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.
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.
And if that’s the reason behind removing his credentials than the president can proceed with that explanation and not claim that he was aggressive towards the woman. But here we are discussing a situation that you’re not asserting. We shouldn’t be discussing the politics beyond the topic though or this is going to get derailed
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.
Trump voice: “how could Infowars doctor a video, they never even went to medical school”
Really??
Yes really. people are a allowed to have a sense of humor in 2018. Instead of downvoting, you should get one it makes life more enjoyable.
I have a sense of humor. It wasn't funny.
Edit: I have no problem with making fun of people when it's obviously in jest but I seriously doubt that was the case here. Don't misunderstand, I'm not a huge Trump fan and really don't like a lot of his jabs at people or a lot of the things said about President Obama, supposedly in jest. People don't seem to realize, the target of their jokes could be genuinely hurt from their jibes, although I kinda doubt President Trump cares.
Well that’s subjective I thought it was funny. It was good to see at least one comment not expressing outrage. I don’t find Adam Sandler dinner but still keeps making movies lol
No, you don't have a sense of humour. You've consistently demonstrated that throughout your time here on this site, Sam. LOL
Just because I don't share your sense of humor doesn't mean either of us don't have one. I'll prove it to you... Post your portrait and I guarantee I'll laugh. ;-)
If you have to tell people you have a sense of humour...
If you have to tell people you have a sense of humor... they're probably ultra-partisans with the requisite habit of dehumanizing anyone who disagrees with their world view. Either that or they're from New Zeala... Oh! Never mind. ;-)
You got one thing right today my friend. Congrats!
Are you kidding me? This is at least the second thing I got right today! :-)
Lolz!
Sorry double post and I don’t know how to delete it lol
No problem. I do it too. I wish we could delete posts. Sometimes, I'd like to take back my "knee jerk" comments. :-)
Good one! It’s better to have a sense of humor rather than get outraged.
I am a pro video editor and there are many reasons why this would happen. His analysis is flawed (im not saying he is wrong) as it does not take into account the recording frame rate, the encoding that twitter uses, and how he downloaded the content. The compression and re-compression of video files can produce any number of results.
The problem is now that people put more emphasis on their own entrenched opinion and beliefs than they do on objective facts. That includes our Government officials be they in the US or the UK.
“Fact” used to trump opinion (no pun intended) but since the invention of “fake news” everyone has an excuse to avoid objectivity in favour of what they want to believe. Individuals need to have the strength to see things for what they are no matter if they support or cross their beliefs.
As for the video. Manipulated or not both “sides” will see what they want to see and no matter of analysis with help. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. Did he touch her? Yes. Was there malice? No. Was he rude? Perhaps. In any other administration there’d be a shrug of the shoulders and it wouldn’t amount to anything. What followed here were two sides fighting to use the footage to further their own agendas. You can either allow that behaviour or force a change to it.
STOP with those political biased articles! Its so clear. It's SO irritating! Keep your political opinions for yourself and focus photography/video,etc.
This is a useless discussion. I saw the event in real time and it is irrelevant whether or not the subsequent video was altered or not. The event in real time substantiates the assertions regarding the misconduct by the reporter.
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?
You're awesome you made me crack up.
I think you upset Nathan lol.
Everyone needs to calm down. The article is about the video not about the administration. F stoppers covers all things video and photography and that includes things like this. The writer never once gives an opinion about the video or the administration.
The only people making this political are the people saying it’s political.
Great article Alex. It’s an important reminder that seeing isn’t always believing these days.
It would be a good article if the video was important and conclusive. It wasn't and the White House shouldn't have made it the focus.
I think it’s an important reminder that we have to stay skeptical about what we see on the internet and tv. That’s important for everyone to remember regardless of where they live or what they believe.
I agree so long as our skepticism is balanced. I question presentation from every source but try not to extend that to any individual's morals.
Sorry I didn't word that well. I meant, my skepticism on any subject should be only based on a general skepticism and related information and NOT unrelated information. For example, being conservative, I was not a huge fan of the Obama administration but never gave any credence to the birther movement. My feelings about his politics had nothing to do with that, unrelated, situation. Your earlier comments indicate this to not be the case for you and some others.
My "morals" comment was a nod to Joe Biden's comment about it being okay to question an individual's judgement but not their motivation because, you just don't know what motivates people.
I don't play. :-/
???
And I still don't understand the correlation.
I have no problem with the term "Post-Modern" and never meant to imply such a bias. There are many forms of discourse, "play" being only one. I answer you, partly out of frustration (to my embarrassment) and partly in an effort to discover areas of commonality. Under different circumstances, I'm sure it would be easy but your comments on this thread give me little hope.
Don't count on anything; it doesn't pay.
I was referring to the word "erotic" adjective: relating to or tending to arouse sexual desire or excitement. And I'm quite certain I made the distinction after your initial confusion.
I guess you have a big Antifa rally to organize. :-) Now THAT was a funny joke! ;-) No? Oh well... :-(
I don't have the original message so can only assume, if I used an ellipses rather than the words, "Erotic Photography", it was a result of my typical attempt at brevity. Certainly, I would never imagine anyone would think the term "Post-Modern" to be offensive. I figured out BYE but had to look up AMF, having never been in the military. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You talk about being a balanced skeptic and downvote people for making a joke about Trump not understanding what "doctoring" a video means because you say it might hurt his feelings. Then you acknowledge that Trump would likely never read that joke or care. But you upvote comments from trolls calling me "f**cking dumb" knowing full well I'm sitting right here, reading the comments on the article. Maybe you should reexamine how "balanced" and consistent your skepticism and morals actually are, because you're being awfully hypocritical.
I wish I could line-item vote up or down. I don't think you're dumb, f**cking or otherwise. I also have a tendency to not read longish comments in their entirety so I dunno. I'll go back and see what all was said to that comment.
In any case, I'm sorry.
Edit: I can't find where I upvoted such a comment. But, again, I'm sorry.
It's pointless engaging in discourse with the likes of Sam Fargo and the return of Bob Brady above, and others. They are low EQ types and this often means they will always have the last word (they cannot be made at all costs to look wrong or even consider another's viewpoint), particularly in forums, and generally speaking they struggle socially. Sam's oblivious nature to humour is a good example of him struggling socially but you can count on the fact that he will provide some sort of retort to explain and deflect rather than admit the truth. About the troll accounts above probably they are all the same person or two.
Thanks, Rich. I wish we could separate those two in the comments a lot more, as you highlighted.
Sorry Mr. Foley,
Your quote is Wrong " The only people making this political are the people saying it’s political."
Choosing this POLITICAL example to be used to cover the technique, was a bad and stupid choice by Mr. Alex Cooke, period! Our country is too volatile, to not expect this kind of feedback he is getting.
Just Dumb, Dumb, Dumb!
Perhaps part of what makes it volatile are people who seek out the personal contact information of authors whose articles they don’t like just so they can call them stupid and threaten to shut down the sites they write for, eh, Leon? Perhaps a bit of respectful discourse on the article itself would be a better strategy.
- Dr. Alex Cooke