Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshuaheard | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com