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.
"That’s sped up. They do it all the time in sports to see if there’s actually a first down or a touchdown."
Ummm, no, they *slow things down* to check that. No one ever said: "Boy Jim, that was a close play; let's watch it at double speed to clarify what happened!"
Congratulations! You know more about sports and video editing than a political consultant. ;-)
The story, as a whole, might (and that's a big might) warrant discussing, but her comments? Ummm, no.
Maybe a political consultant shouldn't comment on sports and video editing for an administration then. People in positions of authority and mass reach opening their mouths when they don't know what they're talking about is a dangerous thing.
:-) I guess it's a good thing that hardly ever happens, then! LOL
Kelly Anne Conway is the queen of alternative facts. Her attempt to defend the indefensible would be comical if her politics wasn’t so terrifying. Right now California is on fire, but alternative facts allow some to believe the real threat is at the southern border.
You'll never hear me defend her but aren't the fires and illegal immigration, separate and independent threats? I think the real threat is partisanship, as evidenced by the people here, on both sides, blindly voting up or down comments that really aren't provocative with no attempt to understand what's even being said. I heard a financial consultant, on the radio, commenting about the importance of couples needing to talk about their financial and retirement goals. Like it or not, we're all (for the most part) married to each other. :-/
Sam i agree. Whenever there is a king on the horizon the first play is divide and conquer. Its terrible whats happened to the country. I am not talking spirituality here but we r all connected what happens to the disenfranchised for instance, u can ignore it for a time but we all pay eventually. Having said that this is a photography forum we should stick to that since maybe just maybe some people will find harmony and respect through interests that may transcend our political beliefs.
I don't understand the first part of your comment but agree with your summation.
To destroy any organisation the first principle is to divide. The way to do this is always to stir up the fringes, disenfranchised. This is the price we all pay for ignoring 3 to 4 decades of people who feel they have no hope. This is the blame of all parties. My hope is that one day we all see this
i wish it was shot on an iPhone.
My only commit, is what the hell does this article have to do with photography?
Sometimes we also cover video on this site, and so there's a fair bit about video editing to discuss on this topic.
Her comments have no more to do with video editing than mine, which is to say, none! If the topic is "People discussing things they know nothing about", then, sure. And in that case, I'll be happy to give you my expert opinion! ;-)
First time the Trump administration has cared about a man touching a woman
This whole thing should scare the hell out of people, but I guess this is the new normal.
Your statement is just ridiculous. Hyperbole plays well to the base but makes you look foolish. :-/
>> Your statement is just ridiculous.
Why? This is a president who boasts of his ability to sexually assault women - "Grab them by the pussy" -without consequences.
>> Hyperbole plays well to the base but makes you look foolish. :-/
Yes, you do look a bit of a twit. Oh well - it's still better than being grabbed by your genitals, I suppose...
Two things:
1. Of course the president is head of his administration but he's not the only member. I can't imagine anyone thinking VP Pence, among others, doesn't care about a man touching a woman without permission.
2. I really, really didn't like his comment but I'm pretty sure he doesn't feel that way about all women in all circumstances. And, of course, people change. I don't know his state of mind at the time he said that or how he feels about that now.
I appreciate you responding rather than just voting down. It's okay to disagree but down-voting, without a comment, shows a lack of respect. I reserve that for comments, so offensive they don't merit respect or so ridiculous, logic would be a waste of time. I know I make foolish comments from time to time and look like a twit :-) but I don't think this is one of them.
>>1. Of course the president is head of his administration but he's not the only member. I can't imagine anyone thinking VP Pence, among others, doesn't care about a man touching a woman without permission<<
Right. Because it's unthinkable that someone who loudly proclaims their Christianity could be a sex abuser. That would never happen!
>> I really, really didn't like his comment but I'm pretty sure he doesn't feel that way about all women in all circumstances. <<
Yes, he's been fairly clear that he's only interested in women in a certain age range and body type. I'm pretty sure that Rosanne Barr would be safe despite their shared proclivities. I don't see how this matters morally, but there you go.
>>And, of course, people change.<<
Given his comments about women during the campaign it's rather shameful that you should try to find him even this excuse.
Well, I tried. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If that's true, I'd hate to see how compelling an argument you make when don't try. Really - "Hey, as far as we know the president is the only person in the administration you habitually assaults women - so it's completely un-hypocritical of them to doctor a video to make it look like an assault happened when one didn't!" It's not exactly the tire-mark defense from My Cousin Vinny...
"My Cousin Vinny" :-) I love that movie. I was in love with Marisa Tomei!
I'm not so foolish as to think I can convince anyone of anything. I submit reasonable doubt in the hopes people will give each other the benefit of it. I would, however, hope people wouldn't put words into my mouth. I didn't say, or imply, the President assaults women, habitually or otherwise. As for the video, doctored or otherwise, demonstrating assault, I don't think it demonstrates assault, even using their sped up/edited/whatever version.
My point has always been, this is a stupid conversation about a non-issue. The administration's assertion of assault is stupid and ill-advised and the discussion about this video, which doesn't show anything, is silly and irrelevant to this site's mission. The stated subject is this woman's comments and NOT the actual video.
My wife and I are always trying to decide on a movie to watch. This weekend will be "My Cousin Vinny". Thanks! :-)
You guys might get the clicks on these articles but you are turning off your audience. Just a friendly warning that you might want to change your tactics.
This is the second article they have done on the same incident. The sad thing is I just spent $300 on photographing the world 4 and even in that they had to bring up Trump. I actually bought it more to support this site but if this is gonna keep on going on I'll no longer be purchasing anything from them. I don't really get why they are allowing articles like this. It's not gonna drive traffic to the site but it will potentially drive it away.
.
I don't care or want to be constantly be hearing about Trump. I come on here wanting to ready about photography and video. Not to be reading about politics. The authors of these articles can claim all they want that this is about showing how video and photos are being manipulated and it's not about their personal feelings about the current president but either they are straight up lying or they are too stupid to realize they have a bias.
At the end of the day they have the right to post whatever they want on here. We also have the right to keep our credit cards in our pockets. Funny enough is I don't think I would have been able to afford the tutorial this year without a policy that Trump put in place.
I understand your frustration but "stupid"? "If you wrestle in the mud with pigs, you both get dirty but the pig likes it!" Someone here wrote that. I just wish I could remember who to give them credit. :-/
Wow David, it doesn't take much to upset you does it.
These articles do little more than bring out the worst in people. It's just a shame that so much of what we see in the media these days contributes to that polarisation. It's also a shame that this sort of divisiveness has become common on Fstoppers.
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! :-(
"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
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?
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.