For others on the left and in the press, it's an example of a shameless administration working to establish an alternate reality. For some on the far-right, the clip is an example of media malfeasance and knee-jerk reactions. Which is where we stand almost 24 hours after the initial press conference depicted in the video. "You just point to the fact that the tech exists and you can impugn the integrity of the stuff that’s real.” "You don't need to create the fake video for this tech to have a serious impact," DiResta said of the phenomenon. In 2017, Donald Trump cited video editing technology to belatedly cast doubt on the Access Hollywood tape (that he originally apologized for).
This isn't the first example of this phenomenon, but it might be the trickiest. “It makes it possible to cast aspersions on whether videos - or advocacy for that matter - are real.” "These technological underpinnings to the increasing erosion of trust,” computational propaganda researcher Renee DiResta told BuzzFeed News in early 2018. The entire ordeal is a near-perfect example of a scenario disinformation experts have predicted and warned of, where the very threat of video manipulation can lead to a blurring of reality. An argument breaks out over the intricate technical details of doctoring a clip. Then, users attempt to debunk the video as "actual fake news." Others, unclear if the video is fake, urge caution, suggesting the media may be jumping the gun. Outraged journalists decry the White House's use of a video taken from a historically unreliable narrator. The White House picks up and disseminates that video and uses it as proof to ban the journalist from reporting at the White House. To sum it up: A historically unreliable narrator who works for a conspiracy website tweets a video in order to show alleged bad behavior on the part of a journalist. If that's the case, there's also an argument that Watson is telling the truth - he didn't personally speed up the video he just used a clip that was missing frames.
In that case, one can argue that the video was altered. Watson's clip is different than the CSPAN clip because it was taken from a GIF and thus missing frames, which could cause Acosta's movement to appear faster than it actually was. There's even an example in which all parties are mostly correct.
0 kommentar(er)
