قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Gadgets / How an InfoWars video became a White House Tweet

How an InfoWars video became a White House Tweet



Presidential Press Secretary Sarah Sanders shared a video on Wednesday night with CNN reporter Jim Acosta defending the White House's decision to revoke Acosta's press pass with President Trump and a White House intern. A WIRED review of the Sanders video shows that it came from conservative media sites and was edited in a way that made the incident seem more dramatic. The video itself may not have been written out, but the effect can be misleading for viewers.

When the video was posted, Sanders said it showed that Acosta had committed "improper conduct" with the intern. But the differences between Sanders' video and an unedited version of the incident led to allegations on Wednesday that the White House had changed the video for political reasons.

What actually happened?

While Acosta questioned President Trump at a press conference, a White House internist tried to grab his microphone. Acosta did not let go of the microphone and tried to avoid her grip. During the three-second run, his wrist and forearm seem to touch her arm. The White House calls this behavior "inappropriate" and has revoked Acosta's press card. Sanders has posted a edited video of the event as proof.

Who made the video?

Sanders's video seems to be identical to a video shared two hours earlier by Paul Joseph Watson, a major editor on the right -wing media page InfoWars . Both videos were processed in the same way and had no sound. While the White House has not responded to requests for the source of the video posted by Sanders, it seems reasonable to say that the chances that the two videos were created independently are extremely small.

While the first four seconds of Watson's video appear To be from a C-Span feed, the true origins of the clip are a bit more complicated. It is noteworthy that neither Watson's nor Sander's video has sound, as the source video for both seems to be a three-second long GIF distributed in conservative circles shortly after the actual event.

At 1

2:34 pm Wednesday, ForAmerica, a conservative group popular with Twitter, released this three-second GIF of the press conference, which was deleted from the feed by C-Span.

Twelve minutes later, Daily Wire published a legal news and opinion blog featuring the same GIF. Both were tweeted by Watson again, who also tweeted the press conference live.

About eight hours later, Watson tweeted a 15-second GIF issue, which he confirmed in a tweet made with the GIF published by the GIF. Daily Wire . Two hours later, Sanders recorded a seemingly same video in her tweet. In a tweet Watson stated that he had not edited the footage. A screenshot he later published in the cut track for the video suggests that some edits were made. [19659003IstheVideogue?

The video has been altered in a way that is misleading and makes events dramatic. The quality is extremely low, probably because it's a combination of edits and uploads. The raw video used to create the GIF file comes from a C-Span feed with an odd camera angle, making the whole thing more dramatic.

High quality videos from all other cameras available in the press The briefing shows that while there was contact between Acosta and the intern, there was no strike or " Karate Chop ", as some claim.

The main problem of the video in the White House, however, is the editing. While the video itself is 15 seconds long, the only material in the clip is the three-second GIF shared by ForAmerica and The Daily Wire . The GIF is shown completely at the beginning of Sanders' posted video. It's the wide-angle shot that contains the C-Span logo. This GIF is shown six times during the 15-second video, with a multitude of edits and zooms that make the relatively inconsistent moment seem more dramatic.

"It's about how video speed and frame rate affect the image Human ability to perceive power," said Britt Paris, a researcher at Data & Society, who studies audiovisual manipulation. " The context is important, and time and duration are an often overlooked part of the context that helps us to interpret the content of a video.

Let's divide that.

0: 00-0: 03

The first part of the video is the three-second GIF posted by various groups on Twitter the scene shows in its entirety, including Trump and the other participants of the press conference.

0: 04-0: 07

This clip is the same three-second long GIF as before, only enlarged Focus on Acosta and the White House internal who tries to pull the microphone away Note the position of the hands Starts at the same moment as the first clip.

0: 07-0: 09

Here's where things start At 0:07, the video goes into a series of close-up shots of Acosta's arm, shorter than the first two, between 1 ½ and 2 seconds instead of 3 seconds, and it's hard to say this time difference the cutting of footage, the use of slow-motion or acceleration effect, or something else.

In a screenshot, Watson tweeted the cut track he used for the video, tweeting odd markers on the markers 0: 08-0: 09 and 0: 10-0: 11 that might indicate a still or something else ,

Watson's screenshot indicates that the added footage or frame was taken before 0:09 Mark, the moment Acosta's hand touched the arm of the White House internship.

Hany Farid, a professor of computer science at Dartmouth College, specializes in digital forensics and image analysis, though he is not sure how to interpret the screenshot, Watson shared the video with several still images. "This could have been intentional, but it could also be the result of transcoding that alters the frame rate," Farid wrote. Paris, the Data & Society researcher, says she's not familiar with the Sony Vegas Pro editorial panel. Watson pointed out, but the additions seem suspicious. "It could be a clip that was copied from the original, the speed changed and then re-recorded in the 'roll', or it could be something else," she said.

Aymann Ismail, a video producer and publisher of Slate published a direct comparison of the hiring and a clip of NBC News on Twitter. In a tweet, Ismail said the comparison showed that the intern's range for the microphone was slowed down while Acosta's move was sped up.

0: 09-0: 11

The shorter close-up of Acosta's arm appears to reboot. It's also slightly shorter than the source GIF, which might indicate it was either cut off or slowed down, but the quality of the zoomed-in material is difficult to detect.

Like the clip that continues to do so, the footage seems to be accurate toward the end, just as Acosta and the intern contacted (about 0: 10.5).

0: 11-0: 13

The shorter, about two second long clip of Acosta's arm starts a third time. Although this clip has a different length than the source GIF, it does not seem to have any extra at its end.

0: 13-0: 15

The condensed close-up of Acosta's arm begins again for a fourth and final time. Similar to its predecessor, this version of the clip does not seem to have any additions or stills, according to the cut track published by Watson.


More Great WIRED Stories


Source link