[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Maru

No one really knows if it was doctored for sure or not. I'm not sure anyone cares either, because it's not like CNN/<insert media outlet> has never done any creative editing of their own. That concern there might as well be satire.

Some have speculated the choppy framerate may have been because of a conversion from 30fps (around that amount) video to a gif/gif-like format. The video that was released by the White House was the first one I watched and it did seem to be a very poor video. If they really pulled it from Alex Jones feed though, then that was just dumb. If they have access to the video, they should post original content.

There's very good reason for CNN to want to push this issue though of video doctoring, but it's not for the reasons most are suggesting it is. I don't think it has to do with partisanship at all.

As Alf has mentioned, there are many who are starting to prefer alternative sources to mainstream. There is a war between TV and social media/the internet for the "relevancy" crown as well. Online gets crazy views/clicks compared to TV now. It's a no-brainer that's where things are heading. Even Tucker Carlson (Fox) was recently interviewing with alternative media saying he was super jealous. Not only could they do whatever they wanted with their studio, but they had such an audience. Yes, they don't have the "footprint" of sattelite offices and such to cover for international events, etc... but I think it's no question, aside from local, Cable News is quickly becoming a thing of the past.

When I was watching the big networks before/post-2016, they did make it a regular point to pan all non-"mainstream" sources as suspect, potential fake news, "questionable", etc. Yes, that was usually right-wing, but they don't care about the right wing audience (Fox has them in the hole), so in downplaying it to be a left/right versus thing... what they're saying is, if you're like "one of us", then keep watching cable because we cater to you. Even though there are left-wing sources (Like The Young Turks). The demographics though favor right-wing media atm in terms of online. So CNN still has reasonble access to the female audience as well with their coverage of the Woman's March/feminism's goals, etc. So it's really just strategy I think more than partisanship.

Trump releases his updates on Twitter for example, and if you notice, many of the reporter's questions are about always about his tweeting. That's because they know that's what people are talking about, so they create little story archs around his Twitter persona. Even if the story doesn't go beyond navel-gazing, which makes their punditry look sad, but it's terrible for business if all people just go straight to twitter for the "buzz" and don't check with TV media on their opinion of it. Cable News here is really dependent on Washington for their audience, so if the President and his ilk start relying more heavily on online to get their message out, then there's really no other reason to watch cable then.

That's why Fox is more than happy to cater him in terms of his schedule, his call-ins, his weird ranting style on their network, etc... yes, it seems a bit friendly, but we can certainly say that about MSNBC/CNN during Obama era anyway. So I think Cable News will always be in bed with Washington to some degree in order to maintain their relevancy... but yeah, that same tactic that helps preserve them, may eventually rid them of all authenticity, so I think it is a difficult line to toe with the rise of online competition...

“It’s Our Job to Call Them Out”: Inside the Trump Gold Rush at CNN
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018...ld-rush-at-cnn

Jeff Zucker, CNN President:

Another CNN-related online video scandal some have probably forgotten by now...

CNN faces backlash over handling of doctored Trump video
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/cnn-...ump-video.html


https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/cnn-...ump-video.html

'Who cares if this video is doctored because other organisation doctors videos too!' Troubling logic.

It's fairly obvious just looking at the videos in comparison that the one the White House used was sped up to make the non-incident look like an act of aggression when it isn't. Either way, the White House used a video to push a narrative that was invalidated by the raw footage of the incident. You can try to minimalise that all you want but you won't erase that fact.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

'Who cares if this video is doctored because other organisation doctors videos too!' Troubling logic.

It's fairly obvious just looking at the videos in comparison that the one the White House used was sped up to make the non-incident look like an act of aggression when it isn't. Either way, the White House used a video to push a narrative that was invalidated by the raw footage of the incident. You can try to minimalise that all you want but you won't erase that fact.

Not everyone we have disagreements with has some major personality flaws and/or agenda. So I would ask that we leave the personal assessments out of this discussion. Thanks.

People are destigmatized to being lied to, especially with politics. That's been the observation even before the era of "Fake News". That's why we do research. There's a wide-reaching mantra in our media, especially online, of folks attempting to be defacto "fact checkers". This is a dubious claim to make anyway because so much our news coverage is so "manufactured" for a certain audience. CNN can't claim this mantle, no different any other outlet. They're all playing the same game of musical chairs to a large degree.

Sometimes we do a need some reasonable context/interpretations in order to make sense of a set of facts. Sometimes this means putting facts on a scale and weighing them.

This is not what Acosta was doing though. He's been using his pass to be as disruptive as possible for months now to call attention to himself for months though. This is not journalism.

