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.
Is this a site for learning how to improve my photography, or is it an extreme leftist USA political site?
"Extreme" lol
The only problem I have with this whole story is that Alex Cooke is is either sloppy, negligent, or has nefarious motives. The headline says that "White House doctors video" when the story later revealed that it was not the White House at all. They simply posted the video. It's crap like this that is just dishonest. Can't we just report the actual facts without putting a spin on it? Sweet mother of pearl. . .
Trump Derangement Syndrome run amuck.
The story later revealed that it *appears* the video came from elsewhere. One would assume that the White House, being the White House and having both access to and arguably, the responsibility, would use primary sources.
And what, my dear Sir, does that have to do with YOUR headline being misleading and/or inaccurate?
It's a Fake News Article!
I find it interesting that the discussions on how this article shouldn't be on FS because of it's political nature are initiated by the very same people whom are upset about that. Meaning that if none of them had bothered to complain then the comment section may simply be about the technical point of view as to whether or not it was doctored and without the political arguments. Also those same complainers all seem to be Trump supporters. Coincidence? Oh the irony and/or hypocrisy.
I don't think it should be on FS because it's a load of baloney that was quickly debunked. This article does no favour to Abba Shaprio, Alex Cooke nor Fstoppers.
so was this video taken with one of those new i phones f stoppers is bragging up...it dosent matter. he was in the wrong that is all that should matter. as for who doctored the video, without proof and acuse people is no different than the people that did or didnt dr it...your fucked up
Hey guys'n'gals, I'll start by saying, I've got no dog in this fight as far as the 'politics' of this article is concerned - given that I'm from Australia and our political numpties are truly World Class. You think you've got issues with your politicians, try living in a country that's had three different idiots leading the ruling party in just the last five years. So half of you don't like Trump, I get it.
But here's the thing ... trying to pass this off as something that's 'relevant to photography/videography' is misleading at best, but more likely seriously disingenuous. The poor attempt to justify it's inclusion on the site should be looked at very seriously by both the author and whoever has editorial control. Like most people here I come for articles related to photography, so if you've got a political bias, (which I've also noted in previous articles) I'd suggest either keeping them to yourself or or submitting such articles to a more appropriate forum.
I clicked on the article (having seen the same thing running through my FB feed from various mainstream sources), because I actually thought that as a *photography/videography based forum*, F-Stoppers might have subjected the video to it's own 'expert analysis' (Yeah, I was really that naive, shame on me). I (foolishly) expected that one of your in-house experts may have in fact, looked at the footage from a more forensic perspective to offer a conclusion as to whether the video had been doctored or not. As a site that deals with production techniques, processes and means to improve quality outcomes in the area of digital manipulations, my (misguided) expectation was that you would have supplied us with a reasoned conclusion as to whether the file had been manipulated or not. But no, it was simply a re-hash of MSM claptrap which had been designed and produced to fit an agenda.
And because it was nothing more than a repost of an agenda based/biased talking point, and gave no insight at all to the possibility of digital manipulation the only conclusion I can come to, is it was simply political clickbait with little more than a fleeting and tenuous relation to 'photography'. Just look at the comments, very little discussion on the digital merits/pitfalls of file manipulation but a whole lot of political name calling loosely disguised as 'debate'.
I like F-stoppers, I come here often, enjoy the articles (generally, or I wouldn't keep coming back), I find the comments section interesting, informative and at times even funny. But seriously, shame on you F-stoppers for introducing your polital biases on this (and other) articles, just to increase engagement - particularly when the article has so very little to do with your core business - photography!!
Now here's a flip side, which also includes 'expert' analysis. Laugh at and criticize the source to your hearts content, your opinions on that matter aren't worth a handclap and a fart unless you can put aside your cognitive bias and look the above article and this alternative article without a pre-conceived outcome. For my money, the format change, the file compression, and the fact that the video didn't even require 'doctoring' to prove its point leads me to believe the mainstream media is once again fabricating a narrative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RrSfMiAErc
PS if you have opinions, facts or insight into whether the clip was in fact doctored or not, please, by all means enlighten me; I'm not much into videography but I do like to learn. If on the other hand you want to try impress upon me your opinion (which you're entirely entitled to), on why the fantasy world of the mainstream media is superior to conspiratorial world of alternative media, save yourself the effort. I come to F-stoppers for the photography, not political BS :-)