is likely to be most effective,” says one source, “if people . . . are discouraged from thinking critically.” (Media and Society in the Twentieth Century) So never be content passively or blindly to accept what you hear."
What has been cut out and replaced by ellipses (...)?
"Therefore, it is likely to be most effective if people do not have access to multiple sources of information and if they are discouraged from thinking critically. Michael Balfour has suggested that the "best touchstone for distinguishing propaganda from science is whether a plurality of sources of information and of interpretations is being discouraged or fostered. " Media and Society In the 21st Century: A Historical Introduction p.78 or Media and Society In the 21st Century: A Historical Introduction 2009 p.83 depending on edition, Lyn Gorman, David McLean
(quote courtesy of JW Facts.com ...which has a reputation for reliability)
I am therefore not convinced by their claims to accuracy of statement and honest checking.I wonder too if, by presenting this in a video rather than print , it will be effective with it's target audience of faithful sheep but be difficult, impossible perhaps for critics like us to find it again and hold them to account?????????
@BluesBrother: thanks, I'm saving that one for reference. Could that be counted as a sin of omission? Or is it: all's fair in theocratic warfare?
Too right BOC they know exactly what they're doing.
The best method a hypocrite uses is to raise the topic first in an attempt to make it look like they own the higher ground.
Then they can accuse anyone else of the VERY thing they THEMSELVES are doing.
It is a classic diversionary tactic.
The thing is, WE SEE THROUGH this attempt to whitewash the facts.
I never used to buy into the idea that the GB / Society were deliberately deceptive. I thought they were simply deluded. NOW though, I see that they are indeed hypocritical and deliberately deceptive!