In a political era where politicians can seem to claim that up is down and night is day, here's a new one: President Donald Trump's advisor Kellyanne Conway says that speeding up a video isn't altering it.
The claim is in reference to a video tweeted out by Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, which captures a confrontation between CNN reporter Jim Acosta and an aide who tries to grab a microphone out of his hand during a November 7 press conference with President Trump. The reporter was not finished with his question and didn't give up the mic, resulting in inadvertent contact with the intern reaching over his arm. He responded with a "Pardon me, ma'am" and then finished up his question, relinquishing the mic after.
The video in question was used to justify removing the reporter's White House access, and that's where the trouble begins. Trump has denied that the video was altered, and Conway either doesn't know the definition of the word or just contradicted the president publicly.
In a Sunday interview with Fox's Chris Wallace, Conway says that "[Acosta] either put his hands on her and grabbed the mic back or he did not, and he clearly did." She goes on to say about speeding up video:
That’s not altered. That’s sped up. They do it all the time in sports to see if there’s actually a first down or a touchdown.
You can see the comments at about the 9:30 mark in the video above.
Ignoring the fact that no touchdowns were scored at the press conference and that both videos, at most, show a singular hand (not hands) being used in the altercation, she seems to misunderstand what editing means. Speeding up a video is considered editing it, altering it, manipulating it, and yes, doctoring it. When the timing of footage is changed, reality is altered and you're not seeing what actually happened. To make matters even fuzzier, an expert looked at the video and determined that three frames were frozen, and then the actual point of contact was made faster to make it appear like a "karate chop," as Conway says, to the intern's arm. He even called it "too precise to be an accident."
Conway goes on to say that Acosta owes the aide an apology. It's puzzling that the aide hasn't come out to say how she feels about the whole thing, but until then, this interview with Conway is the only window into that question.
To see the original, undoctored video, click here to see the full exchange.
Except that the authors themselves are not objective. That's the annoying part. People will happily bring down Trump but they won't report when people misrepresent Trump. They are not being objective, rather they are selectively choosing when to be righteous and in their haste often turn reasonable people into enemies in their mind. I'm not even a Trump supporter, but it's quite obvious as an outsider that objective reporting is the exception rather than the rule. I'm quite sure without knowing you that you are probably a reasonable person Jack, but if I start talking to you only seeing the differences we have it's going to be hard to remain calm and reasonable. If instead we can bond over things we share in common we might be able to have a productive discussion and be more willing to understand other perspectives.
Just FYI, I'm not against talking about difficult topics because they are polarising, in fact I'm completely for having those conversations.
I just read a very interesting story here relating to the use of photography during WW1.
ie "Professional Photographers of the 19th and the very early 20th century often resorted to staging and darkroom manipulation"
c'est la vie
Yeah they did, they didn't have the shutter speed required to show actual shooting or charging. So does that make it ok to do it now ?
Why ask me, direct the question to the Kellyanne Conway c/o The White House, Washington, USA. I am sure Kellyanne will be more than happy to give you a well thought out answer to all your probing questions. Good luck,and do write back and tell us all.
I think this article is very appropriate for this site. Of all people we should know and understand how our chosen media can not only document, but change and make world events.
There is no side picked in this pony show article...but just calling out a weak attempt to change reality for political gain using our media. We should all be outraged no matter our politics.
Butch
Outraged? Abortion outrages me. Murder of innocent people, especially children, outrages me. Atrocities done in the name of God outrages me. This? Not even close and that has nothing to do with my politics.
I don't know about you but I can be outraged by many things. I won't be limited to your definition only. When my own government conspires to deceive me in such a petty way it is inexcusable and outrageous. Deception is nothing new in our government present or past but when we see it we need to call it out or we will just encourage more.
Much as I hate the term, you sir (along with all your upvoters), are a snowflake!
Now I have to go wash the taste of that word out of my mouth! :-(
You need to learn to read between the lines, Bob.
We all know of your past accounts.
Lol, no.
You tell 'em papa! You got kicked out 2 times not becuz you are a angry troll, but becuz you are so smart and right all the time! Peps get scared of the truf!
"By way of deception thou shalt make war".
-Mossad motto
兵者，詭道也
"All warfare is based on deception".
