https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1171567034867625984
Kessler has to be trolling at this point with shit like this.
Bolton a man of the left, Jesus Christ.
1 Like
Tucker Obv has insider knowledge that his book will be devastating
1 Like
But this is entirely the fault of the left? After 9/11 ~the entire liberal establishment caved in to Bush’s warmongering. We’ve ceded the field and we act outraged when Trump claims the mantle of being the anti-war politician. Motherfucker, maybe Dems should try taking a principled anti-war stance instead of rallying behind Martha McSally or Valerie Plame or McCready.
3 Likes
CNN is now having a debate over whether or not it’s now Beto O’Rourke’s fault that nothing is going to happen on gun control because he said he wants to take away AR-15’s and AK-47’s.
Chris Cuomo just had Elizabeth Heng on and gave her about eight minutes (around 20% of his airtime) because he wanted to let her make her case on his show. What’s her case?
https://twitter.com/CPDAction/status/1172321534825787392
Yup, Cuomo put her on his show so that she could argue that AOC’s policies would lead to state-sponsored genocide in America. Sure, he argued against her and said that her ad was a violent provocation, but he also said he got her points about socialism and said he wants her to be part of the conversation going forward. He even played the ad.
CNN sucks.
1 Like
? Martha McSally is the Republican Senator appointed after the Democrats defeated her in 2018.
So that video is actually doctored a little. If you start at 1:20, she says, “You are dead wrong. The problem in this country not the color of anyone…”
At 1:25 there’s a harsh cut, where they edited the video in between country and not. Watch her face and you’ll see what is called a “jump cut” in the industry, where her face jumps a bit into a new position when the edit is done. You can also see it in the lower third graphic (look below her name) where it changes from two lines starting with Author, etc to two lines starting with Fox News Channel. There’s no fade out when the graphic changes, so that’s more evidence of the jump cut. For an example to compare it to, go to 2:03 and watch the change to the next graphic with her Twitter handle, you’ll see a (short) fade out on the graphic as the new one pops in. It helps to watch full screen, because like I said it’s a really quick effect - probably only like a quarter of a second or something.
And of course if you just listen, she’s missing the word “is” which is the easiest giveaway. But sometimes videos on Twitter freeze and such, so they can get away with that one a little more easily on Twitter.
Now, maybe it changes something important about what she said and maybe not… It certainly doesn’t change the fact that she’s a deplorable poisoning the well of political commentary in this country.
But I wanted to point it out for two reasons - first because it’s a great example of what people should be looking for to catch doctored video, and second because it’s worth asking the question of why they did it.
Random, for those interested in the industry and how this stuff works, the way this is done “properly” is with b-roll. B-roll is the term for secondary video that you roll over something else, usually to break up the monotony of a boring shot in a piece. But you can also use it to cover edits. Journalistically, this is useful because you can use it to hide a cut in something where someone is talking in a one-shot (one person on camera) without people realizing it’s edited and without the dreaded “jump cut.” Now, this is where ethics come in… If you don’t change the meaning, it’s considered fine. If you do, it’s a huge no-no. So, let’s say someone goes on a tangent and you want to cut that out and stick to the point - you could do that. Say someone is repeating themselves and you want the beginning and end, which conveys their point more succinctly (because you only have so much airtime), you can do that and it’s fine.
With b-roll, I could actually make her say “is” in that example above and create a doctored video that nobody here would likely catch by grabbing where she said it at 2:08 and dropping it into the edit in question. I’d listen to it and make sure it sounded smooth and natural, then cover it with b-roll to hide the video evidence.
So how would you catch such a thing? You’d have to listen to see if the “is” sounded out of flow - sometimes it’s tough to drop a word from another sentence in because the pacing/pitch/etc might not match. Good luck catching that on the fly without trained ears. The other way to catch it would be unnatural use of b-roll. So if you’re watching this clip and suddenly there’s b-roll (like say video of immigrants at the border), but it’s only over like a 5-second section, you’re going to want to ask yourself why… Of course my cover for that would then be to use 4-5 different shots for like a 30 second stretch, so you can’t really tell it’s only used to cover the edit.
So you’re also probably going to have to notice that the C-SPAN bug in the corner goes away during the b-roll, cause I’m not that good… (the bug being the logo that’s always always always on the screen)… and any network would leave their own identifying bug, the “live 9:41am” bug, etc up during b-roll.
Long post but I think this stuff is interesting due to my broadcasting past, and I think there’s a ton of doctored stuff floating around on social media during election season and it’s good to be aware of it.
This stuff came up a bit in a discussion of Michael Moore, because his documentaries have done a lot of questionable editing.
When you catch an obvious one, sometimes you just have to ask yourself if the editor was sloppy professionally but ethically fine, not changing the meaning, or whether they’re trying to pull one over. In that case, context is king.
1 Like
One more thing, I could probably even get her to say “is” even if she didn’t anywhere in the clip… At least a contracted version like “the problem’s in this country’s not…”
I would just have to grab an “s” sound from elsewhere and edit it in at the end of country.
I’ve done this for radio before (to my own voice, don’t worry) when I had to edit something down to 30 seconds or something for future use and had to really cut it down and still make it make sense.
Maybe I’ll toy around with it a bit sometime and post some clips to demonstrate.
Onion.
Both were ponied on that video… I’m sure it was dropped on the day it happened in the Trump thread.
The tweet is doctored, here’s the full version.
Soledad is so great, I’m gobsmacked that CNN hired her. Like I assume their hiring process is designed to filter out people with basic competence and common sense.
1 Like
It’s ok, they’re on it (after lots of soul searching and a thorough post-mortem that will find out how that was ever published in the first place, I’m sure…)
https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1173027776925982720?s=19
OK Tucker Carlson has on Armond White the movie critic on right now. Two of the greatest trolls in the history of the planet combining forces. They’re talking about Obama’s propaganda film American Factory. Let’s see what happens.
Armond: It’s fine really, the Obamas just need to be up front that it is propaganda and Netflix needs to advertise it as such
Tucker: So Netflix and Obamas are playing politics?
Armond: That’s right Tucker, the cultural media is colluding with Obamas and Netflix to do the propaganda
Tucker: Why would it ever be a good idea for a politician to leave office and become involved in producing content/news (senorkeeed: huh, good point, lets see if we hear Tucker object when Trump leaves office and starts TrumpVision with Tucker on the 9:00 PM slot)
Armond: Never! Never! And particularly when a president leaves office to become a politically-motivated movie mogul.
FWIW I love Armond White and love reading his reviews. Whenever I’m ambivalent about a movie or don’t like it as much as I think I should I read his reviews. He’s always able to point out a unique perspective that really cuts to the heart of why a movie doesn’t work. And when I hate a movie that is acclaimed I always check to see if Armond agrees. He usually does and his review invariably nails exactly why I hated the film. A national treasure.
And here’s my favorite thing of his, when a bunch of Christopher Nolan fanboys invite him on his podcast to beg him to like Inception. It did not go well. Skip to 45 minutes for my man Armond.
He doesn’t even object when the current President plays segment producer for Fox and Friends and has Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity take turns reading him bedtime stories…
I know it’s supposed to be funny but I found this incredibly creepy. Fucking grown supposedly serious public figure slurping at the feet of a deranged man-baby.
He’d have that same giddy smile sending people to death camps.
1 Like