Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
[flagged] Trump Press Conference Video Doctored? (buzzfeednews.com)
63 points by rkuykendall-com 9 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 117 comments





Sped up or not, I think the missing perspective is “is it okay to walk up to someone and forcibly grab what they have in their hand?“ Given the context, him not wanting her to grab the microphone, I see nothing wrong with his reaction

Meh. I think reaching for the mike was OK. She didn't push, and disengaged when he made it clear ("excuse me ma'am") he wasn't going to comply. Literally, she reached around for the mike, their arms bumped, and she sat down. That is just not a violent incident in any reading.

But note that the complaint here isn't that it was sped up, it's that it was actually doctored; the motion of his arm, alone, was sped up to look like a "karate chop" while the rest of the video remains at normal speed. There is a superimposed version floating around on twitter that shows this trickery. It's... pretty scary.


He's a credentialed member of the press asking a legitimate question. He has every right to have that microphone and to ask the question. The fact that it happened, that Sarah Sanders is spinning it as an attack on the intern, and that even my kids would be able to tell the video has been doctored should have every American - Republican or Democrat or Other - up in arms. Republicans love to talk about defending the Constitution... well, here's your chance!

The issue was he wasn't trying to ask a question but argue with the president and taking time away from other members of the press to ask legitimate questions. He disagreed with the president stating it was an invasion and the president answered him with he believed it was an invasion. Trying to go back and forth wasting time. There wasn't anything else to add which is why the worker came to grab the mic to provide it to the next person. This is common in these interviews since there isn't a lot of time and there are a lot of questions so they try and let everyone get a question in and they only have the one mic. To be honest this is being blown up more than it should but in watching the full video of the press conference Jim was trying to grand stand and was rude. I can understand why this happened. There were other press members there who pushed/challenged Trump on other topics but were respectful and did let go of the mic.

So... your opinion (hell, I even share it) is that Acosta was in violation of the established norms of presidential journalism.

And your conclusion is apparently that it's OK to fabricate evidence to accuse the guy of assault ("placing his hands on a young woman")? Do I take that right?


It isn't ok to fabricate evidence. Don't take this the wrong way but I'm not sure if you're saying fabrication to be disingenuous to this event happening or just that they are making it look more like a karate chop. I assume the latter and to me I don't really see much of a difference and isn't the point or is a distraction from the issue as to why they made the decision they did. You drop some frames and it looks more like a karate chop, but I watched the full press video on cbs and other various locations enough to say I don't think he chopped her hand away or anything too crazy. I don't think there is an argument that it didn't happen and that Jim wasn't trying to stop her from taking the mic away to pass to the next person and either on purpose or by reaction blocked and made contact with her at the elbow.

I'm not in the camp to call it assault even though it might be technically. I don't know or don't care to debate legally if it is/isn't because I tend to think of assault as more provoked or violent than what this was. The reaction of the staffer was interesting though with her looking confused and unsure what to do as if that hasn't happened before.

I do think he was out of line given how he acted not just with the staffer, but after his question on indictments in the Russian investigation which is a question he's asked a few times before and been given the same answer on. Then standing back up and talking over Peter who was called on next to say something about the media being the enemy of the people and something about the pipe bombs (couldn't hear it well due to him not being mic'ed). To me all of those things combined I can understand why they decided to revoke him. Other Press members asked questions that were far more challenging and critical of the administrations direction in this briefing and their creds weren't pulled which leaves me with the conclusion its because of how he acted.


> I'm not in the camp to call it assault even though it might be technically.

...

So if someone reaches for your fork at lunch today and then accuses you of assault, that might be OK technically too?


> So if someone reaches for your fork at lunch today and then accuses you of assault, that might be OK technically too?

Lets be clear with this analogy that the fork isn't mine but in fact the person taking it back in this situation. It was provided to me to use. It was the white house's mic given to him to ask his questions. If its their property can't they take it back when they so chose?

The reason I say it might be technically is because some define assault as unwanted contact or battery (https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-ba...). Like I said I don't really want to go down that rabbit hole of an argument. If it is or isn't doesn't matter to me I just don't think it was appropriate.


I give up. We have two wrongdoings alleged:

1. Jim Acosta was an asshole.

2. The White House lied, accused him of assault, and used doctored evidence to prove that.

I think #1 is probably true but don't care. I think #2 is a disaster for the free press and civil society, and so would you if this was anything but politics. You can't accuse people of serious crimes without evidence. And the fact that you won't even nod to this in the slightest tells me you aren't being serious here. You seem genuinely fine with lying people if you think they're assholes.


I think we can agree on 1 and I think we agree two wrongs don't make a right. But 2 is more so nuance and takes a little unpacking. From the article: "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."

I agree with that statement and like I said this conversation is a distraction from the event that took place and if we think this is acceptable behavior. My response to your response was "It isn't ok to fabricate evidence." Again I don't think this was fabricated in that it never happened. If we change the term to "doctored" if it is or isn't doesn't change to that event didn't happen. It would be foolish to intentionally create a doctored video given the amount of coverage this got, the amount of scrutiny around it, and it didn't look good in the first place.

