I will begin this thread with some non-controversial statements. I want to describe what happened in terms that we ought to all be able to agree on.
During yesterday's press conference at the White House, President Trump was questioned by CNN's Jim Acosta. After a terse exchange between the president and Mr. Acosta, Mr. Trump indicated that he would provide no more information, and that someone else would ask the next question. At that point a young lady, a White House intern, attempted to retrieve the microphone from Mr. Acosta. He did not surrender the microphone. After looking in the direction of the president, the intern once again attempted to retrieve the microphone, and once again Mr. Acosta did not release the microphone. After another glance toward the president, the intern tried again to reach toward the microphone held in Mr. Acosta's right hand. During this attempt, Mr. Acosta's left hand contacted the intern's right arm.
A few hours later it was announced that Mr. Acosta had laid hands on a White House intern, and that his press pass would be revoked. A video of the encounter was posted showing the contact.
All right. Those are pretty much indisputable facts. Now comes the controversial part.
Immediately, Mr. Acosta tweeted that the White House accusation that he laid hands on the intern was a lie. However, there can be no doubt about whether or not there was contact between him and the intern. There was. Does that contact constitute "laying hands on" her? I suppose we can, and probably will, discuss the exact definition of "laying hands on". There is no doubt that contact was made.
By this morning, the web was buzzing with accusations that the video was "doctored", "altered", or some other description synonymous with "faked". I watched the "doctored" video, in some cases posted right next to the original video. They show the same thing. Each of them clearly shows Mr. Acosta touching the intern. The "doctored" video used digital zoom and slow motion to emphasize the contact, but it's the same video.
I read several descriptions through the day that left me scratching my head. One of the descriptions said that extra frames had been inserted into the "doctored" video to change the pacing of the events. No doubt. That's how you slow down digital video to be played in a typical computer video playback application. Of course there will be extra frames. Furthermore, if the slowdown factor is not an integer divisor of the original speed, some frames will be replicated more than others. That is not controversial.
One article, posted by NBC News, said that in the altered video, the intern's hand reaches the microphone after Mr. Acosta's hand contacted her arm, while in the altered video, her hand can be seen on the microphone prior to the contact with her arm. Looking closely at the frame where NBC called attention to the altered video, it can be seen that the intern's hand is not in fact touching the microphone. Her hand is placed between the camera and the microphone, so that the two are directly in line, but her hand is not on the microphone. Mr. Acosta's right arm is moving back, away from her hand, presumably in order to prevent her from taking it from him as he continues to argue with the president, pausing briefly to say "Pardon me, ma'am."
In short, I see no evidence that the film presented by the White House staff has been altered in any way, other than the obvious magnification and slow motion. It has been changed to emphasize the "interesting" parts, but not "doctored" to mislead the public. Nevertheless, many major media outlets ran with all sorts of explanations of what had been doctored, and by whom. (It is being said that the source was Infowars, and that the site isn't credible. I agree with the assessment of the site as whole, but this video seems to me to show exactly what the "official" video shows.)
One thing I should certainly say is that the severity of the incident seems greatly exaggerated. I don't know if I would call that sort of contact, "laying hands on" the woman. At the same time, it appeared to me to be deliberate contact with the specific intent of blocking her attempt to reach the microphone. That might not be what it was, but perhaps some more examination of the video evidence might lead me to some other conclusion, or reinforcement of my initial impression.
If indeed the video has been doctored, it will be easy enough to present the evidence, and that evidence will not consist of "we asked a self-proclaimed video editing expert what he thought....." They can rather easily figure out exactly where frames were inserted, deleted, or altered, and whether that has been done in a manner inconsistent with simple, ordinary, visual effects editing related to magnification, slow motion, or repeating a short sequence of video for demonstration purposes.
I think this will be interesting to see how it plays out. Will it turn out that the video was indeed deliberately altered to mislead, or did a willing media jump to the defense of one of their own, without critical examination of the evidence? To me, the latter appears more likely than the former, but my mind remains open. Let's see what we can dig up.
(Note: I will be posting some of the statements about this video, to better illustrate my points, but I won't be engaging as deeply as I frequently have in the past. I've just decided to change my posting style a bit. As a result, I will not counter every post I disagree with, nor will I feel obligated to answer every question directed to me. In general, I won't be participating in the normal "back and forth" style posts that dominate this section of the forum. I won't "post and run", but it might take me a while to get back to questions or issues.)
