And Now for Something Completely Political

Ed.A · Post by **Ed.A** » Fri. Nov. 23, 2007 8:32 am

Let me Preface this first, I'm sure this happens more often than we think but in the days of Internet research you'd think CNN would try to hide it a bit more.
My wife said she now knows why the Democrats boycotted FOX....they prolly couldn't get away with this type of shennagans.

http://blip.tv/file/492516

jpete · Post by **jpete** » Fri. Nov. 23, 2007 5:26 pm

I often wonder about this stuff. I haven't done the research on these people myself but in the day and age of Photoshop, anything like YouTube video has to be taken with a grain of salt.

I do know that Frunk Luntz on FOX is a total toad. Penn and Teller did a piece on him long before his "polling" during the debates.

Post by **Richard S.** » Fri. Nov. 23, 2007 5:53 pm

I don't trust any of media as they all seem to have there own slant, on the other hand you don't know what to listen too as everyone puts there own slant on it manipulating facts to their own agenda and conveniently leaving out facts that don't support it. You can't believe anyone, the best thing you can do is take it all in and try to come to conclusion based on all the information no matter how ludicrous it may be.

jpete wrote:in the day and age of Photoshop, anything like YouTube video has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Images are quite easily manipulated but unless you're really good at it these can usually be spotted just by eye by anyone that knows what they are looking for. They can also be examined using different programs for brightness/darkness/hue/saturation that just don't add up.

Video on the other hand is a completely different animal, standard framerate is 30fps so it requires automation to create a fake of any length of time. This is usually done with green/blue screen, for example if you wanted to fake someones head you would have to video the head your going to apply to the original against a green backdrop. Then apply the head to the video you want to fake, the issue becomes matching the movement of your fake to the real thing, not an easy task even when planned out from the start.

Having said that even when successful to the eye the videos just like the imges can be examined for certain details that would indicate a fake.

To truly make a fake image that can't be debunked requires a tremendous amount of skill, almost impossible with video.

Ed.A · Post by **Ed.A** » Fri. Nov. 23, 2007 7:05 pm

I concur, especially since I watched the RE-Run on CNN and everything remained as posted on the You-Tube version.

Islander · Post by **Islander** » Fri. Nov. 23, 2007 7:32 pm

IMHO, the problem is not that the media is slanted, which I believe it is. It's more the news they don't cover because of ideological slant than how they present the story. ie: Reagan is president, and homelessness is skyrocketing and at an all time high, but when Clinton is president, there are no homeless stories at all. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.

Ed.A · Post by **Ed.A** » Fri. Nov. 23, 2007 7:49 pm

Islander wrote: I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.

LOL! Say hi to Teddy for us will ya.

Islander · Post by **Islander** » Fri. Nov. 23, 2007 7:58 pm

Yup, we're sufferin' up here in Mass, but I don't know iffin' I'd want to trade my senators for New York's?

Post by **Richard S.** » Fri. Nov. 23, 2007 8:08 pm

Ed.A wrote:I concur, especially since I watched the RE-Run on CNN and everything remained as posted on the You-Tube version.

On the other hand sometimes I over think things, you could certainly edit video to change the context. Something that I'd imagine probably happens more than people would like to think even in the mainstream media. It doesn't take much to make a statement completely different than what was intended.

Sorry about screwing your post up, if it happens again I'll ban myself.

I did that to someone else a few months ago...

jpete · Post by **jpete** » Sat. Nov. 24, 2007 8:06 am

Richard S. wrote:
jpete wrote:in the day and age of Photoshop, anything like YouTube video has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Images are quite easily manipulated but unless you're really good at it these can usually be spotted just by eye by anyone that knows what they are looking for. They can also be examined using different programs for brightness/darkness/hue/saturation that just don't add up.

To truly make a fake image that can't be debunked requires a tremendous amount of skill, almost impossible with video.

I was more referring to these YouTube type videos that have sliding fade ins showing some web page that says a person is "VP or Racial Activities" or whatever like the one posted. You could easily take a picture of someone found on the net, write a webpage and stick it into a video mixed with clips of them asking questions at a debate. People see it and think that person is a "plant" because of some YouTube video.

I can certainly believe CNN would be dumb enough to do something like that, but in reality, it would be a mistake of monumental proportions just because of things like this. If some little college kid gets "outted" for asking a preplanned question, why wouldn't FOX take this and hammer CNN over the head with it?

Post by **Richard S.** » Sat. Nov. 24, 2007 8:29 am

True, jpete but like I said I sometimes I overthink things. However the articles mentioned in that video can easily be found, from the first person:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/protesters-empl ... raq-stance

Be interesting to see where that video was first posted if they listed the links for the sources. But you are correct, we live in a society where too many people see something and take it as being the truth. You only need to look as far as the 9/11 conspiracies to see that. There is one distinct advantage to youtube and the like, at least you read or add user comments.

Ed.A · Post by **Ed.A** » Sat. Nov. 24, 2007 8:51 am

jpete wrote:I can certainly believe CNN would be dumb enough to do something like that, but in reality, it would be a mistake of monumental proportions just because of things like this. If some little college kid gets "outted" for asking a preplanned question, why wouldn't FOX take this and hammer CNN over the head with it?

Jpete, I'm not sure what your point is, are you saying this didn't happen? One only needs to see the Obama screw up when he mentions the lady's job description eventhough she never mentioned it. ( I watched the Re-run on CNN, it Happened)
I understand your cynisism, and I agree that we must be vigilant in the era of New Media. All the info can be vetted, but I doubt it would serve FoX news to do full story on it, they have huge rating points ahead of these other outlets.

jpete · Post by **jpete** » Mon. Nov. 26, 2007 7:12 pm

I just see things like Hillary getting hammered for 3 days because she had questions planted for her. If Fox knew that CNN was palnting ALL the questions, why not do something about it? Fox has no love for Obama, why not at least call him out on it?