>The White House lied, accused him of assault This is the part that I don't think I agree with you or at least I'm not sure what you mean. I haven't seen trump or the sanders come out and call this assault. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. Now absolutely some in the media and trump supporters have called it that or used that wording and I don't agree. Trump even talked to the press today about this and said 'he was not nice to that young women. I don't hold him for that since it wasn't overly horrible'[1] and also called him unprofessional. I'm not sure what you mean by lied unless you're referring that to the video.

>You can't accuse people of serious crimes without evidence. And the fact that you won't even nod to this in the slightest tells me you aren't being serious here.

I've never said he committed a crime and said I'm not in the camp to call this assault. Some absolutely have and I don't agree with that. There is evidence though the he touched her without consent so again that's an argument of if it is or isn't assault and I wouldn't call it that. Its not as if we'll see charges pressed and if we did that would be ridiculous.

> You can't accuse people of serious crimes without evidence I agreed that isn't right. Again there is a video showing there was contact so there is evidence something happened. I say again I don't think what he did was acceptable behavior and never accused him of a serious crime.

>You seem genuinely fine with lying people if you think they're assholes. I'm ok with liers so long as I think they're aholes? I'm being civil here and enjoying the discussion. Please don't say I'm ok with this.

[1]https://youtu.be/1jT8Ait1jEc?t=633


I'm sorry, but you're simply being disingenous here. If you saw this very same video about a non-political, plausibly right leaning guy whose arm got bumped by some woman trying to take away what was in his hand, you would freak the fuck out about the outrageous injustice of punishing him because he had "laid his hand on her".

This is conservative anti-SJW fetish material right here. But because the victim was a supporter of your favorite politician...


The thing is I wouldn't. There is nothing to freak out over this as I said I don't find the behavior acceptable and unprofessional. That is it. I'm not up in arms or that he should be fired or anything.

>But because the victim was a supporter of your favorite politician... That's also the thing. He's not nor are any of them. We also don't know that the victim in this was a trump supporter. She works at the white house running the mic during the briefing. Her political affiliation doesn't matter either way. This is what strikes me as odd that to say how someone acted towards the president and staff requires there to be a political leaning to decide if it was ok or not. Not in my book, I didn't like it under previous administrations (joe wilson yelling 'you lie' during one of obama's address as an example) nor do I like it now.


I love that you keep calling people out on hyperbolic language yet insist on calling this woman, who initiated the physical contact and got her arm bumped, a "victim".

> who initiated the physical contact and got her arm bumped, a "victim".

Just to remind you what you wrote: "But because the victim was a supporter of your favorite politician..."

I used the word you used in my response so you understood we were talking about the same person.


"The Press", has in general pretty much come out and said this was poor behavior by the president. Nobody seems to have their feelings hurt that their question didn't get asked because of this "grandstanding". None of them seem to be thrilled that the president, in his infinite wisdom, cut this man off from getting a real answer to his follow up questions.

Given the transcript I saw, it didn't even sound like the guy was given the opportunity to ask a complete question without being cut off. So it's very difficult to remain an unbiased bystander here when you have a member of the press (who might be an asshole for all I know) who was cut off, not given the opportunity to express a question, then has the microphone grabbed by a member of the White House staff, then get slandered by the POTUS (it's very challenging for me to even call him that), but somehow we're supposed to be convinced that it was this member of the press that was causing the problem. It's revolting. If it happened in another country, there would be a member of our foreign service calling out the repression of the media. Here, apparently it is the new norm.

He was grandstanding[1] given that he stood back up after the mic was already passed to someone else to make more comments to jab the president.

> Nobody seems to have their feelings hurt that their question How does anyone know that? I'll agree that its probably true but because they are professionals and don't take it personal as well as they understand that this is a privilege opportunity and time is limited. Many of the people who were called later expressed thanks for the opportunity to ask their question(s).

> cut this man off from getting a real answer to his follow up questions. I'd argue none of his questions were looking for a 'real' answer because they were disingenuous, divisive, and really would only be happy with what Jim wanted as an answer. Jim has asked him on more than one occasion on indictment concerns with the Russian investigation and I can see how that would get old answer the same questions.

Most of the press who asked questions had their questions cut off just to keep things moving so it wasn't just him. Not saying its right.

The press can ask a question, but it doesn't mean they are going to get 'a real answer' or in their mind the answer they want to hear and I think that is part of the problem.

Don't get me wrong I think the president could and should absolutely be more polite in these press briefs.

I'm sure the press did come out and point the finger at the president being at fault. How often does the press take responsibility for their own misreporting or actions? If Trump is at fault he isn't alone in this one. I know the WHCA came out and objected the decision to pull Jim's security credentials to stop him from being in the briefings going forward. I would expect they would object and ask that it be reversed. I'm sure it will be once things calm down and use this time as a time out as a cool down period.

1.https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/grand...


