18 ms·

Trump Press Conference Video Doctored?

rkuykendall-com 8y ago
I realize this may be removed due to the political nature, but the conversation about video speed and frame-dropping from video-to-gif conversion, made me think it would be relevant to HackerNews.
- ve55 8y ago
  What is even more interesting and relevant is what we will do when videos are regularly and intentionally modified or created, and in much more striking ways than this one. I'm surprised we haven't already seen some good attempts at this with the amount of money and motivation that goes into US politics.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Izkata 8y ago
    Do you remember the thing about a year ago with Trump, Shinzo Abe, and the koi pond? The story was that Trump ignored instructions and impatiently dumped all the food into the pond, but the short video making the rounds was also edited: It zoomed in on Trump to hide Abe also tossing all the koi food, before Trump did.
jefe_ 8y ago
Jim Acosta has done this many times. If he was really interested in answers he would continually modify his approach until he got what he wanted. But he's not really interested in answers so much as making a show of Trump not answering his questions. Case in point, I have no clue what he was asking, all of the stories have been about the reporter. Contrast with the Axios interview on HBO this week, where the interviewers discussed trying something different and effectively got a unique Trump interview.
- moate 8y ago
  Counterpoint: Jim acosta is trying to get a specific question answered, and not looking for a "unique Trump interview". Some people in the press will lob softballs and push out puff pieces. Others will ask questions they feel the people* want answered. There's no way you could ask Trump "What are the exact contents of your tax returns" and get an answer other than "none of your business." *"The people" may or may not be large indicative of the public at large, and may instead represent a media outlet's primary consumers.
- alphabettsy 8y ago
  Whatever you think about him is really not relevant to the press secretary’s complete mischaracterization. She said that he “put his hands on her”, and we all know what that is implied to mean. They could’ve just said that he lacked proper decorum or something, but instead they did this.
dustinmoris 8y ago
This is all just so sad. There's really no winner in this, because at this stage of technology and general mistrust towards the opposing party there is nothing that anyone could do in order to provide an answer that everyone can believe in, let alone non tech people. We have truly created a state of lies, mistrust, fake news and conspiracy and this will end badly. It surely plays into Trump's cards which is also quite upsetting too.
- dakna 8y ago
  Divide and conquer at it's best. We, the people, are supposed to stop making decisions based on rational thinking and vote according to a social identity that is shoved into our faces constantly. And if enough people have nothing to trust anymore, and think there are conspiracies everywhere, it is easy to fill the void with just one loud person to trust. It is the last resort based on emotions and identity. Well played, well played indeed.
  - ipython 8y ago
    This - a thousand times. Read this story: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/21/kent-sorenson-was-a-tea-party-hero-then-he-lost-everything-220522 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/21/kent-sore... It’s a great story for a bunch of reasons, but what I would like to point out for this thread is how effective pitting ethnic and racial groups against each other in prison is at surpressing organized dissent. That’s exactly the tactic employed here with the virulent tribalism egged on by this administration.
conductr 8y ago
Sped up or not, I think the missing perspective is “is it okay to walk up to someone and forcibly grab what they have in their hand?“ Given the context, him not wanting her to grab the microphone, I see nothing wrong with his reaction
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- assblaster 8y ago
  I don't think the microphone was Jim Acosta's personal property, and he was an invited guest on federal property, and an employee/intern of the federal government was given instruction to get government property back.
  - komali2 8y ago
    Except, Jim Acosta is the 4th branch. His job is to find out, on the People's behalf, what the fed is up to, and the federal government (which we pay for) was trying to squirm out of it. That's not government property, that's our property. The very house is paid for by our taxes. If it were up to me, journalists would be with elected officials more than they aren't. I want transparency in government. Full transparency.
