AP: Video expert says White House clip of CNN reporter was likely doctored | Hacker News Reader

AP: Video expert says White House clip of CNN reporter was likely doctored

arstechnica.com

68 pointsn100046 comments

Meanwhile, Buzzfeed have run an article about why it's not in fact clear that it was doctored: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/acosta-vi...

And Motherboard's expert says there's no evidence that it is: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qvqpp5/no-evidenc...

Basically, there's nothing clear about this. (Except for the fact that AP's contention that the audio was removed to make it easier to doctor is dubious. It was a GIF. GIF files don't support audio.)

I don't see why it would matter. If you cherry-pick the single version from the various transcodings of a video that happens to portray an inaccurate version of the event, then you're still intentionally being deceitful.

> cherry-pick the single version from the various transcodings of a video that happens to portray an inaccurate version of the event

Where is the evidence that this happened?

Just watch the original and it's obviously different than the GIF in question.

"video is different than GIF" != "proof of cherry-picking with the intention to deceive"

Sounds like 95% of scientific studies these days. People always try to pick the best option given multiple items to select from. It's basically what you learn in persuasive argument courses - show the best evidence as it is not in your best interest to show the weakest evidence. If they altered it I would find that truly deceitful, but if they just picked the transcoded version that looked best they were just doing their job. Beyond that its just as likely they posted the first one they saw and had no intention to even find the "best" one.

I don't find this to be a valid comparison. The goal of scientific studies typically don't overlap 100% and there are lots of differences between how they are conducted, whereas high-resolution, high-framerate, non-cropped video is always more valid than a wonky GIF of the exact same recording, so if the two versions portray a different version of events, it's clear which one to use.

Both links say that it may not have been purposefully doctored, but rather accidentally doctored from the conversion from video to GIF, because the lower frame rate makes it look much choppier with removed frames. That's still incredibly misleading.

Framerate hacking aside, the real question is why there was motion blur directly applied to the motion. As Malki's comparison shows, it's not at all clear why that's there. No default GIF conversion would do it, it's not present in the original source video even under the zoom factor.

So even if these subtle framerate shifts are simply artifacts of very bad encoding software (which is weird... the free tools are much better than this), the fact that there are significant changes to the pixels of the motion is much harder to explain away.

Unsurprisingly, the ars article DOES mention this but the Buzzfeed and Vice articles, which represent less technically savvy sources, don't.

Whatever software was used to create a proper video from the GIF seems to have done some kind of framerate doubling by inserting interpolated frames. It alternates between a clear frame and one with odd motion blur throughout. Also, I reckon the weird frame duplication is an interaction between the software used to create the GIF and the software used to turn it into an edited video later. More specifically:

- The GIF has a non-standard framerate of 14.56 FPS. This means that it's probably playing about 3% slower than the original video, which isn't perceptible and isn't particularly important by itself.

- The video has a more standard framerate of 29.9 FPS. The software seems to mostly handle this by doubling the framerate with interpolated frames, as described above. However, this doesn't quite fix the problem - roughly every 40 frames it'll be a frame short.

- Sure enough, there's another frame duplication about 40 frames after the first.

I find this analysis unobjectionable, but it does not explain the motion blurs.

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth.

i've seen the doctored version and the undoctored version. i don't really see any big difference between them in terms of what Acosta did and don't see why either of them are a big deal. it looks like he was just reacting to having the microphone grabbed.

The WH should be able to remove credentials from journalists who legitimately don’t follow the rules or lack proper decorum.

I don’t think the WH should spread a lie and claim that’s the reason for pulling his credentials.

The whole administration lacks decorum, should they remove themselves?

If you attempt to interact with this admin with decorum you get nowhere. You can't do your job. They are like the kid who puts his finger in your face and repeats "not touching you! not touching you" and then you go to detention when you push the finger out of the way because he screams assault.

she tried to grab the mic out of his hand and he resisted. good.

The administration does, but there have been numerous instances of journalists pressing their question without it turning into this.

What exactly did it turn into? This is a non-story that only turned into one because the WH revoked Acosta's press pass.

The microphone having to be taken because he was interrupting and the subsequent lie by the press secretary. Whether or not he should’ve interrupted is a different question, but irrelevant since that’s not the reason cited by the WH.

I have to ask... has nobody thought of cutting off microphones? It sounds like an easy solution that's efficiency-minded yet civil? Or do people want more grabbing microphones out of hands?

Don't people run over their microphone time on presidential TV debates too? So surely at least the reaction shouldn't be, "Oh God, what do we do? We've never seen this before. Quick, run and snatch the microphone."

Anyways his hand just drops quickly because she yanks down the mic...

His hand clearly bounces up a little when he makes first contact with her arm and than just rests there, following her movement when the yank comes.