I actually disagree, I don't think he does have "every right" to have the microphone. He had his interaction with the president and someone else was being called on. He's being rude by preventing other members of the press from getting their chance to ask a question. I don't see a Constitutional issue here.

I haven't seen Sarah Sanders' take on it, but I did a cursory review of the "doctoring", and I'm not convinced of any deliberate changes to the video, apart from format conversions (source -> gif -> mt2 -> mp4).


To the downvoters: what do you disagree with? Let's converse, maybe you'll change my mind...

The constitutional issue is that the president lied about some caravan overtaking the US. Once the elections were over, he was asked about his chosen words. He didn’t like it and made it personal. He clearly walks away from the podium if you watch the interaction. Now the administration is using their position to ban a journalist from the White House. That’s not free speech. That’s a constitutionally crisis. And they are lying about it by pushing a manipulated video.

I'm the one you thought you were replying to, but krapp's not wrong.

There is no constitutional issue here. He still has freedom of speech, as he can still say whatever he wants. He still has freedom of the press, as his employer (CNN) can still publish anything he submits, if they so wish.

Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee a platform, and freedom of the press doesn't guarantee unlimited access.

The behavior of the parties involved could be argued separately, but I still don't see any "constitutional crisis."

You have not changed my mind.


It's not a constitutional crisis. The constitution doesn't prevent the president from lying when not under oath, refusing to retract a statement, or banning journalists for petty personal reasons.

WHAT???

You changed the subject after I confronted you. "The constitution doesn't prevent the president from lying when not under oath" "Let's converse, maybe you'll change my mind..."

You've made up your mind.


Umm... I posted my comment three hours ago, and I edited it not long after that, adding "when not under oath" because I knew some pedant would probably bring that up. However, my edit didn't change the context of my comment at all. You apparently "confronted me" here, so I don't know what "changing the subject after you confronted me" even refers to, and I don't know who you're quoting at the end of your comment.

But I stand by my statement. Your claim that "The constitutional issue is that the president lied about some caravan overtaking the US" is false, that's not a "constitutional" issue.


Sorry, I thought you were user “64738”.

fair enough.

"Let's converse, maybe I'll be able to make you waste your time..."

Such as your's? j/k, no maliciousness intended, though I admit I was slow coming back to the thread.

There's nothing scary about random internet people doctoring videos on the internet. Hell, even magazines doctor images to add more darkness or light to a picture to make various celebrities look scarier or more friendly. The subtle-points of marketing / propaganda.

Case in point: the famous "Muhammad Ali Knockout vs Sonny Liston " shot was doctored up to sell magazines / newspapers (IIRC: A few more camera flashes in the background of the black-and-white version of the image). Doctoring images is... actually quite common. These changes aren't usually major and Newspapers generally take care to keep things "contextually correct", but its the personal decision of the editor for what counts and doesn't count as "changing the message" of photographs.

Anyway, the main issue is that the "doctored" video is being pushed by the White House Press Secretary.

We all know disinformation exists in today's age. But we generally expect the White House's mouthpiece to strictly report the facts. But this White House does not stick to the facts. This sort of thing is more expected to come from a sensationalist magazine, and not from the official communication channel of the highest-office in the land.


Nothing scary about the whitehouse publishing doctored videos to suppress the new media? ok.

>This sort of thing is more expected to come from a sensationalist magazine, and not from the official communication channel of the highest-office in the land.

This is the office that tried to push "alternative facts" as a rationale for the disagreement between Trump's claims of the size of his inauguration crowd and the photographic evidence. I mean, you lived through the same election cycle as everyone else. We saw the crazy train coming from miles away and for some reason the American people decided to board it.

Not only should this sort of thing be expected, it's apparently the sort of thing people wanted.


No doubt the issue of trying to make this guy look like a woman beater is horrible.

I would counterpoint that it probably should be someone elses job to us force to get the mic back. I’m sure there are officers of some kind in that room.


> probably should be someone elses job to us[e] force to get the mic back

I'd quite like to think that it shouldn't be anybodies job to use force to get a microphone back from a journalist in a press conference.


Nor should it be anybody’s chagrin to suffer bad grammar. Apologies.

Sorry, why would you need to "use force" to prevent a followup question? Trump was literally refusing to answer the question. Journalistic norms going back long before the invention of the microphone say that's not kosher and you have to have an answer.

I mean, if we're going to throw norms to the wind and (literally!) push journalists around to control the questions being asked, then we probably don't want to have a press conference in the first place.

The solution is certainly not to have the secret service rough up Jim Acosta because Donald Trump doesn't like the question he asked.


So the 'Russian investigation' is a follow-up to the 'Migrant caravan'?

>Trump was literally refusing to answer the question.

He answered the question, but Jim didn't like the argument.


He gave a non-answer to the question "why are you categorizing it as an invasion" by saying "because I consider it an invasion".

Why is this an invasion and not "a group of refugees and asylum seekers"? Why are you using specific, strong, and decisive language to demonize this group? What is illegal about seeking asylum, since presumably that's what this group would want to do in order to enter the country?

