When Live Isn't Really "Live"

[Pioneer1]

I've been watching the footage of the Israel-Hamas war over the past few weeks and I tend to gravitate towards the Youtube channels that claim to offer LIVE footage.

But the thing I've noticed is that most of these channels CLEARLY aren't live.

You turn on one channel that claims to be live and it's bright and sunny outside.
Click on another one and it's midnight dark outside.
Yet both of them claim to be "live" from the same region!

You click on a channel claiming to be live and you see images of people running out of apartments and being ushered into shelters while sirens go off.
The problem is, you saw those EXACT SAME IMAGES 3 weeks ago when the conflict first started!
And if you wait a half hour, you'll see those SAME images again....being played in some sort of loop.


I support freedom of information and expression as long as it doesn't cause physical harm so I don't think the internet should be regulated, however little deceptive shit like this does make me understand why there is such a strong call FOR regulation and honesty in presentation.

 

[ProfD]

It's live footage to the extent that the combatants and victims are not actors. The media is somewhere close by reporting too.

 

Otherwise, it's not uncommon for the media outlets to use the same event footage for different stories. 

 

They definitely loop videos and use old footage for dramatic effect and in order to spin the narrative as well. 

[Pioneer1]

It was my understanding since childhood that "live" meant it was taking place at the moment.

I realize now that despite claiming to be "live" most media sources have a delay by so many seconds or even minutes so that they can quickly edit out certain content they don't want coming across.

Then there's another term called "real time" which I thought meant the same thing as "live".
Apparently there's a difference though.