This thread is quickly devolving into political discourse and should be removed, in my opinion.

This is ridiculous, doctored or not.

"Pardon me, ma'am" is nothing like "placing his hands on a young woman."

EDIT: For people who haven't watched a full video of the press conference with audio, here's my transcript, please forgive any errors:

Acosta: thank you mr president, I challenge you on one of the statements you made at the tail end of the campaign, the midterms that...

Trump: Here we go.

Acosta: Well... If you don't mind Mr. President -

Trump: let's go, let's go. Come on. [whistling noise with hand gesture to urge haste]

Acosta: ...that this caravan was an invasion, as you know

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...

Trump: thank you for telling me that, I appreciate it.

Acosta: ...why did you characterize it as such, and...

Trump: because I consider it an invasion, you and I have a difference of opinion

Acosta: ...do you think that you demonized immigrants...

Trump: not at all, no, not at all

Acosta: ...in this election to try ...

Trump: I want them, i want them to come into the country, but they have to come in legally, you know, Jim, they have to come in through a process, I want it to be a process and I want the people to come in and we need the people to come

Acosta: your campaign, your campaign...

Trump: wait, wait - you know why we need the people, don't you? Because we have hundreds of companies moving in, we need the people.

Acosta: but you campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on

Trump: well that's true, they weren't actors, they weren't actors, it's true - do you think they were actors? they weren't actors, they didn't come from Hollywood. These were, these were people, this was an actual, you know, it happened a few days ago, and

Acosta: they are hundreds of miles away, though, they are hundreds of miles away, that's not an invasion

Trump: honestly, honestly, I think you should let me run the country, and you run cnn, and if you did it well your ratings would be much better

Acosta: if I may ask one other question

Trump: that's enough

Acosta: if I may ask one other question, are you worried

[begin incident over microphone]

Trump: that enough, that's enough, that's enough

Acosta: pardon me ma'am, I'm

[end incident over microphone]

Trump: that's enough

Acosta: regarding the Russia investigation, are you concerned...

Trump: I'm not concerned about anything with the Russia investigation, because it's a hoax. That's enough, put down the mike.

Acosta: ...are you worried about indictments coming down...

[trump walks away from the podium, Acosta hands microphone to intern and sits down]

[nbc reporter Peter Alexander gets mike, trump returns to podium]

Trump: I'll 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.

Alexander: I think that's unfair...

Trump: the way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible, the way you treat other people are horrible. You shouldn't treat people that way.

Peter Alexander: in Jim's defense, I've travelled with him, he's a diligent reporter...

Trump: well I'm not a big fan of yours either.

Alexander: I understand.

as an outsider: everything related to american politics has become a joke since trump has taken power...

And not to justify anyone doctoring video and trying to pass it off as news, we have also had examples of news organizations editing video or audio to make it more dramatic, present it out of context, or even change meaning, such as what NBC did with the 911 call audio in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin incident.

I think we're just in a world where you have to question the motivations of anyone presenting video/audio evidence. Editing that kind of stuff is so easy now, and will only get easier and more convincing in the future.

Acosta is a massive douchebag. He larps like he's some paragon of justice "journalist" but he's just a disrespectful grandstanding jackass, and his behavior has been getting more and more egregious from press conference to press conference. If you watch the whole clip and don't even focus on the physical interaction between Acosta and the woman, it's not only really apparent that this guy is the hero of a movie in his own mind, but you can hear other journalists in the crowd groaning as he continues to grandstand after being told his time was over and it was the next person's turn for a question. If you completely ignore the physical interaction between Acosta and the woman, you see more than enough reason to revoke his press pass. This whole thing blew up over accusations of a "karate chop" which obviously did not happen, but that's an easy headline, made even more believable with possibly altered footage. Putting that aside though, the dude's unarguably inappropriately (at a professional level) touching a woman as she tries to take the mic away from him after he's been told his time is up. Focusing on the force involved in the touching seems like a red herring as the touching, especially after not willingly giving the mic up when he was told to, was inappropriate to begin with.

It seems like a core "Trump" tactic is to slightly mislead, such that people tear the misleading bit apart, and in doing so, get the point he wants across to the people watching, while making the dissecters seems silly. For example, there was that time when he tweeted about how the costs of a new Air Force One were out of control, and would cost more than four billion dollars. Everyone tore him apart over this saying he was "lying," and that the actual cost was... four point nine billion. So yes, he made a factually inaccurate statement by exaggerating the number, but in doing so, got the press to make his point for him.

This seems like another one of these kinds of things.

Or it could just be an encoding aberration.

Doctored or not, this is, at best, mildly inappropriate behavior. Trump could tap immigrants and drink their blood on prime time while grabbing an intern's pussy and Republicans would cheer. This is a distraction.