It is being pointedly obtuse to say that his answer would be considered satisfactory by anyone. That's not to say that the situation didn't get heated on both sides, but let's not pretend Trump was just being a super nice guy by staying off the golf course long enough to answer these assholes' questions and didn't deserve to get some serious questions answered after a midterm election.


>He gave a non-answer to the question "why are you categorizing it as an invasion" by saying "because I consider it an invasion".

Jim also answered the question for him when he asked by saying because it is not an invasion. He asked a question that he had the correct answer to it already, which is why trump said we have a difference of opinions.

>It is being pointedly obtuse to say that his answer would be considered satisfactory by anyone. He answered the question(s) no he doesn't feel he is demonizing immigrants and that he wants to come in legally and also says we need immigrants to fill the job growth we have. I don't see that as a poor answer.

Would it have been been better if the president said its an invasion because they've already broken through border fences to Mexico saying "Nobody is going to stop us."[1] and if they are seeking asylum they need to follow the process and go to a legal port of entry to file an asylum request not jump our walls in hopes to avoid capture?

[1] http://time.com/5429933/migrant-caravan-breaks-fence-guatema...


>>Would it have been been better if the president said its an invasion because they've already broken through border fences to Mexico saying "Nobody is going to stop us."[1] and if they are seeking asylum they need to follow the process and go to a legal port of entry to file an asylum request not jump our walls in hopes to avoid capture?

YES! Yes it would! That's the point I'm trying to make.

If you're in charge of making policy decisions, be able to defend them! Don't say "This new law is good because it's good" or "our enemy is our enemy because they're our enemy". If you're going to be the "Sorry I speak so directly it offends you" president, fucking own it and actually tell the truth or explain your thoughts.


If that is the point he spent about 30 mins answering that question in detail less than a week ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksmkp5CwF_4 Much of what I said above was previously said by trump in that brief. If jim acosta is cnn's chief white house correspondent I assume he was there or certainly knew of this and reviewed it. It is safe to say its his job and that he had the reasoning behind why he called it an invasion already.

This is part of the problem many times he has already answered the question with detail or given a reason and its not fully reported on or the press just ask again thinking the answer will all of a sudden flip. I agree we can knock him for not always giving a lot of detail then you can also knock the media's coverage or how they ask their questions since they seem to have the same answer and not getting to the root of what they are looking for. You could say jim could have asked "can you elaborate on why you call it an invasion" vs the way he started by saying I'm going to challenge you and no its not an invasion and go around in circles with this. It doesn't matter though since whats done is done and its comes down to that's not how I would ask that question or how I would want that question answer. We're monday morning quarterbacking. you're not always going to get the answer you want and that is under every administration I've seen.


>> “is it okay to walk up to someone and forcibly grab what they have in their hand?“

Yes, when that thing they won't let go of isn't their's to keep and they refuse to give it back.


Especially because he represents the People, he's basically our auditor, and he's a good auditor because the government employee he was auditing was trying to get out of answering the questions he's always tried to get out of answering.

The alt-right speaking point right now is that Acosta wasn't respecting the rules of Trump's house or something, that somehow Acosta has to defer to Trump, but that's the equation all backwards. We pay for the house, that's our auditor there demanding answers from our employee.


As a matter of fact, the "President of the United States" represents the "People", Jim Acosta represents "CNN", which is a "for-profit corporation".

When the POTUS is preventing the freedom of the press, he/she is not representing the people or the Constitution.

Right, we live in a capitalist society, so unlike say a communist nation we don't need to have an "agency of government transparency" or whatever that has the sole responsibility (and the only entity allowed to) of telling the people what the government is up to, we have companies that find a way to generate a profit off this service.

There are plenty other public goods entities that are also profitable - hospitals, for example, have to generate profit (though I disagree that this should be necessary). Energy companies. Airline companies. Etc.

In any case, CNN was there to ask questions on my behalf. I'm glad, too, because I like government transparency, and I for one don't trust any government to self-report without bias. Hence, auditors.


I don't think the microphone was Jim Acosta's personal property, and he was an invited guest on federal property, and an employee/intern of the federal government was given instruction to get government property back.

And we all get to decide whether or not we think that instruction was appropriate.

Personally, I don't. The federal government answers to the people. If we, the people, are not well-informed about what the federal government is doing, we can't make good decisions about how we're going to vote.


On what grounds would it be appropriate for the reporter not be allowed to finish their question? Can the White House just silence anyone that are asking difficult questions?

Another journalist accused the president of being a white nationalist at this same Q&A. At what point do journalists become journalists again instead of political commentators?

Yeah and he spent like a full minute responding and talked about the difference between globalists and nationalists.

The journalist asked a question. A question that seems very legitimate to me.

"I asked President Trump what he thinks of people seeing his rhetoric as emboldening white nationalists and whether he was concerned that Republicans would be seen as supporting white nationalists.

His response: "That's a racist question."

https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1060235176545005568


>Can the White House just silence anyone that are asking difficult questions?

