Letterman vs White House

[JesFine]

Watch this (http://brendanl.net/video/gwbyouth/AmericasYouth.rm) (real player, ~2.0 Mb, ~1:14)

Then watch this (http://brendanl.net/video/gwbyouth/AmericasYouth2.rm). (real player, ~5.6 Mb, ~3:26)

For those of you who don't want to watch, the first video is a Letterman sketch which shows a 12 or 13 year old kid standing behind Bush as he gives a speech. The kid is bored out of his mind and yawns, stretches, looks at his watch, etc. It's pretty funny, but that's not the point. The point comes in the SECOND video. CNN shows the same clip but then says "We're being told by the White House, that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video". This is, of course, a total lie. Later on in the second video CNN says "That kid was there at that event, but not necessarily standing behind the president, so you can put it all together". Which, AGAIN, is a total lie! Then apparently, later on in the show (no clip) Letterman says "CNN has just phoned and, according to this information, the anchorwoman misspoke, they never got a comment from the White House. It was a CNN mistake." And tonight apparently (also no clip), Letterman said that in fact, the White House did contact CNN about the clip.

So one of two things is happening here:
a) CNN is preemptively lying for the White House for no reason.
b) The White House is blatantly lying for no reason.
(ok also possiblity c) This is another weird April Fool's joke that I was not let in on)

So my question is: Why? Why the hell would anyone go out of their way to lie about some useless crap like this? And why, (prediction time) do I get the feeling that this will make headlines when some of the more egregious lies get little or no coverage. Can anyone who saw any of this comment on it? Can anyone explain why CNN and/or the White House felt the need to lie about this?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by JesFine
So one of two things is happening here:
a) CNN is preemptively lying for the White House for no reason.
b) The White House is blatantly lying for no reason.
(ok also possiblity c) This is another weird April Fool's joke that I was not let in on) Wow, you make so many assumptions without evidence (or you are not giving the evidence to us).

Are there really no other options?

Who took the video?

Why should CNN know that it was or wasn't edited?

Why should the White House know that it was or wasn't edited?

Could someone have mistakenly told someone else that it was edited?

Could someone other than the White House lie to CNN telling them that it was edited?

Could someone have lied to embarrass the White House telling them that it was edited?

So my question is: Why? Why the hell would anyone go out of their way to lie about some useless crap like this? And why, (prediction time) do I get the feeling that this will make headlines when some of the more egregious lies get little or no coverage. Can anyone who saw any of this comment on it? Can anyone explain why CNN and/or the White House felt the need to lie about this? My question is why would someone jump to such blanket conclusions without all of the evidence?

You know, critical thinking isn't just questioning those who you disagree with but questioning your own intuitions as well.

[shemp]

If this was edited video, it would be a simple matter for the White House to find the unedited version and present it. Several news organizations must have copies of the entire speech. So if it's fake, why doesn't the White House just present the true version?

My personal opinion is that the video smells funny, but I'll reserve judgment until more evidence is presented.

[hgc]

I have a theory as to why CNN would lie about this (or accipurposely goof it up).

Fox News has rising ratings, at the expense of CNN.

Fox News shills for the Republican Party and protects this administration as much as it can.

CNN will follow a winning formula.

[Reginald]

That's an hours footage edited down to approx a min. If the kid was there he was only doing one silly thing every 10 or so mins (pretty good going for a kid!).

So if he was there, he did well to only do those few things.

I have to agree with Shemp, it's a little (tiny bit) suspicious. It just looks a little "wrong", but then normal footage can look "wrong".

It's a very minor thing. I certainly wouldn't be worrying about the state of our democracy in the UK over something like this.

[Beerina]

It's obvious they had a clip with the kid yawning, then someone built upon that by pasting in some actor stretching, cracking his neck, and so on.

For Letterman's show, it's fine.

For a news show to broadcast it as if real is stupid.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by RandFan
Why should the White House know that it was or wasn't edited?
Well, since W was there, I would imagine others from the White House were there as well. I'd be shocked if the White House did not know if it was edited or not.

