How much context is the right amount of context? When we necessarily choose a section — a clip — of a story on which to focus, how do we know we have chosen well?

How far out do we need to zoom? Further to that, what problems are caused by our choice of the clip?

There are differences in level of zoom. When Dan Carlin of Hardcore History first does a five hour podcast on Rome as a prelude to eventually get to talk about Cleopatra, that’s an uncommon wide angle view, though it still summaries years into hours. When we look at a short shareable video or an image as a way to sum up an event, that’s a view constrained by attention. There’s a time for each type of view, but media business models often prefer the quick, upsetting, and shareable.

When it came to using a clip and interpreting intent, Cardinal Richelieu put it famously.

“If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged.”

Whenever I read a quote that good I wonder if it was said at all. So I dug into it a bit — something I hadn’t done before, though I first heard that quote years ago. After all, that Richelieu quote is a clip itself. The quote, as it turns out, is first listed in The Cyclopedia of Practical Quotations, by Hoyt, Jehiel Keeler (p 762).

Those six lines mentioned, what are they? They are a snippet of one person’s thoughts that they chose to express. Edited and reinterpreted, they can mean something other than desired. A clip can represent many things and be different to an enemy than a friend.

Publication date of the source of Richelieu’s quote: 1896. That’s over 250 years after Richelieu died.

I went from being a news junkie years ago to avoiding the news today. So I’m not that familiar with Candace Owens or Ted Lieu. I know their names but couldn’t tell you the details of what they stand for.

That’s why I was surprised when my Twitter feed was inundated one day in April with clips of their Congressional hearing exchange. Something had happened that, while maybe not newsworthy, was at least share-worthy. Again, it just seemed like it was too perfect of an exchange. After a few days, I dug in.

ted lieu nails gop for inviting hitler apologist candace owens to hearing on white supremacists pic.twitter.com/UPiGcSRPUQ

— Oliver Willis (@owillis) April 9, 2019

Candace Owens: “I think it’s pretty apparent that Mr. Lieu believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip…That was unbelievably dishonest…I’m deeply offended by the insinuation of revealing that clip without the question that was asked of me.” pic.twitter.com/UioMSZK93d

— CSPAN (@cspan) April 9, 2019

So which is it? Which clip do I accept? And how is it possible that there was a chosen clip on social media at all? Both of those clips are only a few minutes long combined. Why did they not appear together?

That was something that only made sense after I checked on the hearing.

This is the full video. It is four ho