Acosta's white house pass removed ..

[Sparko]

This from Wesley Pruden....

Doesn't anybody here respect us journalists?

The snowflake disease is catching. Donald Trump, of all people, tried to teach a couple of White House reporters a little needed manners this week and you might have thought he had repealed the First Amendment with an executive order.

Several of the snowflakes, who make their living by posing embarrassing when not rude questions to nearly everyone they talk to in pursuit of a day’s work, took to the fainting couches in the White House press lounge after the president returned shot for shell.

These pompous [donkeys] aren't used to being stood up to!

My biggest problem is that Acosta was one of the reporters condemning Lewandowski's touching of Michelle Fields.

[Charles]

I never called it assault, but he certainly wasn't gentle. You can actually see her body jolt when he blocks her arm. Again, this isn't something we have to try and guess or figure out from third-hand reports or tease out from grainy, choppy security camera footage. It was captured in clear, HD video in full view of the camera.

It certainly depends on whether you are seeing the real video or the doctored one that the Trump administration pointed to. They gave us alternative facts, they gave us truth isn't truth and now they have given us manipulated "evidence":

Several media members have accused Sanders of using an edited video circulated by Infowars editor Paul Joseph Watson. Infowars is known for spreading conspiracy theories and is banned from most social media platforms, but Watson has managed to keep his Twitter account. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sar...e-house-intern

Sarah Sanders promotes an altered video of CNN reporter, sparking allegations of visual propaganda. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.0000ff8db9e2

The White House’s actions and account of them has drawn widespread condemnation, particularly from journalists and news organizations. The White House News Photographers Association, among others, said it was appalled by Sanders’s video.

“As visual journalists, we know that manipulating images is manipulating truth,” said the group’s president, Whitney Shefte, a Washington Post videographer. “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.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.0000ff8db9e2

[Sparko]

It certainly depends on whether you are seeing the real video or the doctored one that the Trump administration pointed to. They gave us alternative facts, they gave us truth isn't truth and now they have given us manipulated "evidence":

I watched the "doctored" video and the real one. I even brought both into a video editor. It was not doctored. They both show exactly the same thing. The one huckabee posted was just blurrier because it is zoomed in. It was not changed in any way. As a video editor I can't even think of a way to do something like that without making it very obvious or having a million dollar studio to create a 3D model to do it. The side by side video that they are passing around is the doctored one. They simply shifted the video on the right by a couple of frames to show the contact at a different time. if you look at the actual frame at the point of contact, they are identical except one is blurrier. The only alternative facts is the one where they are claiming one of the videos is doctored.

[Charles]

You have got to believe the president when he says:

See that's just dishonest reporting. All that was was a close-up. That is just dishonest reporting. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8626221.html

Looks familiar?

The Independent has clearly shown that this is not the case. They have actually made it very easy for everyone to see exactly how the video was doctored: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8623441.html

Enjoy.

[Bill the Cat]

You have got to believe the president when he says:



Looks familiar?

The Independent has clearly shown that this is not the case. They have actually made it very easy for everyone to see exactly how the video was doctored: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8623441.html

Enjoy.

And a guy in the comment section destroyed the author's amateur explanation...

[Charles]

And a guy in the comment section destroyed the author's amateur explanation...

And the evidence, the explanation, the reasoning as to why he is right is something you would rather not get into, or?

Looking at the comment section I found this rather funny observation:

oh, the irony. i assume if he’d grabbed her between the legs it would have been acceptable.

[Zymologist]

And the evidence, the explanation, the reasoning as to why he is right is something you would rather not get into, or?

Looking at the comment section I found this rather funny observation:

What's the evidence that the video was doctored?

[Charles]

What's the evidence that the video was doctored?

You can see the video in which they point out the differences here:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8623441.html

[Sparko]

You have got to believe the president when he says:



Looks familiar?

The Independent has clearly shown that this is not the case. They have actually made it very easy for everyone to see exactly how the video was doctored: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8623441.html

Enjoy.

wow. one single frame is missing from her video. That isn't doctoring. And if people think it is, they are grasping at straws. The blurriness of the second video, which I mentioned is caused by the compression algorithm they used to compress the video for twitter. It also probably has a slightly different frame rate from the original, as the guy says. I did the same thing he did, and my videos lined up all the way through. Using the exact same video editing program by the way. I do this for a living too. Any differences in the two videos is not deliberate or doctoring. To say it is, is to either not understand how video works, or to just be lying to sell your story. One frame is not even noticeable at full speed.

[Zymologist]

You can see the video in which they point out the differences here:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8623441.html

Apologies if I'm missing something (which is possible), but the only video I'm seeing on that page is a 15-second one that Sanders posted, the one with the zoom-ins. I wasn't seeing a video where they point out the differences.

[Charles]

It was not doctored. They both show exactly the same thing. The one huckabee posted was just blurrier because it is zoomed in. It was not changed in any way.

wow. one single frame is missing from her video.

Any differences in the two videos is not deliberate or doctoring. To say it is, is to either not understand how video works, or to just be lying to sell your story. One frame is not even noticeable at full speed.

So if I understand you correctly they show exactly the same thing but at the same time they don't show exactly the same thing?

[Sparko]

Apologies if I'm missing something (which is possible), but the only video I'm seeing on that page is a 15-second one that Sanders posted, the one with the zoom-ins. I wasn't seeing a video where they point out the differences.

it was at the top of the page. He found a single frame that appears to be missing from Sander's version of the video. But the problem is that the version she used was converted from the full HD version at 24 frames per second down to 640 x 480 at 29.997 frames per second (essentially 30 fps). Now when you change frame rates like that, the video compressor program has to add or remove frames to get it to play at the normal rate. So it will blend frames and extrapolate frames as needed. Which causes the resultant video to look blurrier. This was not doctored at all, just resized at a different frame rate. Any amateur video tech should know this. The guy in the video is playing games with the video to sell his story. But even if you take him at his word, the result during the action shown is just one missing frame which you can't even notice when it is playing at normal speed.

[oxmixmudd]

How does that answer why the MSM has no integrity in this matter? As well as Trump either. The MSM jumped on Lewandowski and dismisses Acosta's action. Trump did the exact opposite. He dismissed Lewandowski's action and jumped on Acosta. Neither side has integrity here, Jim. They are both completely partisan.

Your integrity/our integrity does not depend on their integrity.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

You can spin this however you want, Jim, but the it was clearly captured on camera for everyone to see.

I described exactly what is recorded there. You are exactly right MM. It is there for all to see. And your claims something 'forceful' happened there are clearly not supported by the video.

Jim

[Zymologist]

it was at the top of the page. He found a single frame that appears to be missing from Sander's version of the video. But the problem is that the version she used was converted from the full HD version at 24 frames per second down to 640 x 480 at 29.997 frames per second (essentially 30 fps). Now when you change frame rates like that, the video compressor program has to add or remove frames to get it to play at the normal rate. So it will blend frames and extrapolate frames as needed. Which causes the resultant video to look blurrier. This was not doctored at all, just resized at a different frame rate. Any amateur video tech should know this. The guy in the video is playing games with the video to sell his story. But even if you take him at his word, the result during the action shown is just one missing frame which you can't even notice when it is playing at normal speed.

Maybe it's just their site then, the ads or something. Ah well, your explanation makes sense to me, and I'm no video tech.