Yes, there is no legal obligation, only optics.


There is this thing called the First Amendment which says otherwise.

Doesn’t matter. He was in possession of it, she just walked over and reached. Maybe at some point force is warranted, but not like this and probably not by her (by police). She invaded his space and is arm nudge was essentially a reaction to her action. I feel like his was reasonable her action wasn’t.

No, that's her job. The problem is, if this was a physically imposing dude rather than a woman, he would have given up the mic handily. But instead, he ignored her position to distribute the mic (as appointed by the President of the U.S.) and manhandled the mic away from her.

We’re purely speculating but I disagree. He wanted to ask his questions. He was already being non compliant. And he wouldn’t have handily given up the mic to anyone. I also doubt her job is to use force. Her job is to move the mic around when people give and take it compliantly.

At no point did he manhandle anyone.

Except, Jim Acosta is the 4th branch. His job is to find out, on the People's behalf, what the fed is up to, and the federal government (which we pay for) was trying to squirm out of it.

That's not government property, that's our property. The very house is paid for by our taxes.

If it were up to me, journalists would be with elected officials more than they aren't. I want transparency in government. Full transparency.


Jim Acosta is the 4th branch? Jim Acosta is one dude. He's got no more right to highjack a Presidential press conference than Alex Jones. Seriously.

Oof, I had hoped nobody would take me on such bad faith as to claim I was saying that Jim Acosta, a single employee of a single news agency, represented the entirety of the 4th branch. This is disappointing. I'd be especially interested in a discussion with you of why you felt this was necessarily, offline via email if you'd like (in my profile is my email).

To answer your question - the press conference is the one (rare) chance that I get to have my questions, as Trump's employer, answered. I don't find it acceptable that the man living in the house that I pay for is dodging questions that really aren't even that hard. It's not like Acosta was asking for Trump's birth certificates - he was asking Trump to explain his vitriolic language and spending of my resources sending troops to the border.


>>Jim Acosta is the 4th branch.

Elected by who? Appointed by who? Accountable to who? Reports to who? And how does one in a democratic set up trust them to do the right thing.

Don't tell us to take it all on good faith and judgement.

>>His job is to find out, on the People's behalf, what the fed is up to, and the federal government (which we pay for) was trying to squirm out of it.

Not it is not.

Their job is to maximize profits for their firms. Anything less and they're very bad at their jobs.


>Elected by who? Appointed by who?

Popular market. He gets good ratings. So, technically, democracy, except you vote with your eyeballs.

>Accountable to who? Reports to who?

Fox, abc, Reuters, etc. As well as us. I didn't say we have NO responsibility, after all, just that we sent someone in our place so we don't all have to drop everything and fly to DC for every press conference.

>Their job is to maximize profits

Why doesn't Jim just become an investment banker, then? His motivation lie beyond more than money and frankly I'm surprised I have to reiterate that to people on the internet so often. Are you completely money motivated?

Really the system isn't that hard to understand, it's a system of checks and balances, with the agencies keeping each other honest. A cabal is somewhat impossible due to the existence of say Fox news or even international outlets with very different motivations.


Jim Acosta turned question-asking into political opinion generation. Are reporters even supposed to render judgment at a Q&A?

I didn't see judgement rendered, I saw questions asked.

Can you share a video and link to a timestamp where you saw political opinion generated by Acosta, so I can better understand your perspective?


We have the transcript of the exchange. Can you clarify what you mean by "political opinion generation"?

----

Acosta: I wanted to challenge you on one of the statements that you made in the tail end of the campaign in the midterms that …

Trump: Here we go.

Acosta: Well, I — if you don’t mind, Mr. President …

Trump: Let’s go. Let’s go. Come on.

Acosta: … that this caravan was an invasion. As you know, Mr. President …

Trump: I consider it to be an invasion.

Acosta: As you know, Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion. It’s a group of migrants moving up from Central America towards the border with the U.S. And …

Trump: Thank you for telling me that. I appreciate it.

Acosta: … why did you characterize it as such?

Trump: Because I consider it an invasion. You and I have a difference of opinion.

Acosta: But do you think that you demonized immigrants in this election to try to keep …

Trump: Not at all. No, not at all. I want them to come into the country, but they have to come in legally. You know, they have to come in, Jim, through a process. I want it to be a process. And I want people to come in. And we need the people here …

Acosta: Right. But your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on …

Trump: Well, that’s true. … They weren’t actors.

Acosta: They’re not going to be doing that.

Trump: They weren’t actors. Well, no, it was true. Do you think they were actors? They weren’t actors. They didn’t come from Hollywood. … This was an actual — you know, it happened a few days ago and …

Acosta: They’re hundreds of miles away, though. They’re hundreds and hundreds of miles away.

Trump: You know what?

Acosta: That’s not an invasion.

Trump: I think you should — honestly — I think you should let me run the country, you run CNN. And if you did it well, your ratings would be much better.

Acosta: But let me ask … if I may ask one other question …

Trump: OK, that’s enough.