    - assblaster 8y ago
      Jim Acosta turned question-asking into political opinion generation. Are reporters even supposed to render judgment at a Q&A?
      - BryantD 8y ago
        We have the transcript of the exchange. Can you clarify what you mean by "political opinion generation"? ---- Acosta: I wanted to challenge you on one of the statements that you made in the tail end of the campaign in the midterms that … Trump: Here we go. Acosta: Well, I — if you don’t mind, Mr. President … Trump: Let’s go. Let’s go. Come on. Acosta: … that this caravan was an invasion. As you know, Mr. President … Trump: I consider it to be an invasion. Acosta: As you know, Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion. It’s a group of migrants moving up from Central America towards the border with the U.S. And … Trump: Thank you for telling me that. I appreciate it. Acosta: … why did you characterize it as such? Trump: Because I consider it an invasion. You and I have a difference of opinion. Acosta: But do you think that you demonized immigrants in this election to try to keep … Trump: Not at all. No, not at all. I want them to come into the country, but they have to come in legally. You know, they have to come in, Jim, through a process. I want it to be a process. And I want people to come in. And we need the people here … Acosta: Right. But your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on … Trump: Well, that’s true. … They weren’t actors. Acosta: They’re not going to be doing that. Trump: They weren’t actors. Well, no, it was true. Do you think they were actors? They weren’t actors. They didn’t come from Hollywood. … This was an actual — you know, it happened a few days ago and … Acosta: They’re hundreds of miles away, though. They’re hundreds and hundreds of miles away. Trump: You know what? Acosta: That’s not an invasion. Trump: I think you should — honestly — I think you should let me run the country, you run CNN. And if you did it well, your ratings would be much better. Acosta: But let me ask … if I may ask one other question … Trump: OK, that’s enough. Acosta: Mr. President, if I may … Trump: Peter, go ahead. Acosta: If I may ask one other question. Are you worried … Trump: That’s enough. That’s enough. Acosta: But, Mr. President, I — well … Trump: That’s enough. Acosta: I was going to ask one other … Trump: That’s enough. Acosta: The other folks have had … Trump: That’s enough. Acosta: Pardon me, ma’am. I’m — I’m — Mr. President … Trump: Excuse me, that’s enough. Acosta: Mr. President, I had one other question, if I may ask, on — on the Russia investigation. Are you concerned that — that you may have indictments … Trump: I’m not concerned about anything with the Russia investigation because it’s a hoax. Acosta: Are you … Trump: That’s enough. Put down the mic. Acosta: Mr. President, are you worried about indictments coming down in this investigation? Trump: I tell you what. CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN. Go ahead. Acosta: I — I think that’s unfair … Trump: You’re a very rude person. The way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible, and the way you treat other people are horrible. You shouldn’t treat people that way.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
I watched the side by side comparison of the three videos about thirty times before I read any of the text. Why is it being framed as Acosta doing a chop rather than the woman in the video trying to punch Acosta. All three of the videos, to me, look like the woman going for a throat punch and Acosta's movements reactionary. I can't tell who has the whacky bias here. Is it me? Edit: rather than change my comment after I've posted it, I mean to write that both of the reduced frame rate videos appear as though the woman is going for the throat. The original video just looks nothing like that.
- komali2 8y ago
  Why is an intern being sent to physically take away a microphone from a journalist? Do they not have an a/v team?
- DonaldPShimoda 8y ago
  > look like the woman going for a throat punch I mean... no, I can't see this at all. In every instance, it's totally obvious she's reaching for the mic. I agree that she clearly instigated whatever contact is there, and his movements do seem totally reactionary, but portraying her movement as an attempt at a "throat punch" is kind of ridiculous.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    Yes, I agree. I just mean to say why is it being framed one way when it can, in my opinion, just as easily be misinterpreted the other way. My first comment definitely overstates my opinion.
    - DonaldPShimoda 8y ago
      Ohh I see what you mean! Yes, it's just as easy to say she went for a throat punch as it is to say he karate chopped her arm. I totally get what you meant now. Sorry for not understanding. :)