Could someone have mistakenly told someone else that it was edited?
My bet is that there is a bit of miscommunication, as the clip is obviously edited down from the entire speech to show the funny bits. So, yes it is edited, but not edited to add the kid.

Could someone other than the White House lie to CNN telling them that it was edited?
I suppose they could, but CNN said specifically that they were informed by the White House.

Could someone have lied to embarrass the White House telling them that it was edited?
This seems a bit far fetched and conspiracy theory like.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Thanz
Well, since W was there, I would imagine others from the White House were there as well. I'd be shocked if the White House did not know if it was edited or not. Who took the video?

Why is the White House expected to know if the video was edited or not. The conclusion does not follow from your premise.

My bet is that there is a bit of miscommunication, as the clip is obviously edited down from the entire speech to show the funny bits. So, yes it is edited, but not edited to add the kid. Sounds reasonable.

I suppose they could, but CNN said specifically that they were informed by the White House. And if there was one mistake there couldn't have been another? How do you KNOW it was the White House?

This seems a bit far fetched and conspiracy theory like. Not really. It wouldn't take a conspiracy just someone trying to make the White House look stupid. Do I think that is what happened? I think it is unlikely which is probably what your sentiment actually was.

[Tmy]

Isnt there a Letterman clip where Bush cleans his glasses on some Late Shpe staffers dress when shes not looking. Now thats embarrasing./

[Thanz]

Originally posted by RandFan
Who took the video?

Why is the White House expected to know if the video was edited or not. The conclusion does not follow from your premise.
It doesn't really matter who took the video. If the WH staffers were there, shouldn't somebody know if there was a kid yawning behind the president? Shouldn't they be able to get a copy of a video - any video - of the event that would show the speech and the people behind them?

And if there was one mistake there couldn't have been another? How do you KNOW it was the White House?
Possible, but I would submit that it is unlikely that it did not come from some low level staffer at the WH. They referenced the WH twice.

Not really. It wouldn't take a conspiracy just someone trying to make the White House look stupid. Do I think that is what happened? I think it is unlikely which is probably what your sentiment actually was. Agreed. It would take someone impersionating a WH staffer, and CNN believing them, etc. I just don't see it.

I see it as likely miscommunication and nothing more. Funny video though.

[Doubt]

Antoher take on this:


Contradictory Statement/Action

"Dave says what the CNN reporter [Daryn Kagan] said was an out and out 100% lie. A couple hours later, CNN anchor person Kyra Phillips reported that the kid was at the speech but not where the Late Show had him. Dave again makes the claim, 'That's an out and out absolute 100% lie. That kid was exactly where we said he was.' It's true. The speech was at a Florida Rally on March 20th at the Orange County Convention Center in Orlando, Florida. Dave is irked that the White House was trying to make him look like a jerk. But he's glad he got his side of the story out in the open."

The Wahoo Gazette, CBS.com, Mar. 31, 2004


http://www.whoslying.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=505&Itemid=26

Still waiting for facts on this one. Sounds like a lot of people have gone off half cocked.

[zenith-nadir]

CNN just apologized to Letterman on the air. The tape is unedited.

[Tmy]

Foxnews ran a line on the tickerthat Stern was pulled offthe air today. Of cousre the whole thing was an April Fools stunt. FN ran an apology later.

Its amazing how reckless the news channels are. Do they check anything?????

Theres a crank caller whos often on the Stern show. His MO is to call these news stations as some sort of expert or witness for whatever breaking news is happening. He gets on the air all the time, and then cracks a joke before he gets dumped. Its amazing how he gets air time so easy. THey check nothing in their race to be first on the scene.

[Frank Newgent]

Thanks JesFine

[WildCat]

That was hilarious! The first clip, I mean. :D

[gnome]

I am wondering how many of these "goofs" it is going to take before people realize how little attention there is to accuracy in even mainstream news...

and what kind of backlash would force them to improve? What form would it have to take to be meaningful to the news companies?

And yet one little flub in the lip synching track can bring down Milli Vanilli's career--but the news is immune?