-Sun Tsu 孫子
And you're not letting your obvious bias show in your retorts, Bob?
Just stating exactly what she said on editing video here, not sure what you're reading into it? There's definitely something to talk about in this video edit here.
So i guess you are gonna do an article on CNN having him ( acosta) on claiming no contact happened ( playing the exchange video up until he fought her then cutting away) when i saw it happen live on TV? Leave politics off this page no matter how smart you think you are the numbers dont lie you are Alienating 50 percent of your audience/ customers.
I watched it LIVE and Acosta was a complete a hole - if he was a conservative and treated the intern and the prez the way he did his career would be over. But he's an extreme leftist so I smell Nobel Prize........
Jim Acosta of CNN News is an extreme leftist? You're kidding right?
Can you point me to a specific instance where he has encouraged illegal immigration?
Well Jack/Bob (nice to have you back), none of what he said there seems to be an encouragement to commit illegal immigration, let alone a statement of support. I think if the caravan actually tried to "force" their way across the border they'd be met with an overwhelming military response, but of course illegal migrants don't use force, they cross areas of the border that are unprotected, thus avoiding the need to use force. The Trump administration likes to use terms like "invasion" and "forcing their way across borders" as a scare tactic.
And recall that Trump has sought to limit or ban legal immigration from certain Muslim countries, and did not deny saying in a closed door meeting of lawmakers "Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?”, apparently in reference to El Salvador, Haiti and certain African countries. That doesn't sound very welcoming.
So it seems like Acosta was also stating facts in his questioning of Trump.
don't know why I bother, but here goes:
"there seems to be," " it seems like" / "That wouldn’t hold up in any court, unlike Mr. Acosta’s self-incrimination."
A press conference is not a courtroom, but what wouldn't hold up in court is Trump's characterization of a migrant caravan that hasn't even reached the border yet "an invasion". How is what Acosta says incriminating?
"You should never use the word "seems" in a debate."
A press conference is not a debate. (edit: ah, you're referring to what I said: clearly none of what he says defends, supports or encourages illegal immigration, but apparently it does seem that way to you).
"You mean like in the past, where that has never happened?"
Not sure what you're talking about here. Invasions are typically repelled by military force, right? So if this is truly an invasion, with people "forcing" their way across the border, then they surely will not succeed as any such action would be met with the full might of the US military. But these people are poor, unarmed and not a military threat.
"By definition illegal immigrants are forcing their way into the country."
force
/fɔːs/
noun : violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing
Those who do not respond to kindness must yield to force.
verb: to do violence to
especially : RAPE
2 : to compel by physical, moral, or intellectual means
3 : to make or cause especially through natural or logical necessity
forced to admit my error
the last minute goal forced overtime
4a : to press, drive, pass, or effect against resistance or inertia
force your way through
b : to impose or thrust urgently, importunately, or inexorably
force unwanted attentions on a coworker
5 : to achieve or win by strength in struggle or violence: such as
a : to win one's way into
force a castle
forced the mountain passes
b : to break open or through
force a lock
Source: Merriam-Webster
Illegal immigrants cross borders not by using force, but by actively avoiding the likelihood of encountering resistance.
"By definition it is an invasion."
invasion
in·va·sion | \in-ˈvā-zhən \
noun
1 : an act of invading
especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful
Source: Merriam-Webster
The caravan has not even reached the border.
"That doesn’t equal what Mr. Acosta was saying though."
It supports Acosta's argument that under Trump (and even predating him) America is less welcoming to immigrants.
We can argue about definitions all day, but I'm just going to return to my original point and then get on with my life:
Nothing Jim Acosta said during that press conference supported, defended or encouraged illegal immigration.
We can get politics anywhere. I come here for content relevant to my profession.
I agree this article has very little to do with photography but from where we sit in Australia looking at American politics and the divisive nature that's going on then it was bound be commented on on fstoppers.Mind you our politics in Australia are not brilliant either. When it comes back to critcising whether the video is manipulated or doctored or whatever it's a good time to examine our own individual behaviours and practices. "Let he(or she) who is without sin cast the first stone."