Acosta: Mr. President, if I may …

Trump: Peter, go ahead.

Acosta: If I may ask one other question. Are you worried …

Trump: That’s enough. That’s enough.

Acosta: But, Mr. President, I — well …

Trump: That’s enough.

Acosta: I was going to ask one other …

Trump: That’s enough.

Acosta: The other folks have had …

Trump: That’s enough.

Acosta: Pardon me, ma’am. I’m — I’m — Mr. President …

Trump: Excuse me, that’s enough.

Acosta: Mr. President, I had one other question, if I may ask, on — on the Russia investigation. Are you concerned that — that you may have indictments …

Trump: I’m not concerned about anything with the Russia investigation because it’s a hoax.

Acosta: Are you …

Trump: That’s enough. Put down the mic.

Acosta: Mr. President, are you worried about indictments coming down in this investigation?

Trump: I tell you what. CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN. Go ahead.

Acosta: I — I think that’s unfair …

Trump: You’re a very rude person. The way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible, and the way you treat other people are horrible. You shouldn’t treat people that way.


"Acosta: As you know, Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion. It’s a group of migrants moving up from Central America towards the border with the U.S. And …"

That's where he's rendering a political opinion.

It would be quite different if he said something like "Congressman so and so said just yesterday that this is not an invasion and is merely whatever and could you comment" or "There is concern in some circles about your rhetoric in calling this an invasion..., could you address this concern or explain why you believe this is an invasion" or something like those -- but in taking the "as you know" line, he's directly calling the President a liar, taking a political position on the issue himself, and trying to bait the President into arguing with him (which of course the President did as he always does).


I disagree that this is a political opinion. I think this is one party (Acosta) challenging the other (the government employee) on objective fact, as per Acosta's job description.

>“If someone says it’s raining & another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the fking window and find out which is true.”

https://www.google.com/search?q=invasion :

> an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.

There are other definitions of "invasion" that can be applied, but why choose the word "invasion" when there are more accurate ones to choose that don't have the negative connotations? It is a bad faith use of the word "invasion" by the government to describe anything other than an actual armed invasion. How should they describe Russian troops landing on US soil if they've already used up the word "invasion" to describe impoverished asylum-seekers?

>he's directly calling the President a liar.

The president is a liar. He lies all the time. I'm glad the auditors are pushing my employee on this. He's lying about what he's using my money for and that infuriates me.

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statem...


Again, you're missing the point. He's taking a political position, not being a journalist.

It's not an objective fact as a significant portion of the US disagrees with you and Mr. Acosta. It's a matter of political discussion and has been for a while.


I disagree, and have yet to be convinced it's an opinion instead of fact.

it's a characterization. It's a colloquialism.

You can argue that all day long, but calling it an "invasion" (which I don't really agree with btw), is a subjective statement based in opinion. The fact is that there are a lot of people travelling up through Mexico to the US border. How you characterize that is an opinion.


The other respondents to your comment put it very well, so I'll just say that I agree. It's not an invasion.

When the President lies, it's OK for a reporter to call him or her a liar.


Rebutting Donald's lie implicit in using the word "invasion" doesn't make what Jim Acosta asked a political opinion.

It's not an invasion, and that's not a matter of politics, that's a statement of fact.

As an analogy, if Donald said that the sky is green, that's not a matter of politics, that's a lie. Calling him out on it doesn't turn the color of the sky into a matter of politics.

This is also at the heart of the argument that journalists aren't and shouldn't be stenographers -- if there's a lie out there, the people with the platform should be calling it one, not just reporting that it is merely a statement someone has made.


I don't know why you're getting downvoted. This is an accurate assessment. Acosta was LECTURING the President, not asking a couple of direct questions.

Pretty standard around here, I'm used to it.

And from what I hear (I rarely watch the news anymore) Acosta is known for doing this both to the President and to the Press Secretary.

It's a matter of respect, we don't have to like the guy in the office, but we should respect the office.


Why should we respect someone that is continually lying, insults our allies, and is bad at his job?

Well, that's not what I said, was it?

You said we should respect the person in office. I see no reason to do so.

In fact, it was argument without merit - it would be like me saying "you should eat an apple a day," as if the reason was self evident.


No, I specifically said one should respect the office, regardless of who holds it.

In lots of countries any form of unwanted direct or indirect contact would be considered assault. So by trying to force the mic away, she could have been charged with assault! If the mic is someone else's property and he would not give it up, the police would have the right to make unwanted contact to get it back.

I realize this may be removed due to the political nature, but the conversation about video speed and frame-dropping from video-to-gif conversion, made me think it would be relevant to HackerNews.

What is even more interesting and relevant is what we will do when videos are regularly and intentionally modified or created, and in much more striking ways than this one. I'm surprised we haven't already seen some good attempts at this with the amount of money and motivation that goes into US politics.

Do you remember the thing about a year ago with Trump, Shinzo Abe, and the koi pond? The story was that Trump ignored instructions and impatiently dumped all the food into the pond, but the short video making the rounds was also edited: It zoomed in on Trump to hide Abe also tossing all the koi food, before Trump did.