- guilhas 8y ago
TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
No conversation about doctored videos is complete without someone bringing up that time Obama called Trump a "complete dipshit". https://news.avclub.com/jordan-peele-makes-obama-call-trump-a-complete-dipshit-1825333067 https://news.avclub.com/jordan-peele-makes-obama-call-trump-...
GhostVII 8y ago
Why is this even being talked about? The intern grabbed the microphone, he pushed her arm out of the way, it doesn't really seem like a big issue at all. Even in the gif it looks pretty minor.
- baron816 8y ago
  It’s a big deal because the White House made it a big deal by revoking Acosta’s press pass.
- ajross 8y ago
  It's being talked about because the Press Secretary of the President of the United States cited this particular video as proof that a journalist was violent with this intern. The White House wants this to be a story, and they're lying (and literally fabricating evidence, or at least trafficing in fabricated evidence) to do it.
  - kevin_b_er 8y ago
    It's being talked about because the Press Secretary of the President of the United States lied to everyone.
- rhcom2 8y ago
  The White House is making it a big deal to use as reasoning for pulling Acosta's press credentials indefinitely.
- moate 8y ago
  >>Why is this even being talked about? -A major news outlet had one of their major White House reporter's press pass revoked. -The President's press secretary cited a doctored/edited video as evidence of the behavior that resulted in this revocation. -The President of the United States has been on a 3 year long campaign to sew distrust in media sources he doesn't feel portray him favorably. -The President of the United States has blatantly and openly lied about information he felt was affecting his policy making, causing many people on both sides of the aisle to distrust his ability to objectively lead the country. This interaction occurred during a press conference in which the President was again repeating blatant lie, as well as the less offensive ignoring and misdirection of unfavorable questions. Would you like me to keep going?
ipython 8y ago
Wow. I can’t believe the power of tribalism. Really, we are arguing over whether someone grazed the arm of a woman who reached to remove the microphone from a reporter? I guess we really have no other pressing needs to attend to. Nope- the homeless problem, solved. Opioid abuse? No longer a problem! Ethnic cleansing in Myanmar? Eliminated! Murdering dissidents and journalists? Not happening. Deploying thousands of military troops to intercept a caravan of asylum seeking refugees? That’s yesterday’s news. Nope, let’s spend our collective mental energy on fighting a battle- did he assault that poor woman?!? Seriously? I realize my comment stinks of snarkiness, but seriously- think of how this plays out in the history books. How absolutely absurd does all this sound? I mean we laugh at the fact we threw bound women in the water to divine whether they were witches. What reaction will we have to the events of today a hundred years from now? I leave this comment with a question I have no answer to. How do we fix this bug in human psychology?
- tzar 8y ago
  > How do we fix this bug in human psychology? My gut feeling is that this sort of thing is cyclical. We oscillate back and forth in countless ways, micro and macro. So the bug fix is to ride the crazy train until we reach the apex and then keep riding it back down to “sanity”, overshoot, then do it all again forever.
  - ipython 8y ago
    That’s not really “fixing” the bug though isn’t it? :(
- bradleyankrom 8y ago
  > Really, we are arguing over whether someone grazed the arm of a woman who reached to remove the microphone from a reporter? I don't think so. The conversation has been about the WH press secretary's characterization and reaction to the event and, now, whether that office is pushing an account of the event that deliberately distorts the truth.
- PascLeRasc 8y ago
  The implications of this argument are that the government is suppressing media and using disinformation to convince the public that it's alright. This is part of protecting journalists and dissidents like you argue we should be focusing on.
JohnTHaller 8y ago
The White House Press Secretary downloaded a doctored video from a conspiracy site and then uploaded it to Twitter to share it from the official Twitter account. The overlay makes it clearer than a side by side: https://twitter.com/rafaelshimunov/status/1060450557817708544 https://twitter.com/rafaelshimunov/status/106045055781770854... While this will get flagged for being "political" the technological analysis by various folks have been interesting.

