White House Press Secretary Blasted for Sharing Infowars Video to Bar Reporter

[ADigitalArtist]

Actually, the video is not likely doctored but simply suffered from converting it from a video file to a animated GIF.

1. Gif images have a dramatically smaller colour palette and generally are at a fairly low resolution.
2. Gif images often drop numerous frames to keep the final file size down. That process can introduce garbage into the image and unexpected stops and less than smooth transitions.
3. Not all Gif Creation tools are very good or do a very good job. (I use Wondershare Video Converter Ultimate on a regular basis and am quite used to unexpected conversion results.)

(Personally, I would have just stuck with the original video and focused on Acosta's boorish behavior.)
I doubt Sanders or Trump had anything to do with this...

In my view, this is another one of those situations of people without any knowledge of video/graphic matters passing judgement on things they do not appreciate.

I don't buy it, for four reasons. I've been making gif animations since the very early days of photoshop and flash, as well as using conversion programs. I've never had dropped frames so inconveniantly in one part of the animation timeline. Rather, it happens in a more spread out way.
Secondly, dropped frames doesn't explain the part that is *slower* than the live video. I've never had a conversion program sporadically add frames in one place either.
Third, the video is edited and cropped and enlarged to draw emphasis to the supposed point of contact. It's not like they just threw the raw interview into the converter. They were going for a specific narrative.
Four, the original creator posted a screen shot of the timeline where you can see the frame edits before and after the motion.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't buy it, for four reasons. I've been making gif animations since the very early days of photoshop and flash, as well as using conversion programs. I've never had dropped frames so inconveniantly in one part of the animation timeline. Rather, it happens in a more spread out way.
Secondly, dropped frames doesn't explain the part that is *slower* than the live video. I've never had a conversion program sporadically add frames in one place either.
Third, the video is edited and cropped and enlarged to draw emphasis to the supposed point of contact. It's not like they just threw the raw interview into the converter. They were going for a specific narrative.
Four, the original creator posted a screen shot of the timeline where you can see the frame edits before and after the motion.
View attachment 25296

We have similar experience levels and yet appear to disagree. So be it.

 

[fantome profane]

We have similar experience levels and yet appear to disagree. So be it.

But why would the White House be getting a video from Infawars in the first place?

 

[YmirGF]

But why would the White House be getting a video from Infawars in the first place?

I have no idea if it is the same video. Has that been proven yet?

 

[tytlyf]

The press is protected by the constitution, it's no surprise Donald doesn't care.

 

[Revoltingest]

As a so proclaim libertarian how do you handle the fact that the white house press secretary is doctoring evidence to support her case in controlling the media?

First, I made a grammar & style correction.
Second, I handle it easily....
By caring infinitesimally about all the partisan tit for tat dishonesty & sniping.
This way I've no desire to defend or attack either.
They should all behave better, but my advice goes unheeded.

 

[Tammie]

BSM1 said: It seems perception is truly in the eye of the beholder....- absolutely true.
TheBannerofHomuraAkemi said: If he broke the rules why release a statement with a doctored video? What would be the point in that?

I agree with BSM1 that it is truly in the eye of the beholder
For TheBannerofHomuraAkemi - It depends on who the source was in C-Span that gave the information that the video was doctored.

Where has it ever been in history, rather you liked a President or not, that any journalist has showed that kind of rudeness or hatred toward a President of the United States of America. The President was heard several times telling him to sit down but the Journalist himself wanted to exalt himself to be higher than what he was by not listening to anything. It called for someone to step in and try to stop it. I am not for anything that promotes hatred or bullying and that is my perception of it.

 

[Shad]

Where has it ever been in history, rather you liked a President or not, that any journalist has showed that kind of rudeness or hatred toward a President of the United States of America. The President was heard several times telling him to sit down but the Journalist himself wanted to exalt himself to be higher than what he was by not listening to anything. It called for someone to step in and try to stop it. I am not for anything that promotes hatred or bullying and that is my perception of it.

Acost-her has been grandstanding and giving lectures for over a year instead of being a reporter.

 

[Tammie]

sun rise

But what Big Brother insists all believe is truth and using propaganda videos instead of honest ones are just fine because they are coming from the Ministry of Truth.

Did you watch this Press Briefing when this happened or are you just quoting from all the others I see that are talking of a doctored video that they have seen. What do you mean by coming from the Ministry of Truth. Trump was caught in a lie the other day, and it was exposed "In one recording he said that he knew Matt (?) the temporary Attorney General very well, and in the next recording he said; that, he did not know him at all" This is truly a lie. When ever has it been in politics that no one lies, no matter which side you are on?

 

[Curious George]

sun rise


Did you watch this Press Briefing when this happened or are you just quoting from all the others I see that are talking of a doctored video that they have seen. What do you mean by coming from the Ministry of Truth. Trump was caught in a lie the other day, and it was exposed "In one recording he said that he knew Matt (?) the temporary Attorney General very well, and in the next recording he said; that, he did not know him at all" This is truly a lie. When ever has it been in politics that no one lies, no matter which side you are on?

Lol, are you really excusing lying by saying but all the cool kids are doing it?

 

[Tammie]

Curious George said, Lol, are you really excusing lying by saying but all the cool kids are doing it?

No, I do not excuse anyone who lies. No matter which side you are on this is wrong. I was asking sun rise what he meant by coming from the Ministry of Truth.

 

[Tammie]

Acost-her has been grandstanding and giving lectures for over a year instead of being a reporter

That is exactly what I have seen as well

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

First, I made a grammar & style correction.
Second, I handle it easily....
By caring infinitesimally about all the partisan tit for tat dishonesty & sniping.
This way I've no desire to defend or attack either.
They should all behave better, but my advice goes unheeded.

Can you explain to me the grammar mistake so I can understand it and not repeat it?

Whether it's right or Left we shouldn't use a discredited source like Infowars and I thought you would call that out, but I guess I was mistaken about that.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

I did read the article (and many others like it). Way to go for not answering my question. Try again.

I'm not disputing white house press policy, but instead the fact that Sanders used a discreditably source as Infowars to justify her case is wrong.

But then again you being a white nationalist you probably already support uncredible sources.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you explain to me the grammar mistake so I can understand it and not repeat it?

The "so proclaim" part I crossed out would make sense if it were "self proclaimed".

Whether it's right or Left we shouldn't use a discredited source like Infowars and I thought you would call that out, but I guess I was mistaken about that.

I don't trust Infowars to get things right.
They're too much a rightish version of Alternet & such ilk.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

You mean allegedly "doctored" video.

So you believe that Infowars didn't doctored the video to fit their ridiculous agendas?

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

The "so proclaim" part I crossed out would make sense if it were "self proclaimed".

I don't trust Infowars to get things right.
They're too much a rightish version of Alternet & such ilk.

Oh okay. I thought you said that you were a Libertarian. My mistake.

So why didn't you call out Sanders for using a video from Infowars to help build her case against the reporter?

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh okay. I thought you said that you were a Libertarian. My mistake.

Well, I am a Libertarian.
But I don't use a prefix before the term.

So why didn't you call out Sanders for using a video from Infowars to help build her case against the reporter?

Because I don't have that much interest in the matter.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

Well, I am a Libertarian.
But I don't use a prefix before the term.

Because I don't have that much interest in the matter.

That's fair, I guess.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So you believe that Infowars didn't doctored the video to fit their ridiculous agendas?

I didn't say that. Just that it's not comfirmed. Hence "doctored".