16 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

Vice/Motherboard - your people, not mine. Don't be lazy.

 

I've never heard of vice/motherboard before, even though they are supposed to be "my people", but never mind.  I'm feeling charitable this morning and felt like doing your homework for you.

 

Your expert is Hany Farid, who studies digital forensics, human perception, and image analysis at the University of California, Berkeley.  He says:

 

“From my review of the various videos of the press conference, I believe that the video tweeted by the Press Secretary is misleading but I don’t see unambiguous evidence that it has been doctored,” Farid told Motherboard via email. “A combination of a reduction in the quality of the video, a slowing-down of the video, and the particular vantage point of the CSPAN video gives the appearance that there was more contact between the reporter and the intern than there probably was. In particular, if you look at original, higher-quality videos from other vantage points you can more clearly see that while there was some contact between the reporter and intern, he did not strike her as his hand comes down.”

 

Now I can see why you didn't want to link to it.  That's not exactly the exoneration you made it out to be, is it?  At best he's saying that evidence is ambiguous.

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

I've never heard of vice/motherboard before, even though they are supposed to be "my people", but never mind.  I'm feeling charitable this morning and felt like doing your homework for you.

 

Your expert is Hany Farid, who studies digital forensics, human perception, and image analysis at the University of California, Berkeley.  He says:

 

“From my review of the various videos of the press conference, I believe that the video tweeted by the Press Secretary is misleading but I don’t see unambiguous evidence that it has been doctored,” Farid told Motherboard via email. “A combination of a reduction in the quality of the video, a slowing-down of the video, and the particular vantage point of the CSPAN video gives the appearance that there was more contact between the reporter and the intern than there probably was. In particular, if you look at original, higher-quality videos from other vantage points you can more clearly see that while there was some contact between the reporter and intern, he did not strike her as his hand comes down.”

 

Now I can see why you didn't want to link to it.  That's not exactly the exoneration you made it out to be, is it?  At best he's saying that evidence is ambiguous.

LOL, game set and match!!

"Hello, is that Mo? Oh, hi, Your Royalness, It's Don here, listen, could I borrow your guys, y'know, before you stone 'em? A little problem has come up in the WH Press Room..."

 

25 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

I've never heard of vice/motherboard before, even though they are supposed to be "my people", but never mind.  I'm feeling charitable this morning and felt like doing your homework for you.

 

Your expert is Hany Farid, who studies digital forensics, human perception, and image analysis at the University of California, Berkeley.  He says:

 

“From my review of the various videos of the press conference, I believe that the video tweeted by the Press Secretary is misleading but I don’t see unambiguous evidence that it has been doctored,” Farid told Motherboard via email. “A combination of a reduction in the quality of the video, a slowing-down of the video, and the particular vantage point of the CSPAN video gives the appearance that there was more contact between the reporter and the intern than there probably was. In particular, if you look at original, higher-quality videos from other vantage points you can more clearly see that while there was some contact between the reporter and intern, he did not strike her as his hand comes down.”

 

Now I can see why you didn't want to link to it.  That's not exactly the exoneration you made it out to be, is it?  At best he's saying that evidence is ambiguous.

But Paul Joseph Watson says....!!!

Ask Trump a question he does not like,and you are a "rude and nasty person",

that's got to be a joke,as it would be difficult to find a ruder ,nastier person

than Trump himself.

regards Worgeordie

Let's also mention, that the judge was one of Trumps own appointees. 

Even that guy said "Dude...this is a bit too much against any law..."

The video is a red herring. It makes no difference to me that their arms/hands touched while she was trying to retrieve the mike. What bothered me that Acosta was resisting her and speaking out of turn. He was forcing his way on the meeting and behaving in a way that was beneath his level of privilege.

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

The video is a red herring. It makes no difference to me that their arms/hands touched while she was trying to retrieve the mike. What bothered me that Acosta was resisting her and speaking out of turn. He was forcing his way on the meeting and behaving in a way that was beneath his level of privilege.

Do you realize that it was a red herring offered as evidence by Sarah Sanders? And she offered it as proof that Acosta laid hands on the White House intern?

Donald I sent going to like that ruling he will do his best to ruin mr Acosta’s life classic trump attempt at trump style intimidation 

Lol.... decorum and rules... what a wonderful idea, assuming rules apply both ways;

rule one... don’t lie! 

????????????

personally, I like the euro model ( German I think it was) whereby if the president (interviewee) doesn’t answer a question, the subsequent reporter(s) called upon, asks the same question.

cnn lie media no need press pass anywere,better keep out idiot media.

35 minutes ago, finnishmen said:

cnn lie media no need press pass anywere,better keep out idiot media.

I think my gibberish translator function is broken, as this makes no sense to me.... so I’m wondering if someone with a functioning gibberish translator can help out here

5 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Respectfully, this is pure nonsense.

 

The right to have contempt for the President is in the First amendment of the US constitution. Further, the White House is the People's house and belongs to them, not the current occupant. Finally, freedom of the press is in the constitution; if you want the President to have the power to limit that, amend the constitution.

 

Notwithstanding the above, I do agree that some respect is needed. However, respect is a two-way street, and if one side refers to the press as "enemies of the people" in a flagrant attempt to discredit them, they should expect some push back; It isn't rocket science.

 

As the old adage goes, "You Reap What You Sow".

 

 

 

2

I will not say more!

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Do you realize that it was a red herring offered as evidence by Sarah Sanders? And she offered it as proof that Acosta laid hands on the White House intern?

 

Of course he touched her.

 

Honestly - it does not matter which video you watch, any major news source like CNN has them. He clearly touched here.

 

The video doctoring (if any) was supposed to be zooming in/speeding up. So the 'doctored' vid shows what happened but faster (if indeed such vid exists). 

 

To claim he didn't touch her is ludicrous. Here's a challenge - go find an unedited video that shows he didn't touch her/use his arm to keep her at bay.

13 minutes ago, farcanell said:

I think my gibberish translator function is broken, as this makes no sense to me.... so I’m wondering if someone with a functioning gibberish translator can help out here

Mine is broken too so I chose to ignore after reading 3 times.

7 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

Of course he touched her.

 

Honestly - it does not matter which video you watch, any major news source like CNN has them. He clearly touched here.

 

The video doctoring (if any) was supposed to be zooming in/speeding up. So the 'doctored' vid shows what happened but faster (if indeed such vid exists). 

 

To claim he didn't touch her is ludicrous. Here's a challenge - go find an unedited video that shows he didn't touch her/use his arm to keep her at bay.

Nice try. Big difference between "touched" and "laid hands on."

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Do you realize that it was a red herring offered as evidence by Sarah Sanders? And she offered it as proof that Acosta laid hands on the White House intern?

Yes obviously that's what I was saying. The video is a non issue. I wish they would have left it alone. The real story is Acosta being an ahole. I see now that other reporters are saying off the record that they hate Acosta and are appalled at how he tries to make press conferences into the Jim Acosta show. They call him and ahole too.

If CNN ask any more questions, walk out, and blame them until everyone realizes the lies they bbroadcast. 

I thought being an a-hole was a prerequisite for being an effective journalist/muckraker... Who knew you had to be “nice” to ferret out the tough stories!!

16 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

Of course he touched her.

 

Honestly - it does not matter which video you watch, any major news source like CNN has them. He clearly touched here.

 

The video doctoring (if any) was supposed to be zooming in/speeding up. So the 'doctored' vid shows what happened but faster (if indeed such vid exists). 

 

To claim he didn't touch her is ludicrous. Here's a challenge - go find an unedited video that shows he didn't touch her/use his arm to keep her at bay.

Who said that there was no physical contact?

 

the issue is about what that physical contact was, and wether it was in any way deliberate, aggressive or inappropriate on Acosta’s part

 

from any video perspective, the intern threw herself in and aggressively tried to take the mike, which initiated the contact, so arguably, it should be her that’s barred from press room meetings, as she acted without decorum.... when acting like an umpire in a boxing match, there’s no way to avoid contact, which is what happened

 

imo... this action against CNN, was a deliberate vilification of that reporter, to reinforce the WH “fake news, enemy of the people” line, in order to maintain the rage amongst his followers.

3 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

If CNN ask any more questions, walk out, and blame them until everyone realizes the lies they bbroadcast. 

CNN certainly do broadcast lies... lots of lies... an unbelievable amount of lies

 

how can they not, when the president and his mouth piece do little else than lie to the people, with CNN rebroadcasting these official lies made by the liar in chief.

 

now... if the president stopped telling lies to the media, then the media wouldn’t be telling lies to their viewers.... that would be nice.

 

all that said, I’m still rather curious as to wether or not you (or others) think that CNN have been the source of lies.... and if so, can you link me to one?

5 minutes ago, car720 said:

The trouble is, what CNN sows nobody wants to eat, and shouldn't.  I cannot watch any of the American talk type shows because it is always just a shouting match of people who are all rudely talking over the top of each other.

Agree and disagree.

The "interrupting and talking over" is totally rude and annoying.

But what CNN sows is honest critiquing of political events. But of course, a Republican supporter would never see it that way.

31 minutes ago, farcanell said:

CNN certainly do broadcast lies... lots of lies... an unbelievable amount of lies

 

how can they not, when the president and his mouth piece do little else than lie to the people, with CNN rebroadcasting these official lies made by the liar in chief.

 

now... if the president stopped telling lies to the media, then the media wouldn’t be telling lies to their viewers.... that would be nice.

 

all that said, I’m still rather curious as to wether or not you (or others) think that CNN have been the source of lies.... and if so, can you link me to one?

CNN slogan is "The Most Trusted Name in News". Their reporting and discussions are honest and fair. If they error (seldom), they have the balls to correct that error ASAP.

Addendum: And their discussion panels often include Trump supporters ie, Rick Santorum (who awkwardly try to defend Trump policies and faux pas).

Edited November 17, 20187 yr by neeray
Addendum

Does anyone know why Acosta was chosen at all to ask a question in this particular situation? Trump was the one choosing and there were hundreds of reporters from all over the world. The second he was chosen I said oh boy out loud. I was just very surprised. Part of me wondering this was that he seemed somewhat easy going at first and then pretty agitated even before picking Acosta and they have quite an uneasy relationship already. 

Edited November 17, 20187 yr by alex8912

6 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Respectfully, this is pure nonsense.

 

The right to have contempt for the President is in the First amendment of the US constitution. Further, the White House is the People's house and belongs to them, not the current occupant. Finally, freedom of the press is in the constitution; if you want the President to have the power to limit that, amend the constitution.

 

Notwithstanding the above, I do agree that some respect is needed. However, respect is a two-way street, and if one side refers to the press as "enemies of the people" in a flagrant attempt to discredit them, they should expect some push back; It isn't rocket science.

 

As the old adage goes, "You Reap What You Sow".

 

 

 

Acosta annoys most of the other WH reporters. He is an attention seeker who hogs other peoples' time.

 

4 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Acosta annoys most of the other WH reporters. He is an attention seeker who hogs other peoples' time.

????.... and yet, the very next reporter to be nominated, started out by praising Acosta and his professionalism. 

53 minutes ago, car720 said:

The trouble is, what CNN sows nobody wants to eat, and shouldn't.  I cannot watch any of the American talk type shows because it is always just a shouting match of people who are all rudely talking over the top of each other.

"...American talk type shows...".

 

Hardly limited to America.

 

Have you ever watched the BBC's "Tough Talk"?

A perceptive reader posted a Youtube comment which sums up Norman Finkelstein's appearance on "Tough Talk":

"I can see why it's called 'Tough Talk'. It's tough for the guest to talk."

Same when Glenn Greenwald has been on BBC.

 

It's a tactic all of these shows use.

As soon as the guest starts to demolish the host's question, change the subject and throw out another question. Interrupt as often as necessary to sidetrack the guest and prevent them from ever completing their point.

Edited November 17, 20187 yr by JimmyJ

9 minutes ago, farcanell said:

????.... and yet, the very next reporter to be nominated, started out by praising Acosta and his professionalism. 

 

I think that was Peter Alexander with NBC, and Trump said "I'm not a big fan of yours either."

 

Watching the tape again it is clear the Trump is under extreme pressure and feeling like a cornered animal. He's going to really snap - and have his Capt. Queeg meltdown for all the country to witness - and even Mike/Karen Pence might start whispering about the 25th Amendment.

 

I am starting to feel sorry for him; the end will probably be very ugly, and the Trump name will probably live in infamy.

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Obviously they need to redefine the rules for the press corp since they no longer have any respect. It should be similar to a court of law, where someone like Acosta could be shown to be in contempt. No legal charges for what he did, but removal and bans should be available. 

Then the same respect should be shown by those providing the information. That is they should tell the truth and not attack the press corps in attendance by insulting them and calling them the enemy of the people, etc. It works both ways.