I realize this may be removed due to the political nature, but the conversation about video speed and frame-dropping from video-to-gif conversion, made me think it would be relevant to HackerNews.

ve55 8y ago
What is even more interesting and relevant is what we will do when videos are regularly and intentionally modified or created, and in much more striking ways than this one. I'm surprised we haven't already seen some good attempts at this with the amount of money and motivation that goes into US politics.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Izkata 8y ago
  Do you remember the thing about a year ago with Trump, Shinzo Abe, and the koi pond? The story was that Trump ignored instructions and impatiently dumped all the food into the pond, but the short video making the rounds was also edited: It zoomed in on Trump to hide Abe also tossing all the koi food, before Trump did.

jefe_ 8y ago

Jim Acosta has done this many times. If he was really interested in answers he would continually modify his approach until he got what he wanted. But he's not really interested in answers so much as making a show of Trump not answering his questions. Case in point, I have no clue what he was asking, all of the stories have been about the reporter. Contrast with the Axios interview on HBO this week, where the interviewers discussed trying something different and effectively got a unique Trump interview.

moate 8y ago
Counterpoint: Jim acosta is trying to get a specific question answered, and not looking for a "unique Trump interview". Some people in the press will lob softballs and push out puff pieces. Others will ask questions they feel the people* want answered. There's no way you could ask Trump "What are the exact contents of your tax returns" and get an answer other than "none of your business." *"The people" may or may not be large indicative of the public at large, and may instead represent a media outlet's primary consumers.
alphabettsy 8y ago
Whatever you think about him is really not relevant to the press secretary’s complete mischaracterization. She said that he “put his hands on her”, and we all know what that is implied to mean. They could’ve just said that he lacked proper decorum or something, but instead they did this.

dustinmoris 8y ago

This is all just so sad. There's really no winner in this, because at this stage of technology and general mistrust towards the opposing party there is nothing that anyone could do in order to provide an answer that everyone can believe in, let alone non tech people. We have truly created a state of lies, mistrust, fake news and conspiracy and this will end badly. It surely plays into Trump's cards which is also quite upsetting too.

dakna 8y ago
Divide and conquer at it's best. We, the people, are supposed to stop making decisions based on rational thinking and vote according to a social identity that is shoved into our faces constantly. And if enough people have nothing to trust anymore, and think there are conspiracies everywhere, it is easy to fill the void with just one loud person to trust. It is the last resort based on emotions and identity. Well played, well played indeed.
- ipython 8y ago
  This - a thousand times. Read this story: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/21/kent-sorenson-was-a-tea-party-hero-then-he-lost-everything-220522 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/21/kent-sore... It’s a great story for a bunch of reasons, but what I would like to point out for this thread is how effective pitting ethnic and racial groups against each other in prison is at surpressing organized dissent. That’s exactly the tactic employed here with the virulent tribalism egged on by this administration.

conductr 8y ago

Sped up or not, I think the missing perspective is “is it okay to walk up to someone and forcibly grab what they have in their hand?“ Given the context, him not wanting her to grab the microphone, I see nothing wrong with his reaction