I watched the side by side comparison of the three videos about thirty times before I read any of the text.

Why is it being framed as Acosta doing a chop rather than the woman in the video trying to punch Acosta. All three of the videos, to me, look like the woman going for a throat punch and Acosta's movements reactionary.

I can't tell who has the whacky bias here. Is it me?

Edit: rather than change my comment after I've posted it, I mean to write that both of the reduced frame rate videos appear as though the woman is going for the throat. The original video just looks nothing like that.


> look like the woman going for a throat punch

I mean... no, I can't see this at all. In every instance, it's totally obvious she's reaching for the mic.

I agree that she clearly instigated whatever contact is there, and his movements do seem totally reactionary, but portraying her movement as an attempt at a "throat punch" is kind of ridiculous.


Yes, I agree. I just mean to say why is it being framed one way when it can, in my opinion, just as easily be misinterpreted the other way.

My first comment definitely overstates my opinion.


Ohh I see what you mean! Yes, it's just as easy to say she went for a throat punch as it is to say he karate chopped her arm. I totally get what you meant now. Sorry for not understanding. :)

Why is an intern being sent to physically take away a microphone from a journalist? Do they not have an a/v team?

Youre comment is completely ridiculous. Even without the full video there was a context to the story.

Wow. I can’t believe the power of tribalism. Really, we are arguing over whether someone grazed the arm of a woman who reached to remove the microphone from a reporter?

I guess we really have no other pressing needs to attend to. Nope- the homeless problem, solved. Opioid abuse? No longer a problem! Ethnic cleansing in Myanmar? Eliminated! Murdering dissidents and journalists? Not happening. Deploying thousands of military troops to intercept a caravan of asylum seeking refugees? That’s yesterday’s news.

Nope, let’s spend our collective mental energy on fighting a battle- did he assault that poor woman?!? Seriously?

I realize my comment stinks of snarkiness, but seriously- think of how this plays out in the history books. How absolutely absurd does all this sound? I mean we laugh at the fact we threw bound women in the water to divine whether they were witches. What reaction will we have to the events of today a hundred years from now?

I leave this comment with a question I have no answer to. How do we fix this bug in human psychology?


> Really, we are arguing over whether someone grazed the arm of a woman who reached to remove the microphone from a reporter?

I don't think so. The conversation has been about the WH press secretary's characterization and reaction to the event and, now, whether that office is pushing an account of the event that deliberately distorts the truth.


The implications of this argument are that the government is suppressing media and using disinformation to convince the public that it's alright. This is part of protecting journalists and dissidents like you argue we should be focusing on.

yes I agree but I think this reasoned argument is drowned out by the cries of “but he hit her, no he didn’t...”

> I mean we laugh at the fact we threw bound women in the water to divine whether they were witches.

Off topic, but IIRC we didn't do exactly that. We threw mainly men, and some women, bound, in water to elicit confessions. It's not that we believed there was divination happening, it's just torture. Let someone nearly drown, then pull them out and threaten to do it again.

Not divining, just waterboarding.


>>Deploying thousands of military troops to intercept a caravan of asylum seeking refugees? That’s yesterday’s news.

That's part and parcel to what this whole thing is about.

I'm just going to keep posting this in here.

-A major news outlet had one of their major White House reporter's press pass revoked.

-The President's press secretary cited a doctored/edited video as evidence of the behavior that resulted in this revocation while using pointedly misleading language about what most people objectively agree happened.

-The President of the United States has been on a 3 year long campaign to sew distrust in media sources he doesn't feel portray him favorably.

-The President of the United States has blatantly and openly lied about information he felt was affecting his policy making, causing many people on both sides of the aisle to distrust his ability to objectively lead the country. This interaction occurred during a press conference in which the President was again repeating blatant lie, as well as the less offensive ignoring and misdirection of unfavorable questions.

It's possible people are fighting about did he hit her (he did not. he did not hit her. Oh hi Mark) but I'm also seeing plenty of people, possibly even MORE people, discussing the implications of this behavior and attack on the 4th estate. I have opinions about who's trying to shift the conversation to the attack/not attack on the intern, but that's just speculation really.

Point is: there's plenty of useful discourse going on, and throwing up some whaddaboutism that there are bigger world issues seems unhelpful.


> How do we fix this bug in human psychology?

My gut feeling is that this sort of thing is cyclical. We oscillate back and forth in countless ways, micro and macro. So the bug fix is to ride the crazy train until we reach the apex and then keep riding it back down to “sanity”, overshoot, then do it all again forever.


That’s not really “fixing” the bug though isn’t it? :(

The White House Press Secretary downloaded a doctored video from a conspiracy site and then uploaded it to Twitter to share it from the official Twitter account. The overlay makes it clearer than a side by side: https://twitter.com/rafaelshimunov/status/106045055781770854...

While this will get flagged for being "political" the technological analysis by various folks have been interesting.


