rumitoid

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, or maybe just those responsible for distributing the altered video, could be indicted for criminal libel lawyers say. At the least, it is felt that Ms. Sanders should resign her post for such an egregious falsehood that impugned Mr. Acosta's character.

A video distributed by the Trump administration to support its argument for banning CNN reporter Jim Acosta from the White House appears to have been doctored to make Acosta look more aggressive than he was during an exchange with a White House intern, an independent expert said Thursday.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted the video, which shows Acosta asking President Donald Trump a question on Wednesday as the intern tries to take his microphone away. But a frame-by-frame comparison with an Associated Press video of the same incident shows that the one tweeted by Sanders appears to have been altered to speed up Acosta's arm movement as he touches the intern's arm, according to Abba Shapiro, an independent video producer who examined the footage at AP's request.

Earlier, Shapiro noticed that frames in the tweeted video were frozen to slow down the action, allowing it to run the same length as the AP one.

The tweeted video also does not have any audio, which Shapiro said would make it easier to alter. It's also unlikely the differences could be explained by technical glitches or by video compression — a reduction in a video's size to enable it to play more smoothly on some sites — because the slowing of the video and the acceleration that followed are "too precise to be an accident," said Shapiro, who trains instructors to use video editing software. The audio that was edited out appears purposeful, because Acosta immediately apologized to the intern trying to secure his mike.

Sanders, who hasn't said where the tweeted video came from, noted that it clearly shows Acosta made contact with the intern. In her statement announcing Acosta's suspension, she said the White House won't tolerate "a reporter placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job."

While the origin of the manipulated video is unclear, its distribution marked a new low for an administration that has been criticized for its willingness to mislead.

The White House News Photographers Association decried the sharing of the footage.

"As visual journalists, we know that manipulating images is manipulating t***h," said Whitney Shefte, the association's president. "It's deceptive, dangerous and unethical. Knowingly sharing manipulated images is equally problematic, particularly when the person sharing them is a representative of our country's highest office with vast influence over public opinion."

CNN has labeled Sanders' characterization of Acosta's exchange with the intern as a lie. Its position has been supported by witnesses including Reuters White House correspondent Jeff Mason, who was next to Acosta during the news conference and tweeted that he did not see Acosta place his hands on the White House employee. Rather, he said he saw him holding on to the microphone as she reached for it.

"The irony of this White House video involving Jim Acosta is that if it is found to be doctored, it will show the administration to be doing what it accuses the news media of doing — engaging in f**e information," said Aly Colon, a professor in journalism ethics at Washington & Lee University.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/8/18076532/f**e-doctored-video-cnn-cspan-infowars-sarah-huckabee-sanders-jim-acosta

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/08/white-house-shares-doctored-video-support-punishment-journalist-jim-acosta/?utm_term=.6f5ccb87db5e

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sarah-sanders-accused-of-circulating-doctored-video-of-jim-acostas-interaction-with-white-house-intern

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jim-acosta-sarah-sanders-cnn-reporter-white-house-intern-video-doctored/

Liberty Tree

There are video experts who say it was not doctored. Changes in speed is not doctoring. News and sports sources do that all the time.

Singularity

Evaluate the wide shot of the full exchange and you will see that she initiated the aggressive physical exchange (as was her job, and at the order of the president) by moving in and grabbing the mic in his possession. His chosen physical response was to refuse to engage and instead to defend, to twist away, retaining his grip on the mic. Her grip on the mic caused her to move towards him and her arm made contact with his arm which was in movement as well. The closeup editing masks their relative body movement and speeds up the relative apparent movement of his forearm, wrist and back of hand as she made contact with it.

It decieves the senses by false manipulation of the visual accurance. As do the sports shots edited to increase the suspenseful emotional shot.

It lies, and the lie is in agreement and at the direction of an intelligence supportive of the White House false allegation.

Don't you Christian apologists always insist that apparent design must have an active intelligence behind it?

rumitoid

Changes in speed is not doctoring? Fascinating. It is if you present it as a real time video of what occurred. The confrontation is lengthened and thus appears more aggressive than it actually was. What about editing out the audio? Isn't that doctoring? In the original, untouched, video, you can hear Mr. Acosta immediately apologize to the intern trying to take his mic. Why was the audio excluded? Duh!

rumitoid

Hi. There are exceptions that Christians will not note. Apparent design does have an active intelligence behind, except for the WH.

Singularity

And those exceptions disprove the claim that the universe MUST be intelligently designed, as it could as easily be just another exception to the rule.

As the White House "intellect" changes and reverses it's version of reality at dizzying record speeds, it is reasonable to assume that it fancies itself a deity, and delusionally believes its own demented ramblings.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

BS. I watched the news conference and Acosta was WAY out of line and deserves every criticism and sanction coming at him. No doctored video is needed because the proof is in the original source.

rumitoid

Diversity of reality is godlike.

rumitoid

Are you sure you saw the original source? If so, you could not possibly come to the conclusion that Acosta "was WAY out of line." Do you have the capability to run the WH version and the Newsweek version side by side? If so, you will clearly see the WH used a doctored video. One clue: where is the audio in the WH version? Non-existent. Why? Acosta immediately apologized to the intern for holding on to his mic.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

You're suffering from confirmation bias. You see and hear what you want to see and hear. I have no vested interest in either side.

rumitoid

"You spot it you got it" is a phrase you should familiarize yourself with.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

You mean like doctored videos and your doctored responses?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Jim Acosta is a narcissistic asshole. He isn't a journalist in the professional sense, he got his degrees in political science.

Media ethics is widely known to journalists as their professional "code of ethics" or the "canons of journalism". The basic codes and canons of professional journalism are taught in schools of journalism and commonly appear in statements drafted by both professional journalism associations and individual print, broadcast, and online news organizations.

While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of t***hfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability, as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.

You would be hard pressed to find a TV news anchor, blogger or news analyst who has a professional degree in journalism.

In the press briefing in question, Acosta was belligerent, unprofessional, and confrontational. He wasn't asking honest questions as a professional journalist should, instead he was trying to spin the narrative and leading his loaded questions with his personal opinions. IOW, being a fking jerk.

The 5 Principles of Ethical Journalism
There are very few TV anchors and news analysts today who exhibits these principles, and Acosta is not among them.

rumitoid

I agree. Never liked Acosta. "A narcissistic asshole" almost as big as Trump. Just getting close to that standard makes you a total, as you said, "jerkoff."

The opinion as to how Acosta presented himself is open to debate. He asked a tough question and Trump shut him down with insults. Or, he was belligerent and out of line in his questioning and needed to be shut down. Toss up, I think, yet I could favor the latter. But do you find taking the mic away from a journalist (or one who claims to be) wrong or unethical? Quashing his credentials and banning him in keeping with a Free Press?

JoyV

How did they speed up his arm movement while leaving the aide he was physically interacting with at the original speed? Nor would speeding his motion have created the contact. Did he or didn't he put his hand on the aide in resisting her taking the mic?