New Videos Show Donald Trump Should (Still) Fire His Video Team

New Videos Show Donald Trump Should (Still) Fire His Video Team

Donald Trump has been on a tear lately on Twitter when it comes to social video. The problem is, he’s doing it all wrong.

Before the pitchforks come out, it should be noted that the advice here is actually what the president should do if he wants to improve his online image, because between low-resolution photos posted all over the place, poor portraiture, and amateur-hour video doctoring, the administration is not doing itself any favors.

A little over a year ago, my colleague Aneesh Kothari posited this in a headline to his article “Should President Trump Fire His Video Team?” In it, filmmaker Josh Enobakhare of Olufemii Tutorials pointed out that Trump had some really awkward cuts in almost all of his videos that resulted in a less-than-professional look. It seems that since that time, the president has taken on stranger video habits.

First, over the summer and into the fall came a series of videos shot on what appears to be a lawn outside the White House. There’s no tripod or microphone used, and Trump appears to ramble without a teleprompter about various issues. This results in some odd phrases such as Hurricane Florence being described as, “the wettest we’ve seen, from the standpoint of water.” Take a look:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1042197168533241856

Sometimes, it appeared the administration relied on software similar to what your iPhone or Facebook does when it puts together a “best guess” video and serves it up as a highlight reel. Or at least it looks that way from the stock music and seemingly random shots and sounds from this video of Trump’s visit to the U.N. in New York:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1044381661331410944

Things haven’t gotten better into November, even though he’s now added a teleprompter to the mix, as one can tell from the wandering eyes. Here’s Trump’s Thanksgiving video:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1065623990746710022

The odd cuts that Kothari’s article talks about remain, and to that, the lighting is poor in that there's a harsh shadow from the lamp and the background drops off extremely quick without an additional light. Microphones still don’t seem to be used, as the sound is a bit hollow. At one point, the video is practically shooting into Trump's ear and cuts off his chin. Someone in the White House definitely knows how to use a boom pole to acquire audio. There’s a photo of that on Trump’s own Twitter feed. At the very least, they should hire one of those folks to run audio.

So with all the video evidence stacked up, the answer to Kothari’s question seems to be a yes. Or at the very least, they should check out the Fstoppers Intro to Video tutorial.

What do you think of Trump’s online videos? Post your thoughts in the comments below.

Wasim Ahmad's picture

Wasim Ahmad is an assistant teaching professor teaching journalism at Quinnipiac University. He's worked at newspapers in Minnesota, Florida and upstate New York, and has previously taught multimedia journalism at Stony Brook University and Syracuse University. He's also worked as a technical specialist at Canon USA for Still/Cinema EOS cameras.

Log in or register to post comments
76 Comments
Previous comments

What does this have to do with the article?...

How cryptic.

I'm still not catching your drift. Did you think the article was about politics? It seems more about people who are bad at making videos. Am I missing something?

Bad video is not a style.

I'm expecting the next article to be "bobs and vagene, send or no ?"
Seriously, the political posts are are getting stale, I bet some humor would do better for clicks

I had to look that up.
Agreed. Alex, et al, used to do purely humorous articles. They weren't always funny but much better than this stuff. :-)

I think that regardless of anyone's personal feelings about Trump, we should all be able to agree that given the resources both at his own personal disposal and those of the US Federal Government, the production quality of this stuff is just bad...

Agreed! I wonder if he doesn't realize or just doesn't care. I'm thinking it's the latter given the poor official portrait he had to have approved.

I'm not so sure... People like us are definitely way more sensitive to this stuff than the average person. If you take the average photo or video posted by people on social media as a standard, these videos and photos are still above that (really low bar, I know) so he might just think that they're good. I highly doubt that he has a lot of honest, dissenting voices around him that will tell him "Hey, your picture looks like crap.".

As far fetched as it sounds, it's entirely possible that he has no idea how bad the people doing his media actual are. It's really not the type of thing that most people stop and think about and I'm sure he has other things on his mind.

While I agree, he's also VERY "image" conscious. The world may never know! :-)

I did put in there the line "before the pitchforks come out," in the hopes that we could try and figure out why his video team, with all the resources at his disposal, is so bad (I know the photographer he uses is good, Shealah Craighead). I have a feeling it's him not allowing them the time to do their work, or instructing them on what he wants rather than what's best practice for video.

Well, it was inevitable that the pitchforks would come out pretty quickly, but it would be interesting if someone could shed a light on this because it's just incredibly odd. I do know that some people just have terrible aesthetic taste and are very insistent on having their way (once had a client who was like this), but even in such a situation, a professional would at least do their best job within the limitations that the client presents and I can't imagine that anyone who knew what they were doing and were really trying their best would end up with results like this regardless of how the client was.

Maybe he just hired a bunch of people who hate him or something similar to a very extended version of that John McCain and Jill Greenberg incident...

Agree Micheal. It's about a client (a client who holds a rather important position in the public eye) who has a team working for him producing video and the standard of this video has shown to be poor. My guess is he really doesn't give a damn about it. He probably wants to just get it done and dusted i.e. did you get the shot? Yes. Ok, send it.

Just can the Editor and get an Editor with a Republican spirit that will do the right thing, including replacing anyone that isn't doing their job.

Do we really know the circumstances under which they do their work? I mean, for sure maybe they are just not doing a good job. However we do not know how much time and resources they get to do the stuff. How much they are being micro-managed to the extend that they either can deliver a bad output quickly or being fired.

Based on my image of DJT as a "boss" I cannot belive there is a relaxed athmosphere in which employees opinions are considered and empowered to do their best. Rather it might be that they keep low profile in order not to be on the black list any time soon.

*grabs popcorn and heads into the dumpster fire that will be this comment section*

You guys still haven't figured it out huh...politics & religion do not go with our thing.

Last time I checked...CNN, MSNBC, NY Times etc. had the mainstream news covered just fine. There is so much more for you guys to cover...or should I say "link from other sites".

This one is definitely about video though.

Nah it's about sparking a discussion on your website by any means necessary. What happened to FS....I was here from the beginning and it was so relevant. The downhill race...sheesh.

The problem doesn't seem to be with the quality of the article. It's on point. It's the commenters who drag it down. I don't like Trump, but I don't get triggered into making it about politics. It's about professionalism in the video field. He SHOULD fire his video team or stop paying them. I would agree with anyone who says that and it doesn't matter who they voted for.

Yes, it was about sparking a discussion ... about video.

So you are saying you don't have a bias against Trump? I clicked your profile and the articles link. 2 articles were about Trump before it even asked me to load more articles. Want me to see what happens when I click load more?

Bias implies that someone has a positive view towards someone or something, so in the sense that you've used it in this comment, that perhaps could be the case, as I wrote the line "it should be noted that the advice here is actually what the president should do if he wants to improve his online image."

Also, you have some awesome photographs on your profile, especially Banff!

The man who most obviously acts as a counterfactual to the assertion we live in a meritocracy.

What do you mean a microphone wasn't used? Sounds like it was to me.