During yesterday's press conference at the White House, President Trump was questioned by CNN's Jim Acosta. After a terse exchange between the president and Mr. Acosta, Mr. Trump indicated that he would provide no more information, and that someone else would ask the next question. At that point a young lady, a White House intern, attempted to retrieve the microphone from Mr. Acosta. He did not surrender the microphone. After looking in the direction of the president, the intern once again attempted to retrieve the microphone, and once again Mr. Acosta did not release the microphone. After another glance toward the president, the intern tried again to reach toward the microphone held in Mr. Acosta's right hand. During this attempt, Mr. Acosta's left hand contacted the intern's right arm.
A few hours later it was announced that Mr. Acosta had laid hands on a White House intern, and that his press pass would be revoked. A video of the encounter was posted showing the contact.
All right. Those are pretty much indisputable facts. Now comes the controversial part.
Immediately, Mr. Acosta tweeted that the White House accusation that he laid hands on the intern was a lie. However, there can be no doubt about whether or not there was contact between him and the intern. There was. Does that contact constitute "laying hands on" her? I suppose we can, and probably will, discuss the exact definition of "laying hands on". There is no doubt that contact was made.
By this morning, the web was buzzing with accusations that the video was "doctored", "altered", or some other description synonymous with "faked". I watched the "doctored" video, in some cases posted right next to the original video. They show the same thing. Each of them clearly shows Mr. Acosta touching the intern. The "doctored" video used digital zoom and slow motion to emphasize the contact, but it's the same video.
I read several descriptions through the day that left me scratching my head. One of the descriptions said that extra frames had been inserted into the "doctored" video to change the pacing of the events. No doubt. That's how you slow down digital video to be played in a typical computer video playback application. Of course there will be extra frames. Furthermore, if the slowdown factor is not an integer divisor of the original speed, some frames will be replicated more than others. That is not controversial.
One article, posted by NBC News, said that in the altered video, the intern's hand reaches the microphone after Mr. Acosta's hand contacted her arm, while in the altered video, her hand can be seen on the microphone prior to the contact with her arm. Looking closely at the frame where NBC called attention to the altered video, it can be seen that the intern's hand is not in fact touching the microphone. Her hand is placed between the camera and the microphone, so that the two are directly in line, but her hand is not on the microphone. Mr. Acosta's right arm is moving back, away from her hand, presumably in order to prevent her from taking it from him as he continues to argue with the president, pausing briefly to say "Pardon me, ma'am."
In short, I see no evidence that the film presented by the White House staff has been altered in any way, other than the obvious magnification and slow motion. It has been changed to emphasize the "interesting" parts, but not "doctored" to mislead the public. Nevertheless, many major media outlets ran with all sorts of explanations of what had been doctored, and by whom. (It is being said that the source was Infowars, and that the site isn't credible. I agree with the assessment of the site as whole, but this video seems to me to show exactly what the "official" video shows.)
One thing I should certainly say is that the severity of the incident seems greatly exaggerated. I don't know if I would call that sort of contact, "laying hands on" the woman. At the same time, it appeared to me to be deliberate contact with the specific intent of blocking her attempt to reach the microphone. That might not be what it was, but perhaps some more examination of the video evidence might lead me to some other conclusion, or reinforcement of my initial impression.
If indeed the video has been doctored, it will be easy enough to present the evidence, and that evidence will not consist of "we asked a self-proclaimed video editing expert what he thought....." They can rather easily figure out exactly where frames were inserted, deleted, or altered, and whether that has been done in a manner inconsistent with simple, ordinary, visual effects editing related to magnification, slow motion, or repeating a short sequence of video for demonstration purposes.
I think this will be interesting to see how it plays out. Will it turn out that the video was indeed deliberately altered to mislead, or did a willing media jump to the defense of one of their own, without critical examination of the evidence? To me, the latter appears more likely than the former, but my mind remains open. Let's see what we can dig up.
(Note: I will be posting some of the statements about this video, to better illustrate my points, but I won't be engaging as deeply as I frequently have in the past. I've just decided to change my posting style a bit. As a result, I will not counter every post I disagree with, nor will I feel obligated to answer every question directed to me. In general, I won't be participating in the normal "back and forth" style posts that dominate this section of the forum. I won't "post and run", but it might take me a while to get back to questions or issues.)
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire