In my critical thinking class, I warn students that videos can easily be modified and weaponized as persuasive devices. While my past examples involved the usual conspiracy sites and oppressive states, the Trump administration has provided me with my first example of the White House making use of such a dishonest and deceitful tactic.
During a press conference, CNN’s Jim Acosta attempted to ask President Trump a question that Trump did not want to answer. In response, a White House employee was sent to take the microphone from Acosta. As she tried to take it from him, Acosta’s arm contacted her arm. The interaction was as awkward as one might expect—the woman probably expected Acosta to politely hand it over and Acosta probably didn’t expect her to try to grab it. The contact appears to be accidental on his part—he is gesturing as she reaches for the microphone. The matter would have been simply yet another awkward and surreal press conference at Trump’s White House were it not for the fact that Sarah Sanders tweeted what seems to be a modified version of the video of the event. This edited video seems to have been first distributed by Paul Joseph Watson who shares videos on Infowars.
In addition to the fact that the original event was witnessed by people present and on live television, the edited video has also been analyzed and shows clear evidence of alteration. To be specific, Acosta’s “pardon me, ma’am” was deleted from the audio and the motion of his arm was speeded up to make it look like a chop rather than accidental contact. As such, the video is an intentional deception designed to support the false narrative that Acosta “manhandled” the woman and thus was justly treated by the White House. This sort of deceit is to be expected from conspiracy sites that create their own deranged counterfactual tales of alternative realities to push questionable products upon the gullible. While the Trump administration gushes untruth like Niagara Falls pours forth water, the use of an altered video is another new low.
From a moral standpoint, the assessment of this action is easy: such deceit is morally wrong. In addition to the moral problem of lying, there is also the fact that the ongoing efforts to destroy truth are doing considerable damage. Since George Orwell and others have written at great length about the dangers of such distortions of reality, I am content to simply ride along on their wagon in this matter. What was done also seems stupid, given that the original event was witnessed, and the fakery is easy enough to discern. That said, there is a certain low cunning at work at the White House that serves them well.
The Trump administration and its allies have taken up the ancient banner of the Greek sophists—and under this banner there is no objective truth and all that matters is success. Or, as Trump likes to say, winning. Success is, of course, not defined in the moral sense that someone like Socrates or Aristotle would use—that is, achieving virtue and contributing to a virtuous society. It is, rather, success in the crude state of nature sense discussed by Thomas Hobbes—individual profit as the measure. But, one might say, surely everyone can see that such a altered video is a deceit and that it contradicts the objective facts of the matter.
One obvious problem is that some embrace the “value” system of Trump—all that matters is winning, and this means damaging the “other side” by any means necessary. It does not matter whether the video is accurate or not, what matters is its value as a weapon in the war against “them.” Another obvious problem is that there are those who will believe the lie as the truth. They will dismiss the analysis as the work of the enemy—thus attributing the deceit to them. They will also reject the statements of witnesses who disagree with the White House’s narrative and reject the unedited original video as being edited to hide the truth. There might also be those who do care about truth but are willing to take an ends justifies the means approach and accept that Trump needs to damage the media in order to do his “good works.”
It might be objected that I am part of the conspiracy and pushing the false narrative about the video or that I have been duped by the media. Being well-versed in classic skepticism, I am aware that there could be a massive media conspiracy to lie about Trump. However, accepting this would be to embrace an extremely dubious position—after all, Trump and his fellows routinely lie in the face of objective and unbiased evidence.
It could also be objected that I would forgive or defend Democrats for engaging in similar sorts of deceit. My obvious reply to this is that I would also condemn such deceit on the part of the Democrats, should they engage in doctoring videos and lying from official channels. I am not simply against deceits by Republicans, but against all deceits. And you should be, too—regardless of your party affiliation.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. You really ought to re-title this blog. Posts like this aren’t “philosophy”, they are anti-Trump rants that use the same tactics you are accusing Trump of.
I think that to caution students about believing what they see is a good thing to do in a critical thinking class. But to then characterize a questionable source in single terms that support your politics and your talking points is just as big a lie as the one you think you are calling out.
Having read your post, having read the accusations and the defenses, the absolute best I can come up with is that the speed of the video may have been changed. This is what the “video expert” claims – that there are extra frames at the beginning, indicating that it has been slowed down, and that the video at the point of contact has been zoomed in.
Of course, looking at the side-by-side comparison of the “doctored” video and the original, the timing is identical.
Everything – absolutely everything after that is a speculation, an opinion, an exaggeration, a misstatement of fact, or an outright lie. For example,
“To be specific, Acosta’s “pardon me, ma’am” was deleted from the audio “
Technically, that’s correct – but I’d call that a lie of omission. Why? Because the entire audio track was missing!. But phrasing it like that makes it sound more doctored, doesn’t it?
“the motion of his arm was speeded up to make it look like a chop rather than accidental contact. As such, the video is an intentional deception”
This, I’m afraid, is really nothing more than an opinion. Is there any fact in that statement at all? Is there proof, not only of alteration but intent?
Aymann Ismail, a video editor/producer at Slate, analyzed the two videos side by side at full speed, quarter speed, and half speed. He says this:
“After analyzing the videos more extensively, I have no doubt that the two clips are different. But the truth is it’s difficult to know how or why the footage changed. In a side-by-side comparison, I noticed the clips didn’t sync, with the one Sanders shared appearing to be sped up and slowed down at points. Looking closer at the clip using video-editing software, I found three duplicate frames between the moment the White House intern made contact with the microphone in Acosta’s hand and his arm moving down. Where did these come from?”
The reality of this situation is that there is a video that, for some reason, does not sync with the original. The syncing mismatch is limited to a few frames only – I think that in the side-by-side that Aymann presented it’s perhaps three or four frames. Aymann admits that the timing of this error is suspicious, but also contends that it could be due to compression errors. The video was originally presented as a GIF, then converted to an MP4 – both formats involve dropped frames in order to achieve their compression ratios.
In an article in BuzzFeed News, Charlie Warzel explains this further:
“There’s no evidence that the video was deliberately sped up — but the change in format, from a high-quality video to a low-quality GIF, turns the question of whether it was “doctored” into a semantic debate.
This video analysis by BuzzFeed News demonstrates what the GIF conversion process does to video. While it’s not technically “sped up” by intent, it effectively is in practice. The video-to-GIF conversion removes frames from the source material by reducing the frame rate. The GIF-making tool GIF Brewery, for example, typically reduces source video to 10 frames per second. Raw, televised video typically has a frame rate of 29.97 frames per second.”.
Citing the BuzzFeed News article in The Atlantic, Ian Bogost says this:
“The incident shows how adept and deliberate politicians have been, for decades now, at deploying words, images, and video to advance their ends—even absconding with the ideas, words, and values of their opponents in the process.”.
But there’s more. In the same article, Bogost continues:
“For example, the CSPAN footage of the Acosta incident is shot from two cameras, one behind Acosta and framed on President Trump, and the other from the side, showing a wider shot of Acosta in the front row, addressing the president. The latter shot is the one from which the interaction between Acosta and the aide can be seen. But because the two are close to one another at some distance, the image flattens the viewer’s perspective, making it difficult to tell how their arms and bodies are interacting as they grapple for the microphone.
When the aide finally lays her hand on the mic, her reach looks bold, although not combative, and Acosta attempts to defuse the situation: “Pardon me, Ma’am, I’m—” he attempts. Then the aide, having been gently reproached, physically crumbles before Acosta. She crouches to the floor between him and the president. She was probably trying to clear a line of sight between the two, but from side of the room, she appears meek or servile, subordinating herself to Acosta. In that moment, the wide camera shows the two men in profile but the aide facing the camera in the foreground. Viewed from the angle of a news camera in a slightly different position, she becomes the subject of the shot, and it becomes difficult not to empathize with her accidental embarrassment, now captured and broadcast globally.”
So maybe the video appears different because of compression. Maybe it was altered. There is a pretty big semantic difference between “altered” and “doctored”, the latter involving a clear intent to deceive. The fact that you believe that the video was doctored is a visceral, emotional response to your core beliefs, not the result of any kind of critical analysis.
But even so – does this mean that there was prior knowledge and intent on the part of Sanders or Trump? Or did they merely pull a video that had a close-up, that seemed fine to them, without thinking that it had been doctored or altered at all?
Of course, that thought doesn’t occur to you – just like the syllogistic analysis of voter suppression, your logic is completely flawed. The conclusion is the same – “Therefore, it was intentional”.
I could go on and on – but I want to make my point here and be done with this.
It is not my position to defend Trump, to dispute assertions made on either side. It is my position that we do not know – that there may be credible reasoning on either or both sides of this incident, but there has been no truth established, no purposeful intent to deceive on one side any more than on the other.
In the service of “critical thinking”, we need to consider all possibilities, and assess those possibilities with an unbiased eye.
You are correct when you tell your students that they should not believe what they see, that they should be skeptical about the news media AND about any information coming from our political leaders (including Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer).
But your rant – and it really is a rant – completely abandons your claim that you are “well-versed in classic skepticism,”, and jumps to every anti-Trump conclusion you possibly can, and in doing so, employs a wide range of logical fallacies that you are professionally bound to instruct, not to use.
There is no truth to anything you have said. Nor is it a lie. It actually happens to be a very good topic for an essay on truth, on veracity, and on critical thinking – but that’s not the essay you wrote.
Once again, you have abandoned all of your education and training, falling instead on your blind hatred of Trump to write an article that would be more at home on some left-wing, liberal news site than in a blog purportedly devoted to truth, logic, and critical thinking.
Although – I would point out that the sources I used in my post – “The Atlantic”, “Slate”, and “BuzzFeed News” are among the top leftist, left-leaning, or liberal news outlets in the country – and they do a much better job of handling the truth than you do.
Once again, you have abandoned all of your education and training, falling instead on your blind hatred of Trump to write an article that would be more at home on some left-wing, liberal news site than in a blog purportedly devoted to truth, logic, and critical thinking.
Yeah. Pretty much what I’ve been trying to tell you for months now.
Philosophical question apropos of nothing, why does speaking the truth plainly and simply make one a pariah, yet lies of omission, sophistry, etc. etc. etc. if done in a sufficiently ambiguous/obfuscated/pretentious manner cause those opposing to bend over backwards, close one eye and squint real hard and be taken seriously?
Another philosophical question, is evil more or less evil when it tries to be polite or pretends ignorance and selective memory?
“Pretty much what I’ve been trying to tell you for months now.”
Maybe years. It’s not that I don’t get it – I do, I really do. I’m completely on board with your frustration.
Please don’t misunderstand – I harbor no fantasies about what I’m doing here. As an academic myself I feel as though it is my responsibility to answer to the same ideals of truth and critical thinking that Mike purports to … and believe me, it’s extremely difficult on a day to day basis. I have to stop and think about why I am so shocked that my colleagues and peers fall into the same traps Mike falls into – allowing their hatred or anger or tribalism to interfere with their detached analysis of truth, logic, or even validity in deductive reasoning.
Put simply, that mere process – the detachment from any kind of tribal connection – marks one as “one of them”, and the mob mentality we live under today perverts the ideas of “free speech” and “due process” to the point where simple guys like me feel as though I have to keep my mouth shut for fear of losing my job – tenure or no tenure. As we have seen, most recently with the Kavanaugh hearings, there are other ways of destroying someone entirely outside of “official policy”.
Anyway, Mike is who he is – he is entitled to his opinion, and he is perfectly within his rights to believe what he does for whatever reasons he chooses. Catholics, Mennonites, Jews, and Muslims also “dig in” when defending their beliefs. But this has nothing to do with Aristotelian Logic, and that’s where I have a problem.
Were this blog titled “Trump Sucks, and Here’s Why”, everything that follows would be perfectly fine. But to couch that visceral belief in a PhD in Philosophy, and to use those credentials to lend credibility to what amount to nothing more than talking points is disgraceful.
It would be so much better if Mike were to re-title this blog, as I suggested before, and continue this one on the path for which it is seemingly intended – to parse arguments based on valid logic and deductive reasoning – and to compare policy and philosophy to established tenets of Hume,of Locke, of Aristotle, and Hobbes – untrammeled by personal opinion.
I used to think that Mike was challenging us, like a skilled teacher – putting forth absurd ideas and expecting us to tear them apart and debate them – but that belief is waning. I’m thinking now as I suggested before – that Mike is a true leftist in his heart (which is fine), and is allowing his core beliefs to interfere with his assessment of truth and of valid argument (which is not fine).
But I’ll keep posting.
Also note, not one word here about the mob that tried to kick in Tucker Carlson’s door, scaring his wife. That along with the ho-hum response by many in the media and on the left (BIRM). But hey, someone tried to take Jim Acosta’s microphone away after he was told he wasn’t welcome. Which is getting more press and why?
Any video – no matter how “raw” or how “edited” – and no matter how you define “editing”, is meant to sway opinion.
If you have ten minutes of video and choose to air two of them, that’s altering. If you have two camera angles and choose only one, that’s altering If you delete some or all of the audio, if you provide a close-up, if you slow frames down, if you speed them up, if you leave them alone – you are making a point.
But no one really cares about the truth. That’s abundantly clear. No one cares about valid arguments, no one cares about opposing viewpoints, no one cares about reasonable counter-arguments. As was shown in the Kavanaugh hearings, what the two sides care about is what will “stick”. If they can take the most absurd premise and present it in such a way as to seemingly destroy one’s opponent, it’s fair game.
I’d love to see anyone in any sort of high level decision-making position about any of these narratives say, “Oh, well, we can’t really use that – it’s not true!” or “It really hasn’t been proven!” or, “Well, we may believe that to be true, but there really are some reasonable counter-arguments – maybe we should listen to them before we publish …!”
Ha.
There are many ways to put forth the narrative you want. Selective airing, as you suggest, is one of them. “Yes – let’s air the hell out of this microphone business, and ignore the mobs in front of Carlson’s home, who terrorized his family!” It’s the same kind of selective airing that keeps “White Cop On Black Perp” in our faces 24/7, while ignoring the statistics that prove that the racism narrative is at best flawed, if not outright false.
Another is, of course, what has happened here – which is selective editing. The confrontation that precipitated this event is not being discussed – or if it is, it is being discussed in the context of Trump being “anti-Free-Speech”. Never mind the fact that Acosta at a press conference, was not asking questions – but rather openly harassing the president, attempting to engage him in an open debate – and one not about issues or facts, but about accusations and talking points.
Mike is absolutely and 100% correct here – we need to be harshly cynical and suspicious of EVERYTHING we see or read; we need to consider the source, we need to seek out the opposing point of view. When we see a video clip, we need to ask, “Where’s the rest of it?” . We need to think for ourselves.
But that’ll never happen. You and I may do so, but for the mainstream, the call to tribalism is far too powerful. So three out of sync frames in a video become a massive conspiracy of lies, a video not aired never happened.
For someone who gets so upset at Trump’s manners and delivery, perhaps you could comment on Acosta’s behavior, even assuming the video shows something that is deceptive (and I’m not assuming this). Listening to the full audio makes Acosta’s case worse, not better.
I for one am not outraged at his hand motion, pushing the intern’s hand away. I’m more concerned about Acosta’s and CNN zealotry, Acosta’s grandstanding for the AP and CNN colleagues and generally being an asshole when told his time was up. The physical contact was an aside.
I’m not sure why you are skeptical about media conspiracy. They’ve been caught doing it again and again. 16 journalists are in Podesta’s emails as per wikileaks asking permission to write stories and making sure they weren’t hurting Hillary’s chances. Only 6 corporations control 90% of the media. In the 80s, it was over 50. When you make $11 million a year like Anderson Cooper, you will say what you are told to say.
https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
CNN is now suing not only the White House for taking Acosta’s press pass, but the individual secret service agent who retrieved the pass. A multi-billion dollar news corporation (the only ones liberals love), picking on a secret service agent on behalf of a reporter who even other reporters say was way out of line.
“The contact appears to be accidental on his part—he is gesturing as she reaches for the microphone. ”
Utter bs. If you watch the video, he clearly tries to push her arm away. It is unmistakeable. Mike, you are a partisan left wing hack. There is no way it can be construed as “accidental on his part”.
“My obvious reply to this is that I would also condemn such deceit on the part of the Democrats, should they engage in doctoring videos and lying from official channels.”
Excellent! Now please list the posts where you have criticised “such deceit on the part of the Democrats”. This should be a long list…except…you don’t criticise the Democrats.