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.
Hey, you reap what you sow! Like I said, Dumb Choice, by you. I wanted you to get the point, and stop these Stupid articles from any in the future, I like FStoppers, and I and many other subscribers want it to have good writers that can contribute good information! My email to you, was because you were in defense of the article and Blind as to why you have so MANY Comments on this article that are not even about photography! Do you get it NOW!!
Oh yeah! Your email is on a Public posted Website!
The only point I got was that you like to yell and declare things to be true with insults instead of making reasoned arguments. The fact that I don't agree with your rants doesn't mean I don't get what you're saying or am blind to it. And no, I didn't do anything that deserved someone sending me an email that opened with "YOUR STUPID!!!" The irony of the grammar mistake in that insult was not lost on me, however.
Look here cooke, Like I said If you don't get the point, then your intelligence level is borderline Stupid or Blind or both, There is nothing to agree about, I'ts clearly Dumb on your part Not to see that by picking a very controversial and very recent video as a sample, in today's world would provoke the type of comments you have seen on your post. Now, 1-2 years from now, might not matter.
Yes, your right, I should have not sent you an email. But, There is "no reasoned arguments," My rant, was a statement that is correct, So, let me get this straight, You don't see where if you would have used a different sample, that you would have had less negative comments? Yes there negative.
If you say no, then my assessment of you is correct, Blind also!
How about the, LOL, title of this topic, " Independent Expert Says White House Doctored Video to Make Reporter Look More Aggressive. That is using Politics, to Bait! It would have been better for you to say, " How do Doctored images, (since this is primarily a Photographers site) change the perception of reality?" Look at your Long intro of information, It's purely politically stacked. None of that was needed, especially if you would have used a less controversial sample!
And yes, I do like to be loud about declaring the truth! Insults are only bad, when there not deserving!
I hope this will help you to THINK, about this for future topics you may choose. Good Luck!
Your mistake is thinking I was unaware these comments would happen. Avoiding discussing things just because they make us uncomfortable is a naive way to go through life. I chose this because it's a current event and was thus highly relevant to the topic.
Well, now, you just admitted your poor choice, and premeditated stupid thinking to post this article.
Wrong again, cooky, No mistake on my thinking, there are plenty of comments here to support my statements. I don't have a problem discussing uncomfortable topics, if I did I wouldn't be commenting on your debacle. Highly relevant to political posturing. We Don't Need This Political Crap on FStoppers!!! Period!! It's FAKE NEWS!
My name isn’t “cooky”; don’t address me as that again. And don’t email me stuff like “YOUR STUPID!!!” again (again, the irony of that grammar mistake isn’t lost on me).
“I don’t have a problem discussing uncomfortable topics.” And yet here you are, still yelling and rambling about how it shouldn’t be discussed, sending me offensive emails, and trying to appeal to the majority as if that’s valid logic. We’re done interacting.
OK Cooky, LoL! I only emailed you once, You have a public website. You act like I violated your email. You're a piece-of-work! Just keep the Political Crap out of FStoppers!! That's all I stated. Other than you are stupid and it was a dumb decision, and that's my opinion, Period! Oh Yeah, the only thing lost on you is maybe your Brain, and it is valid logic.
OK we're done interacting cookeee! Unless you ever want to work on a project together.
He used a relavent video that’s making the rounds in the news.
I had no problem reading the article and seeing it for just what it was which is an article about a video editing technique and how it can be used to change how a video looks.
As I already mentioned he never made any comments about the administration. he simply wrote a story about a video which is like 50% of the stories they write here. I honestly find it funny that a website full of adults can’t handle an article because it involves a specific person or topic that makes them angry. I don’t like Logan Paul but I wouldn’t flip out if they covered some relavent he did related to video or photography.
If you don’t like the article then don’t click on it. Is that so hard?
Hey, mr.folly, The same goes for you! You don't like the comments, don't comment! LOL!!!
Umm I was responding to something you said to me. That’s called having a dialogue... you know... that completely reasonable thing people do on a daily basis. But I guess if you’re used to people ignoring you as you scream into the empty void I can do that because I honestly think I could have a more intelligent conversation with a brick wall.
At the end of the day, you have a reporter that was "showboating" and has a history of such. Then you have a President who just can't seem to blow this kind of behavior off. If the President really wanted to put a sock in Acosta, he could have let him ask many questions, go on and on asking...then answer them. Then after Acosta took so much time...hey it's time to go thanks you for coming, then walk off.