Concepts of "dodgy" video when it's concepts most people don't even understand don't seem to matter. The established facts are the following: There was an incident, he didn't hand over his mic and Trump got pretty pissed about it and revoked his pass. Some people deme this "activism", others call this a violation of press rights. That's why keyframe rates don't matter. The interpretation would be the same on either spectrum, whether there was doctored video or not.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Maru

Not everyone we have disagreements with has some major personality flaws and/or agenda. So I would ask that we leave the personal assessments out of this discussion. Thanks.

People are destigmatized to being lied to, especially with politics. That's been the observation even before the era of "Fake News". That's why we do research. There's a wide-reaching mantra in our media, especially online, of folks attempting to be defacto "fact checkers". This is a dubious claim to make anyway because so much our news coverage is so "manufactured" for a certain audience. CNN can't claim this mantle, no different any other outlet. They're all playing the same game of musical chairs to a large degree.

Sometimes we do a need some reasonable context/interpretations in order to make sense of a set of facts. Sometimes this means putting facts on a scale and weighing them.

This is not what Acosta was doing though. He's been using his pass to be as disruptive as possible for months now to call attention to himself for months though. This is not journalism.

Concepts of "dodgy" video when it's concepts most people don't even understand don't seem to matter. The established facts are the following: There was an incident, he didn't hand over his mic and Trump got pretty pissed about it and revoked his pass. Some people deme this "activism", others call this a violation of press rights. That's why keyframe rates don't matter. The interpretation would be the same on either spectrum, whether there was doctored video or not.

You said as much in your post. Did you or did you not say the following? 'I'm not sure anyone cares either, because it's not like CNN/<insert media outlet> has never done any creative editing of their own' How else am I meant to take that other than what I said. I don't appreciate you making out that I'm insulting you for pointing something out that YOU wrote.

Oh, so now fact checkers aren't to be believed.... In the words of Monque Heart, facts are facts. You can put spin on them for a while but ultimately you can't lie about them or dilute them to be anything other than facts. Your point about interpretation errs too close to the attitude that opinions and facts are one in the same or that facts are somehow less infallible than someone's thoughts. A dangerous brand of 'logic' that I can't abide. Once again, facts are facts.

As I said before as a general point, why single out Acosta for apparently 'being rude' when Trump insulted multiple people in that press conference and was way ruder without purpose? Why highlight one side while ignoring the other being guilty of worse instance of rudeness? You're just trying to spin the story at this point. 'It's the fault of the journalist but let's ignore the wrongdoings of the White House in all of it.'

You're ignoring several facts and thus ignoring important context of those facts. Acosta challenged the president and in the next few days he lost his access and the White House commented on it saying it was because of an aggressive incident and then they used a sped up video to push that narrative although raw footage told a different tale. No amount of mental gymnastics or spin can change those facts. You can use any excuse you like but it won't change a damn thing.

Considering the bare facts and the narrative that the White House has pushed that has already been proved false, you can only really come up with one sensible solution and I shouldn't have to spell that conclusion out to a rational mind.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You said as much in your post. Did you or did you not say the following? 'I'm not sure anyone cares either, because it's not like CNN/<insert media outlet> has never done any creative editing of their own' How else am I meant to take that other than what I said. I don't appreciate you making out that I'm insulting you for pointing something out that YOU wrote.

Oh, so now fact checkers aren't to be believed.... In the words of Monque Heart, facts are facts. You can put spin on them for a while but ultimately you can't lie about them or dilute them to be anything other than facts. Your point about interpretation errs too close to the attitude that opinions and facts are one in the same or that facts are somehow less infallible than someone's thoughts. A dangerous brand of 'logic' that I can't abide. Once again, facts are facts.

As I said before as a general point, why single out Acosta for apparently 'being rude' when Trump insulted multiple people in that press conference and was way ruder without purpose? Why highlight one side while ignoring the other being guilty of worse instance of rudeness? You're just trying to spin the story at this point. 'It's the fault of the journalist but let's ignore the wrongdoings of the White House in all of it.'

You're ignoring several facts and thus ignoring important context of those facts. Acosta challenged the president and in the next few days he lost his access and the White House commented on it saying it was because of an aggressive incident and then they used a sped up video to push that narrative although raw footage told a different tale. No amount of mental gymnastics or spin can change those facts. You can use any excuse you like but it won't change a damn thing.

Considering the bare facts and the narrative that the White House has pushed that has already been proved false, you can only really come up with one sensible solution and I shouldn't have to spell that conclusion out to a rational mind.

This is too personal of a post for me to want to bother with. Sorry Dezzy, I'm out.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Maru

This is too personal of a post for me to want to bother with. Sorry Dezzy, I'm out.

It would be better to just admit that you don't have a counter argument rather than making out (again) that I'm insulting you as an attempt to degrade my points without forming a counter argument.

I resent what you are doing and I will call it out for what it is.