I guess there's a couple of ways to look at it - when I was a working journalist, this sort of edit in a video would be considered a fireable offense. It undermines the integrity of journalists if they present something that isn't true and say it is.
Who, in fact, presented the sped up/altered/whatever video? I honestly don't know and wouldn't have even heard of this whole thing if not for Fstoppers.
The Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, so this altered video came straight from the White House and was used as justification to remove Acosta's press credentials.
I thought she posted it but got it from somewhere else!? In any case, I thought that was a stupid justification. The reporter's reaction to the intern wasn't that big a deal. I did, however, think his refusal to give up the microphone, after having already asked several questions was wrong, if not justification enough for temporarily loosing his pass.
Where the hell have I stumbled into, FStoppers or The Attic on Ugly Hedgehog?
The video was not sped up, LOL I would like to know who the experts are. The only thing that has been done is the video was zoomed in to show Acosta pushing her hand down. I think Kelly did not do the video any justice she should of said no it was not sped up the only thing that was done was they zoomed in. It may appear faster in the zoomed in clip as video compression may of dropped a couple frames or the perspective of being zoomed in made the movement look faster. Comparing both I see no change in speed. But yes I think politics should be left out of fstoppers and the forum as depending on your political side you are on your going to have a bias opinion.
Check out the link to Alex's article with the expert who looked at it - it wasn't a straight speed-up. They freezed a frame for a split second right before the hand went down, and then sped it up to make it look like a karate chop and then catch up the frames so that the video ended up being the same length, but a different look to Acosta's hand movement.
Of course this is about the author's political "feelings!" It's a thinly veiled attempt to inject politics into Fstoppers, in the name of "Aha! Gotcha!" I visit photography websites to get away from the constant politicalization of apparently, everything. I don't want to come to this website to read about the author's publishing of his political "anger and pain" just so he can try to make his "anger and pain" ours, too.
I woke up this morning and without warning, I stepped in the sh*t the dog left on the floor. This is what is was like to read this article on Fstoppers. Can we have a forum for photographers without having sh*t like this article?
There are plenty of photography/video articles on Fstoppers that aren't political - no one is forcing you to read this one. Also, you should probably have your dog house-trained.
My dogs are house trained but sometimes have accidents when feeling bad or recovering from injuries. :-(
Unfortunate. You have my sympathies.
Thanks. My Aussie just had surgery on his neck.
As they say here in Turkey, "geçmiş olsun" - get well soon!
And yet again, fStoppers allows one of their writers to use the fStoppers platform to push their personal political views. Good job fStoppers.
Religion & Politics....not compatible with our thing. Cheap clicks FS....
Here's how the article starts: "In a political era where politicians...." Red flag. If you wish to claim that this is an article about video altering, then fine. I can't read one's mind, but my gut tells me that video altering is secondary to the actual message being sent.
If you don't believe my 'gut', then just read the replies. The majority are political in nature, not photographic/videographic. You can't tell me that when this article was posted that you really believed that it would be read as apolitical.
This trend is becoming just a bit much. I like this place, but if the editorial staff continues to swerve off into politics, I'll have to give second thoughts to whether or not I'll continue to visit. And save the 'it's about photography, not politics' speech. It rings quite hollow.
I don't think I've seen one comment regarding video editing. Comments about her being ignorant on the subject don't count.
And that's the point of my reply. This is all politically driven. There is virtually zero discussion about video editing.
I wish more people were as mad at our elected civil servants (manipulating video to create a false narrative) than the people who are talking about them.
Both sides do it. I don't get why it's even a story.
Both sides doctor video to make it appear that an assault happened that never happened??
Since you're being specific, we don't seem to know for sure who did anything to that video. I was actually referring to using video or anything to advance a false narrative. The specific event, from the Democrat side, that I was thinking about was the video that supposedly caused the Benghazi attack. I wasn't going to mention it because, again, both parties do things like that, but since you "prompted" me...
Kelly Ann Conway said they sped it up. After they used it as a justification to revoke Jim Acosta's White House press credentials. I don't think whataboutism is any excuse.
I didn't say it was. Again, both sides do it. I don't get why it's even a story. :-/
Because it's an unprecedented abuse of power from our government. It's essentially framing a member of the press. Both sides DO NOT do that.