I agree. I'm not opposed to Trump, and I don't understand why this has been getting the attention it has. It's silly. He obviously didn't intend to hurt the woman, and she doesn't appear to be hurt. Trump can pull Acosta's press credentials if he wants - that's consistent with his past behavior anyhow. Using this as a rationale for doing so seems more childish than is typical to me.

Whether or not the video was doctored is a distraction. It's much more plausible his credentials were pulled due to ego rather than concern for the fatal blow suffered by the white house intern.

The arguments otherwise are in bad faith. Especially in light of Trump's victim-blaming of the woman Corey Lewandowski grabbed at a news conference (resulting in battery charges).

Buzzfeed explains the video conversion process to create the animated gif is responsible for the alleged discrepancies:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/acosta-vi...

But this is all a red herring. Look at the actual video and it is clear Acosta physically prevented her from taking the mic back. Opponents are trying to make the video the story instead of Acosta's action, as they did with the Project Veritas video which implicated Planned Parenthood. What Acosta did was wrong, and the media is trying to spin it to make it appear as if Trump is wrong.

This whole thing is such a mess. I honestly think, in their efforts to "battle" this administration, that the press may have made a mistake here.

It's only a mistake if you think the president is royalty.

This kind of public disagreement is normally handled with subtlety and finesse from the public servant who is speaking to the citizenry through the media.

> It's only a mistake if you think the president is royalty.

No, that's false.

Part of the reason "fake news" is so readily consumed is that the press does stuff like this.

HN discussion of the BuzzFeed article (which got flagkilled): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18408123

Is it right for the staffer to physically remove the mic from his hands though? Is that normal behavior?

No but neither is holding the microphone well past when you should have relinquished it to another journalist. Abnormal behaviors begets abnormal responses.

Correct or not, "abnormal behaviors begets abnormal responses" is a circular justification. You could justify Acosta's abnormal response as a consequence of abnormal behavior by the administration.

And so I would. As far as I'm concerned, positive feedback loops are a feature of the human experience. You see them everywhere. That doesn't justify Trump's, Acosta's, or America's behavior. It just helps us understand the context in which the behavior occurred.

I don't forgive Trump or Acosta for the way they behave. If you're caught in a loop, it is your responsibility to break out. So I criticize Acosta for this indiscretion and I criticize Trump for past and future indiscretions.

The BBC weighed in with someone who saw it live and fully supports the White House's version of events. CNN has jumped the shark calling the video fake.

https://www.bbc.com/news/46147166

That doesn't "fully support" the WH's version of events.

> It was only when he attempted his third question - or possibly fourth depending on how you define the follow-ups - that the president got angry and asked him to sit down. There ensued a tussle with the mic. And weirdly ridiculous words from the president about him being a rude and terrible person. I'm pretty sure Acosta never intended to "mistouch" the young female intern. He was just trying to hold on to the mic.

How does this refute the White House's version? The BBC concludes he did "mistouch" the intern regardless of his intention.

The WH didn't say he "mistouched" her, it said he "placed his hands on her." If she reaches in to grab the microphone out of this hands and her arm touches his in the process, it is extremely misleading to write that he "placed his hands" on her.

Agreed, he clearly responded to her attempt to snatch the microphone from him while saying "pardon me", as opposed to the white house's characterization that he "put his hands on a young woman".

Your statement doesn't agree with the OP. They are claiming the WH is in the right here.

Wait just a second.

What the White House said is this:

> We will, however, never tolerate a reporter placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern.

No version of the video that I've seen indicates that Acosta "placed his hands on [the] young woman." He had his hand up prior to her attempt to physically remove the microphone from his hand, and yes, he didn't immediately relinquish the microphone. Do you believe that the statement from the White House is an accurate statement of events?

of course the video to gif conversion process has some distortion. but this video we just watched clearly shows slowing down and then speeding up at just the right times to fit a made up narrative. those "distortions" aren't explained away by "oh, it's just the gif process".

and of course the original video shows contact between the two. although, she initiated the agression, not acosta. there is zero question about that. but should he have given up the mic? probably. but he did not initiate or put his hands on her as issinuated by the white house. his hands remain in his personal space and simply removes her hands from there.

i would even wager that the white house specifically sent her, a young female staffer, instead of security to provoke this exact situation. the way she grabs it and turns her body in such a way that any retention of the mic by acosta causes her body to yank around is either coldly calculated or up to her inexperience. either way gets the result the white house wanted.

The argument is not, "Did Acosta use his size and strength to refuse to yield the mic?" It's excruciatingly clear he did this.

The question is, "Did Acosta 'lay his hands on a young woman'" and subsequently, "Was the video altered in ways that make it appear more violent than the source footage suggests it was?"

It seems to be "no" and "yes, although we cannot easily tell if it was incompetence or intentional."

What's controversial about this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com