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
assblaster 8y ago
I don't think the microphone was Jim Acosta's personal property, and he was an invited guest on federal property, and an employee/intern of the federal government was given instruction to get government property back.
- komali2 8y ago
  Except, Jim Acosta is the 4th branch. His job is to find out, on the People's behalf, what the fed is up to, and the federal government (which we pay for) was trying to squirm out of it. That's not government property, that's our property. The very house is paid for by our taxes. If it were up to me, journalists would be with elected officials more than they aren't. I want transparency in government. Full transparency.
  - assblaster 8y ago
    Jim Acosta turned question-asking into political opinion generation. Are reporters even supposed to render judgment at a Q&A?
    - BryantD 8y ago
      We have the transcript of the exchange. Can you clarify what you mean by "political opinion generation"? ---- Acosta: I wanted to challenge you on one of the statements that you made in the tail end of the campaign in the midterms that … Trump: Here we go. Acosta: Well, I — if you don’t mind, Mr. President … Trump: Let’s go. Let’s go. Come on. Acosta: … that this caravan was an invasion. As you know, Mr. President … Trump: I consider it to be an invasion. Acosta: As you know, Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion. It’s a group of migrants moving up from Central America towards the border with the U.S. And … Trump: Thank you for telling me that. I appreciate it. Acosta: … why did you characterize it as such? Trump: Because I consider it an invasion. You and I have a difference of opinion. Acosta: But do you think that you demonized immigrants in this election to try to keep … Trump: Not at all. No, not at all. I want them to come into the country, but they have to come in legally. You know, they have to come in, Jim, through a process. I want it to be a process. And I want people to come in. And we need the people here … Acosta: Right. But your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on … Trump: Well, that’s true. … They weren’t actors. Acosta: They’re not going to be doing that. Trump: They weren’t actors. Well, no, it was true. Do you think they were actors? They weren’t actors. They didn’t come from Hollywood. … This was an actual — you know, it happened a few days ago and … Acosta: They’re hundreds of miles away, though. They’re hundreds and hundreds of miles away. Trump: You know what? Acosta: That’s not an invasion. Trump: I think you should — honestly — I think you should let me run the country, you run CNN. And if you did it well, your ratings would be much better. Acosta: But let me ask … if I may ask one other question … Trump: OK, that’s enough. Acosta: Mr. President, if I may … Trump: Peter, go ahead. Acosta: If I may ask one other question. Are you worried … Trump: That’s enough. That’s enough. Acosta: But, Mr. President, I — well … Trump: That’s enough. Acosta: I was going to ask one other … Trump: That’s enough. Acosta: The other folks have had … Trump: That’s enough. Acosta: Pardon me, ma’am. I’m — I’m — Mr. President … Trump: Excuse me, that’s enough. Acosta: Mr. President, I had one other question, if I may ask, on — on the Russia investigation. Are you concerned that — that you may have indictments … Trump: I’m not concerned about anything with the Russia investigation because it’s a hoax. Acosta: Are you … Trump: That’s enough. Put down the mic. Acosta: Mr. President, are you worried about indictments coming down in this investigation? Trump: I tell you what. CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN. Go ahead. Acosta: I — I think that’s unfair … Trump: You’re a very rude person. The way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible, and the way you treat other people are horrible. You shouldn’t treat people that way.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago

I watched the side by side comparison of the three videos about thirty times before I read any of the text. Why is it being framed as Acosta doing a chop rather than the woman in the video trying to punch Acosta. All three of the videos, to me, look like the woman going for a throat punch and Acosta's movements reactionary. I can't tell who has the whacky bias here. Is it me? Edit: rather than change my comment after I've posted it, I mean to write that both of the reduced frame rate videos appear as though the woman is going for the throat. The original video just looks nothing like that.

komali2 8y ago
Why is an intern being sent to physically take away a microphone from a journalist? Do they not have an a/v team?
DonaldPShimoda 8y ago
> look like the woman going for a throat punch I mean... no, I can't see this at all. In every instance, it's totally obvious she's reaching for the mic. I agree that she clearly instigated whatever contact is there, and his movements do seem totally reactionary, but portraying her movement as an attempt at a "throat punch" is kind of ridiculous.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  Yes, I agree. I just mean to say why is it being framed one way when it can, in my opinion, just as easily be misinterpreted the other way. My first comment definitely overstates my opinion.
  - DonaldPShimoda 8y ago
    Ohh I see what you mean! Yes, it's just as easy to say she went for a throat punch as it is to say he karate chopped her arm. I totally get what you meant now. Sorry for not understanding. :)
guilhas 8y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago

No conversation about doctored videos is complete without someone bringing up that time Obama called Trump a "complete dipshit". https://news.avclub.com/jordan-peele-makes-obama-call-trump-a-complete-dipshit-1825333067 https://news.avclub.com/jordan-peele-makes-obama-call-trump-...