That's actually a good idea. I doubt it would have an effect on either side though.
I wondered if this would get posted here and no matter how u stand politically it is a relevant issue with todays technology to change reality. I saw the situation live and if any aggressive behavior could be apportioned it was the intern with direction from the president. Acosta blocked her as she moved into his place when she went to grab the mic. From his hand. The second version did seem more pronounced in that moment but i think at the end of the day u couldnt apportion blame to Acosta nor the intern both were merely trying to do their jobs. As to video changes no video journalism should not be manipulated we rely on believing what we see. But we cannot control what we hear, see and believe now because of the ability to change it. What we may agree on is that controversy is a very powerful tool used in order to detract from real issues and to divide and conquer - it is being played masterfully right now. I dont think this manipulation is new and i feel that it is ethically wrong when it comes to journalism
Yes i believe the earth is flat also
An expert was your "headline". The headline is misleading, "expert". No way to know if the person is an expert. I sure don't know what your motivation was on this site. Clearly, I think, if you're going to cover the frame by frame video, find issues on both sides. I like fstoppers and enjoy your work. Thought so much of your site is cut and paste from outside source's. I do like when you create your own work. If I was one of your writers, I am sure my bias would show, regardless of what I covered. Your site is maturing which I like. From my perception, your "how to video's" are way overpriced, but in a free market, this is your right. The free market always corrects itself. Keep going, I am with you guys. Emotionally maturity is a difficult process.
For the people who don't understand why this article should be here, IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT THE "SIDE" CAUGHT LYING WAS TRUMP'S. What does matter is that you practise a profession it comes with moral obligations. That means that doctors have to lookout for various practises that give them incentives to prescribe treatments that are not the best ones for patients, for example. And that videographers have to consider the possibility that their work may be mis-used. Which possibly means re-thinking contracts, keeping copies of files you might not otherwise have, checking that you're legally protected (what if a client alters your work to make someone look bad and you are the one who gets sued?) Etc, etc.
Honestly, adults shouldn't need this kind of stuff pointing out to them...
Spot on.
Alex - you might want to consider adding to the article to point out what should have been obvious, if only to end the whining. Even the people who have no professional ethics should still appreciate the legal implications.
Might be a bit late for this one, but that’s an excellent idea for the next. Thank you!
That would be interesting if you could link to statements by those "experts" and their credentials. But without such a link, your statement is worthless - you might as well say "Aliens!"
More, even if this was a product of using gifs, that does NOT mean deception was not involved. Why? Well, there seems to have been exactly ONE deceptive video at most, and a whole host of non-deceptive ones. And a person who clearly knew the truth went out of the way to choose the deceptive one. And in doing so carefully eliminated - deliberately - the video's origin with a junk source that would have denied it credibility.
So, no, there is no real alternative here to the conclusion that deliberate (albeit incompetent) deception was attempted.
Me: "That would be interesting if you could link to statements by those "experts" and their credentials."
Some guy: Read the comments.
You're the one claiming specific people are experts. It's up to you to say who they are, not for me to pick out names at random from a long thread - who might, genius, not be the people you are thinking of. Really - is rational debate completely beyond you?
ME: Well, there seems to have been exactly ONE deceptive video at most, and a whole host of non-deceptive ones."
Some guy: Seems to have been? So you don’t know.
Of course I don't know. You don't know either. It's impossible to ever be sure that there was only one of anything.
Really - rational thought and you don't get along, do they?
.
When you make an animated GIF, sometimes frames that look identical get repeated and the blur or tween (between them) can look odd. I don’t have a horse in the whole politics BS, but it is
1-pretty silly to think the gif looks more aggressive objectively than the video, and
2- Ridiculously funny to think a political party “wouldn’t” do this on purpose.
I do think it was random software results, but I do think someone would do this on purpose.
Talk to your neighbors cordially fellow humans, open up and foster a healthy community. We don’t gain from bickering about internet gifs, lose. Look how divided so many become, this random article has 130 comments, meanwhile an article about something that is actually super interesting has 5. Why do we all care so much about stupid crap?
Here's an explanation from the source. Care to comment Alex Cooke?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo7ORobbXPw
Being new here, I started reading this article and thought it would transition into two branches 1 photojpunalism ethics and then a technical discussion of the technology and workflow that produced the anomalies. Where are those discussions?
Well at least a couple of people commented on the technology/workflow so that's something. Shame the expert Shapiro jumped to conclusions with so little thought.
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 :-)