Why is this even being talked about? The intern grabbed the microphone, he pushed her arm out of the way, it doesn't really seem like a big issue at all. Even in the gif it looks pretty minor.

It's being talked about because the Press Secretary of the President of the United States cited this particular video as proof that a journalist was violent with this intern. The White House wants this to be a story, and they're lying (and literally fabricating evidence, or at least trafficing in fabricated evidence) to do it.

It's being talked about because the Press Secretary of the President of the United States lied to everyone.

>>Why is this even being talked about?

-A major news outlet had one of their major White House reporter's press pass revoked. -The President's press secretary cited a doctored/edited video as evidence of the behavior that resulted in this revocation. -The President of the United States has been on a 3 year long campaign to sew distrust in media sources he doesn't feel portray him favorably. -The President of the United States has blatantly and openly lied about information he felt was affecting his policy making, causing many people on both sides of the aisle to distrust his ability to objectively lead the country. This interaction occurred during a press conference in which the President was again repeating blatant lie, as well as the less offensive ignoring and misdirection of unfavorable questions.

Would you like me to keep going?


When the President of the U.S. runs a press conference and wants to move on to the next question, that's the President's right. It's not Acosta's place to run the press conference and control it. He's one of 60 journalists in that room. There's 1 President. Ok, if you were in a court room, the judge runs the show. When you're in the White House, the President runs the show. Simple as that.

That's fair. The President can run his press group however he wants.

But we, as citizens, can also fairly criticize the President for pushing the doctored video and lying to us. This doctored video is proof positive that the White House Press Secretary is willing to photoshop videos to push their viewpoint.

This is a sad day in America. We all know the technology is possible, but to use it on such a trivial issue as "who was trying to grab the microphone" just demonstrates the poor sense of judgement of the current administration.

---------

The President has the ability to revoke the Press Pass of whoever he wants. But why would they push a false story while doing so? This isn't even that important of an issue, but to see them doctoring up videos and pushing them around is... worrying... to me.


The video wasn't doctored. They're arguing about the frame rate and whether it was sped up or down. Acosta clearly used force against the staffer's arm. Whether he used 100 Newtons or 200 Newtons... nobody cares. It's the principle, and the disruption and the grandstanding.

I agree that the President as the right to move on to the next question, I was more wondering why people seemed to be focusing on this "confrontation" when, to me, it seemed like nothing of consequence actually happened. It just doesn't make sense to me why this incident is even being talked about when it is so minor.

It’s a big deal because the White House made it a big deal by revoking Acosta’s press pass.

The White House is making it a big deal to use as reasoning for pulling Acosta's press credentials indefinitely.

Did you watch the real video? He didn't push her arm away at all. He was already gesturing with his left arm when the WH staffer approached.

If you watch the slowed down video, the only person doing the touching is the WH staffer... https://twitter.com/SarahBurris/status/1060349547958951937


Because the Trump administration cancelled Acosta's press credentials and the Secret Service barred him from entering the White House.

This is all just so sad. There's really no winner in this, because at this stage of technology and general mistrust towards the opposing party there is nothing that anyone could do in order to provide an answer that everyone can believe in, let alone non tech people. We have truly created a state of lies, mistrust, fake news and conspiracy and this will end badly. It surely plays into Trump's cards which is also quite upsetting too.

Divide and conquer at it's best. We, the people, are supposed to stop making decisions based on rational thinking and vote according to a social identity that is shoved into our faces constantly. And if enough people have nothing to trust anymore, and think there are conspiracies everywhere, it is easy to fill the void with just one loud person to trust. It is the last resort based on emotions and identity. Well played, well played indeed.

This - a thousand times. Read this story: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/21/kent-sore...

It’s a great story for a bunch of reasons, but what I would like to point out for this thread is how effective pitting ethnic and racial groups against each other in prison is at surpressing organized dissent. That’s exactly the tactic employed here with the virulent tribalism egged on by this administration.


Jim Acosta has done this many times. If he was really interested in answers he would continually modify his approach until he got what he wanted. But he's not really interested in answers so much as making a show of Trump not answering his questions. Case in point, I have no clue what he was asking, all of the stories have been about the reporter. Contrast with the Axios interview on HBO this week, where the interviewers discussed trying something different and effectively got a unique Trump interview.

Whatever you think about him is really not relevant to the press secretary’s complete mischaracterization. She said that he “put his hands on her”, and we all know what that is implied to mean. They could’ve just said that he lacked proper decorum or something, but instead they did this.

Counterpoint: Jim acosta is trying to get a specific question answered, and not looking for a "unique Trump interview".

Some people in the press will lob softballs and push out puff pieces. Others will ask questions they feel the people* want answered. There's no way you could ask Trump "What are the exact contents of your tax returns" and get an answer other than "none of your business."

*"The people" may or may not be large indicative of the public at large, and may instead represent a media outlet's primary consumers.


No conversation about doctored videos is complete without someone bringing up that time Obama called Trump a "complete dipshit".

https://news.avclub.com/jordan-peele-makes-obama-call-trump-...




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: