Earlier this week, CNN's chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, had his White House press pass suspended after a confrontation with President Trump and a White House aide. Now, a video expert has claimed that the video the White House tweeted in defense of the decision has been doctored to make Acosta look more aggressive.
Abba Shapiro, a video production trainer, says he noted the anomalies in the video tweeted by White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders. In particular, Shapiro says the video was sped up at the moment Acosta and the aide made contact in order to make Acosta's arm motion look more aggressive, with additional frames then inserted to restore the original timing. He also said the fact that the video is missing audio is suspicious, as this would make it far more difficult to convincingly change its timing. The White House News Photographers Association has called the footage "deceptive, dangerous, and unethical," and of course, if true, such a manipulation would be an egregious violation of governmental and journalistic practices. Multiple news outlets have reported that the video appears to have come from Infowars, an alt-right conspiracy news site. Paul Joseph Watson, an editor-at-large for InfoWars, says the video was not doctored, but was made from a GIF, which he claims explains the anomalies. It's unclear why the White House would have used the Infowars video as a source as opposed to direct footage from the cameras at the event.
Stop the politicization of F stoppers. This is a photography site, not CNN or the DNC.
The ethics of visual media are well worth discussing and well within the bounds of what we cover.
Where's the article from Fstoppers about Twitter taking down the VIDEO of Antifa surrounding Tucker Carlson's home at night and threatening him and his family?
Alex’s assertions are plausible, though I don’t recall the articles exploring how obama used the media to suppress the truth about Benghazi - recall the concerted dis-information campaign blaming the terror attack which resulted in the murder of our liberal Ambassador and brave American heroes on an obscure video maker? That episode certainly qualified under the purported “ethics of video making”. My intent is not to make a tit for tat argument, highlight the dozens of media manipulations by the prior administration, DNC, or even demonstrate the liberal bias of the FS editors, rather disclose your agenda or be objective.
There is nothing wrong per se with exploring whether the Acosta video was doctored, but the headline reinforces the apparent bias of the analysis. Instead of asking was the video doctored, FS chose to assert that an “expert says” it was. Well there are many experts who say it wasn’t and the distinctions were due to codec conversions or other factors. The lack of an objective discussion only serves to reinforce the appearance of a political agenda.
For lack of a better comparison, if FS chose to publish only favorable reviews of Nikon equipment while selectively denigrating Canon products then I suspect that readers would be similarly suspect. Again, I would implore you to stop the politicization of an otherwise useful photography website.
Trying to picture the response if a right wing group surrounded Acosta's home at night and threatened him and his family, then the video banned by Fox News.
Nonsense. It's political click bait and trash talk. Jim Acosta is another story...
Pretty poor excuse for adding politics to a photography site. If you are a repressed political reporter go find a job elsewhere Alex.
I enjoy this job. Thanks, though!
So Alex, please explain how your article, published on a photography website, differs from something you would find in the Huffington Post? If you can't point out any difference then it doesn't belong here. Did HuffPo turn your application down?
Easy. We live in an age where the ability to make convincing photo and video edits that can fundamentally change the content and interpretation of journalistic footage is overwhelmingly easy, and there are major legal and ethical implications that come from that that anyone who values the power of photos and videos should be aware of and have a voice on. If you don’t see that premise or agree with it, we don’t have much else to discuss.
And I’ve never applied to HuffPo. Too busy with this job that I enjoy immensely.
Seriously Brian, it's obviously relevant to the industry.
Oh indeed. Especially with a strong political theme. Nothing sells ads like thousands of impressions. Press (and blogs too, I suppose) are all about sales these days.
Believe it or not, some of us do care about the nuances of PJ and editing ethics and how they intertwine with current events. I find it deeply disappointing when the discussion devolves into what it has. Not everything is a scheme, Michael.
Agree. Many viewers are from outside the US and could not careless about US nasty political landscape. This is a photography site.
I visited many UK forums and not ones they had any political article, it's all photography related, clean and simple.
Maybe it's time to move on...
>> Agree. Many viewers are from outside the US and could not careless about US nasty political landscape. <<
I'm from the UK. This isn't a political story. It's a story about videography - which this site regularly has articles on - has been abused, including relevant technical details. I shoot video as well as stills, so it would be morally irresponsible of me not to be interested.
It is all political and has nothing to do with our profession and what we do. It has nothing to do about videography either. But it seems people are drawn to that kind of journalism.
How doesn't post-processing of a video to alter "have to do" with videography? This claim makes no sense.
Except the claim that the white house 'doctored' it, what exactly did we learn about the post processing of videos? That when posting on Twitter we should post a lower quality video? The video was posted on Twitter in a much lower resolution (lower frame rate) than the original, that's it.
I swear CNN should send a fat cheque to their president, if it was not for him they would be out of business. The absolute infatuation, obsession and mania they have with him is CNN's raison d'être for the past two years.
That's it for me on this thread. I have better things to do :-)
"The video was posted on Twitter in a much lower resolution (lower frame rate) than the original, that's it."
Are you blind?
Really Motti? Not relevant to the profession? You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
This story doesn't have to be political at all. This is about tampering with video to change facts vs artifacts created by software unknowingly. This is actually a really interesting story but I think it's a total fluke.
The same article was on either dpreview or petapixel and someone posted an explanation of what happened. Basically when converting a video to gif you end up losing frames.
I personally don't think he meant to hit the intern but he should have lost his press pass a long time ago. I've watched a lot of the videos from the White House and he is constantly not following the rules. Usually it's one or two questions and then give the mic to someone else. Everyone follows those rules for the most part other than Acosta.
Thank you! I'm glad you feel the same as me.
If we want to have a discussion about the ethics of digital media manipulation by software and then presenting that media as fact or truth. That is a meaningful and constructive topic, and one we should all have. But neither of the articles posted on the site, examined that issue. If you're trying to convince me that politicians are dishonest, or that journalist need to spent less energy promoting themselves or pushing a narrative and more time reporting the news, I'am with you.
this has nothing to do with photography and personal interest in mind with these posts. trying to deflect the political aspect of it to hide the obvious reason youre focusing on the tampering part but its quite transparent its to make the trump side look bad and thats the whole issue here. keep politics out of fs please. there is nothing photography about this. so am I supposed to learn what video tampering looks like
your agenda is very transparent fs. I see it.
SS >> its quite transparent its to make the trump side look bad <<
This is stupid. The FACT may make Trump look bad, but that doesn't mean there is an ulterior motive. All moral people are under an obligation to speak the truth, regardless of how the truth may make one side or another look.
Yes: if Trump doctored a video to lie - which seems to be the case - that makes him look bad. But that doesn't mean that anyone reporting it has an ulterior motive.
>> this has nothing to do with photography <<
No, because it's a video. And fstoppers is also a vidoegraphy site, genius.
I learned nothing about video with this post. what was the lesson I learned on how to shoot video or how to edit?
ill save you headache
"its to learn to discern how videos are tampered with"
thats not teaching me anything and not something I care to learn about. thats not adding anything good to fs image.
FS put your energy into things people can learn regarding photography and video. this incident just so happened to use video and editing manipulation but it teaches nothing about video or editing
so if someone hit someone with a camera and lens and killed them, we would post an article regarding the camera model?
yes it INVOLVES using a video clip and editing it, but the major bigger picture is the content of the media used and the manipulation of the edit which has more to do with politics and ethics.
I learned nothing about video or editing. stop with the nonsense Lee.
>> I learned nothing about video with this post. <<
Yes, but so what? The whole world doesn't revolve around you. Unlike you, many people
1. Are smart enough to understand what the article says
2. Weren't aware of the factual content - eg the way that the video was first altered and analysed.
>> so if someone hit someone with a camera and lens and killed them, we would post an article regarding the camera model? <<
You probably think that is a valid analogy. Which shows that you you failed on 1.
if you need to use low class insulting tactics instead of making your point, then maybe its you that isnt the most intelligent person? usually when a person is so fed up and cant argue their own side, they go to insulting others.
with AI coming in very soon for video, this is the least of your political troubles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUC4m6w1wo
and im not for or against trump. I dont live in the US and I dont care either way with your 45th president. but when youre posting articles on the internet and its an international community visiting the site, politics doesnt matter on a photography blog
>> if you need to use low class insulting tactics instead of making your point<<
My point is - AGAIN - that the world does not revolve around you, that if YOU fail to learn something from an article, that does not mean it is bad. If you find that insulting, that's your problem. But well-balanced adults simply accept that they are not the centre of the universe.
lets agree to disagree. better that this doesnt continue and doesnt escalate with a nonstop back and forth bout. dont reply to my comments and I wont hound you either.
So you are saying that the gist of this article is non-political? Suuure, David, we believe you.</sarc>
Everybody who has made a negative comment about the article know that videos can be doctored. That was the sum total of the photographic or videographic information in the article. If the author wants to take sides politically he should do so on Twitter or one of the many other social media sites that provide for this sort of interaction, not turn this site political.
>> Everybody who has made a negative comment about the article know that videos can be doctored. <<
So what? That doesn't make a discussion of a particular case irrelevant - if you applied the Absolute Novelty Rule then there would be no articles on this site. And damn all anywhere. To give a hopefully idiot proof example, everyone knows that images get pirated. But there was another article here about a case just a couple of days ago, It contained no new method of piracy, no new legal or technical remedy - it was, literally, just another case. This article is much MORE novel than that. So ranting that there has to be anti-Trump bias to justify it is just silly.
If that is really the best argument you can come up with you would have been better off not replying. The article should be on Vox or HuffPo, Not Fstoppers.
This isn't a political issue. No decent person should support the doctoring of images to lie.
A total lie. Shame on you!
Care to offer an objective and evidence-based counterargument beyond shaming me for something I didn’t actually take a stance on? (“has claimed,” “if true”)
I totally read your comment in the Jimmy Fallon Trump voice
Simple diversion of Acosta's juvenile and hackish behavior.
WSJ did a side-by-side, frame-by-frame comparison between the raw footage and the released footage and I couldn’t tell the difference. The comparison starts at 59 seconds. https://www.wsj.com/video/acosta-video-posted-by-white-house-was-altered...
Acosta was being a jerk.
I saw another video comparison and I couldn't see a difference between the two other than the obvious "frame blending" which is done by a lot of software automatically. The video in this article was fairly compelling though... The 3 identical frames didn't seem to show up in other comparisons for some reason.
I just watched your video. It's pretty obvious that 3 frames are frozen which is very peculiar.
There’s most definitely a difference. Software glitch or intentional is the question and James O’Keefe is going to have a hard time proving he didn’t intentionally do it with his reputation of consistently distorting facts while most definitely operating under a right wing agenda. Honesty from the White House is also in question, obviously.
Either way, we’re discussing stripping rights from a US citizen based on a video that shows a more aggressive action that is often claimed to be assault.
For everyone else, I’d say it’s definitely an important media discussion. I had no idea a gif might modify frames like this and so far it seems plausible. Odd that it would happen in a few frames so favorable to the president. Curious to see how it plays out.
just give the mic back, end of story.
Nekmin vids of deepfakes
I'm going to reserve judgment until I hear what John Oliver has to say regarding the issue. Just imagine if he had a white house press pass!
There has been a series of articles and videos that I really enjoyed reading and watching here in f stoppers and in the long run I know it will make me a better photographer. This article on the other hand relates to a story that took place in the White House,
If ever the White House start issuing press releases giving well informed advice on landscape photography and the benefit of mirrorless cameras, count me in. Until then, this article is just another american storm in a tea cup.
Have a nice day.
KEEP THIS POLITICAL CRAP OUT OF HERE!!!!!!!!!! QUIT MASKING A PHOTOGRAPHY TOPIC BY USING A POLITICAL SAMPLE!! You could have used a different sample to cover the same topic!
‘And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth.’ — George Orwell, 1984
What is most interesting about this instance of altered media is the apparent difference of objectivity when viewed from a polarized population of both the general public and us, so-called photographers who should be able to "see" through the emotion of the political narrative. Anyone who has spent any time editing a sequence of motion frames understands how a few frames can easily change the context of the motion. One sees the powerful suggestions intimated by skillful edits that manipulate the mind as it works to interpret the video. No excuse if only a still photographer who understands the deliberate alteration of perceptions due to the static nature of an image limited by its sharp outer edges. Propaganda is all about distortion of the truth. As photographers and videographers its our domain to clearly understand the distinction between truthful representations and intentional misrepresentation. Seperate reality from fiction please.