GhostVII 8y ago

Why is this even being talked about? The intern grabbed the microphone, he pushed her arm out of the way, it doesn't really seem like a big issue at all. Even in the gif it looks pretty minor.

baron816 8y ago
It’s a big deal because the White House made it a big deal by revoking Acosta’s press pass.
ajross 8y ago
It's being talked about because the Press Secretary of the President of the United States cited this particular video as proof that a journalist was violent with this intern. The White House wants this to be a story, and they're lying (and literally fabricating evidence, or at least trafficing in fabricated evidence) to do it.
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  It's being talked about because the Press Secretary of the President of the United States lied to everyone.
rhcom2 8y ago
The White House is making it a big deal to use as reasoning for pulling Acosta's press credentials indefinitely.
moate 8y ago
>>Why is this even being talked about? -A major news outlet had one of their major White House reporter's press pass revoked. -The President's press secretary cited a doctored/edited video as evidence of the behavior that resulted in this revocation. -The President of the United States has been on a 3 year long campaign to sew distrust in media sources he doesn't feel portray him favorably. -The President of the United States has blatantly and openly lied about information he felt was affecting his policy making, causing many people on both sides of the aisle to distrust his ability to objectively lead the country. This interaction occurred during a press conference in which the President was again repeating blatant lie, as well as the less offensive ignoring and misdirection of unfavorable questions. Would you like me to keep going?

ipython 8y ago

Wow. I can’t believe the power of tribalism. Really, we are arguing over whether someone grazed the arm of a woman who reached to remove the microphone from a reporter? I guess we really have no other pressing needs to attend to. Nope- the homeless problem, solved. Opioid abuse? No longer a problem! Ethnic cleansing in Myanmar? Eliminated! Murdering dissidents and journalists? Not happening. Deploying thousands of military troops to intercept a caravan of asylum seeking refugees? That’s yesterday’s news. Nope, let’s spend our collective mental energy on fighting a battle- did he assault that poor woman?!? Seriously? I realize my comment stinks of snarkiness, but seriously- think of how this plays out in the history books. How absolutely absurd does all this sound? I mean we laugh at the fact we threw bound women in the water to divine whether they were witches. What reaction will we have to the events of today a hundred years from now? I leave this comment with a question I have no answer to. How do we fix this bug in human psychology?

tzar 8y ago
> How do we fix this bug in human psychology? My gut feeling is that this sort of thing is cyclical. We oscillate back and forth in countless ways, micro and macro. So the bug fix is to ride the crazy train until we reach the apex and then keep riding it back down to “sanity”, overshoot, then do it all again forever.
- ipython 8y ago
  That’s not really “fixing” the bug though isn’t it? :(
bradleyankrom 8y ago
> Really, we are arguing over whether someone grazed the arm of a woman who reached to remove the microphone from a reporter? I don't think so. The conversation has been about the WH press secretary's characterization and reaction to the event and, now, whether that office is pushing an account of the event that deliberately distorts the truth.
PascLeRasc 8y ago
The implications of this argument are that the government is suppressing media and using disinformation to convince the public that it's alright. This is part of protecting journalists and dissidents like you argue we should be focusing on.

JohnTHaller 8y ago

The White House Press Secretary downloaded a doctored video from a conspiracy site and then uploaded it to Twitter to share it from the official Twitter account. The overlay makes it clearer than a side by side: https://twitter.com/rafaelshimunov/status/1060450557817708544 https://twitter.com/rafaelshimunov/status/106045055781770854... While this will get flagged for being "political" the technological analysis by various folks have been interesting.