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.
Of course this is about the author's political "feelings!" It's a thinly veiled attempt to inject politics into Fstoppers, in the name of "Aha! Gotcha!" I visit photography websites to get away from the constant politicalization of apparently, everything. I don't want to come to this website to read about the author's publishing of his political "anger and pain" just so he can try to make his "anger and pain" ours, too.
I woke up this morning and without warning, I stepped in the sh*t the dog left on the floor. This is what is was like to read this article on Fstoppers. Can we have a forum for photographers without having sh*t like this article?
There are plenty of photography/video articles on Fstoppers that aren't political - no one is forcing you to read this one. Also, you should probably have your dog house-trained.
My dogs are house trained but sometimes have accidents when feeling bad or recovering from injuries. :-(
Unfortunate. You have my sympathies.
Thanks. My Aussie just had surgery on his neck.
As they say here in Turkey, "geçmiş olsun" - get well soon!
And yet again, fStoppers allows one of their writers to use the fStoppers platform to push their personal political views. Good job fStoppers.
Religion & Politics....not compatible with our thing. Cheap clicks FS....
Here's how the article starts: "In a political era where politicians...." Red flag. If you wish to claim that this is an article about video altering, then fine. I can't read one's mind, but my gut tells me that video altering is secondary to the actual message being sent.
If you don't believe my 'gut', then just read the replies. The majority are political in nature, not photographic/videographic. You can't tell me that when this article was posted that you really believed that it would be read as apolitical.
This trend is becoming just a bit much. I like this place, but if the editorial staff continues to swerve off into politics, I'll have to give second thoughts to whether or not I'll continue to visit. And save the 'it's about photography, not politics' speech. It rings quite hollow.
I don't think I've seen one comment regarding video editing. Comments about her being ignorant on the subject don't count.
And that's the point of my reply. This is all politically driven. There is virtually zero discussion about video editing.
I wish more people were as mad at our elected civil servants (manipulating video to create a false narrative) than the people who are talking about them.
Both sides do it. I don't get why it's even a story.
Both sides doctor video to make it appear that an assault happened that never happened??
Since you're being specific, we don't seem to know for sure who did anything to that video. I was actually referring to using video or anything to advance a false narrative. The specific event, from the Democrat side, that I was thinking about was the video that supposedly caused the Benghazi attack. I wasn't going to mention it because, again, both parties do things like that, but since you "prompted" me...
Kelly Ann Conway said they sped it up. After they used it as a justification to revoke Jim Acosta's White House press credentials. I don't think whataboutism is any excuse.
I didn't say it was. Again, both sides do it. I don't get why it's even a story. :-/
Because it's an unprecedented abuse of power from our government. It's essentially framing a member of the press. Both sides DO NOT do that.
Really? Unprecedented? Were you able to keep a straight face while typing that? We're done.
I'll cry myself to sleep over that one.
I have to say that there is more bitchiness here than i have ever heard in a girls highschool toilet.
The comments in this post gave me Internets AIDS. Thankfully you can't die from Internet AIDS, just walk around perturbed 24/7.
Never have I seen such a toxic community in my life. The comments literally made me want to take a lie down.
What does this have to do with Photography????? Man you guys really are hurting to stay relevant LOL
I'm pretty sure the last time I checked and I have covered A LOT of photojournalism. Alterations of ANY KIND were a very serious infraction. Making you persona non grata in any newsroom or publication.
So it's been sped up? Slowed down? In it's RAW form? Yea, stuff like this matters.
Add to that, it was posted by the actual White House in order to 'make a point' or, some other kind of agenda. The bar has slipped pretty low over a two year period. Draw from all of that what you will.
I seldom post here anyway. So now I am searching for the button to cancel my puny profile from this site.