It was really bad. The thing is, that portion of Corbett's video, like the bit with Sibel swearing, was sarcastic and meant to show HER hypocrisy. He basically said there's nothing wrong with appearing on Alex Jones or with swearing, but he included it to show how Sibel was accusing Beeley and Bartlett of one thing, while doing the same thing herself. He was highlighting how shoddy their criticism was on those points, and using their own "method" in order to show how absurd it is. So then newsbud spends minutes taking that clip out of context and battling a straw man (just as they did in their original 'report'), as if he was making the point that Sibel shouldn't have been on Alex Jones - which he wasn't. So the question is, are they malicious, or just stupid? Maybe a combination of both.I didn't know much about Newsbud or Sibel Edmonds until this thread was started, but that seemed like a petty response from Newsbud. Almost half the video was spent focused on one clip from infowars and exposing Corbett's apparent hypocrisy in using that as example, which granted, does seem off - but comes across as nitpicking ONE example that had almost no impact on the overall context of his report, where he provided a backstory and history. Plus, they made a lot of statements of "fact" without much context, which they did in their first video attacking Beeley and Bartlett, showing videos of different speakers and instead of hearing what they had to say, except for Barbara McKenzie, simply inserted what they supposedly said while adding in their own dramatic flare.
But then there's that bit at the end where Sibel basically says, "I'm not going to talk about what happened to Corbett last year that made him change, because I have morals." Talk about slimy. So she's basically saying, "I have dirt on you, James." If she had as much ethics as she signals, she wouldn't have said anything about it.