[Malachi151]

Its not a lie, I've seen the C-SPAN footage that shows, from different angles, the same boy standing in the same place.

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04032004_bush.rm

Time index: 8:25

Why should we be suprized? Bush and co. are pathological liars, and now they are caught "red handed" as if they weren't already in every other sense.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Its not a lie, I've seen the C-SPAN footage that shows, from different angles, the same boy standing in the same place.

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04032004_bush.rm

Time index: 8:25

Why should we be suprized? Bush and co. are pathological liars, and now they are caught "red handed" as if they weren't already in every other sense.
:confused:

It was a CNN error!

[WildCat]

More: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40808-2004Mar31.html)
Two comedy bits later, Letterman read one of his trademark cards that he's always fiddling with, and started to laugh: "God almighty, my life just gets more and more complicated. You know, just a minute ago . . . I was ranting and raving about the White House. According to this, CNN has just phoned and, according to this information, the anchorwoman misspoke, they never got a comment from the White House. It was a CNN mistake.

"What good does that do me? . . . I've already now called them liars. I think from now on we're going to have to start looking into things," Letterman said.

"Why start now?" his bandleader Paul Shaffer said.

"Because everything was fine, except now I've called the White House liars, and you know what that means -- they're going to start looking into my taxes!"

[Silicon]

The conspiracy theorist in me wants the Whitehouse to have said the kid wasn't there, and then gotten CNN to lie and say that they never said that.


I guess that's what you get when you have 24 hour news channels. Nobody check their sources anymore.

They run the clip without checking it.

They say the whitehouse denys it WITHOUT checking it or attributing it to a source.

Fox runs the story about stern without checking it.

Dumbasses

[Malachi151]

Ahh, well if thats the case then so be it. I'll blame the media then :D

Bush and co are still liars :D AND our "news" organizations suck too :D

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Beerina
It's obvious they had a clip with the kid yawning, then someone built upon that by pasting in some actor stretching, cracking his neck, and so on.

For Letterman's show, it's fine.

For a news show to broadcast it as if real is stupid.

What's stupid is that you are 100% wrong on this and we'll never see you in this thread again.

Wildcat - re: "It was a CNN error!"

Why on earth would CNN say that the tape was fake unless the WH told them it was? For fun?

This is so insane. If the WH says it's bright and sunny out, I automatically grab my umbrella. What haven't they lied about lately?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Wildcat - re: "It was a CNN error!"

Why on earth would CNN say that the tape was fake unless the WH told them it was? For fun?
Apparently, Daryn Kagan made it up on the spot. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40808-2004Mar31.html) you'll have to let him explain why.
The folks at CNN got a kick out of it and the next morning, during "CNN Live Today," ran the clip, crediting Letterman. CNN host Daryn Kagan quipped, "What is funnier, the kid or that everybody around him -- not a single person even reacts to those high jinks?"

Then CNN cut to commercial break. Right after the break, Kagan told viewers: "All right -- had a good giggle before the break, that video was from David Letterman. We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video, which would explain why the people around him weren't really reacting. So, that from the White House."

[Malachi151]

LOL, so now we have an admission that news gets made up on the spot by a whim! Haha, either way, :D

[LFTKBS]

"Then CNN cut to commercial break. Right after the break, Kagan told viewers: "All right -- had a good giggle before the break, that video was from David Letterman. We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video, which would explain why the people around him weren't really reacting. So, that from the White House."

Jesus. If the WH did say that, that's a giant, reprehensible lie.

If Kagan made up the WH thing, he should be fired.

[evil sutko]

Originally posted by WildCat

:confused:

It was a CNN error!

"CNN error"...

I get to thinking of another vague euphemism, "wardrobe malfunction"

Look how quickly that died down. CNN has nothing to worry about. Nothing at all....
:)

[KelvinG]

Yes, the White House was right to inform CNN that the kid was edited in. Think how horrible it would be if it were true that a teenage kid was yawning and acting goofy at a speech by the president. It would be a stunning blow for patriotism and the country's morale.
If terrorists saw the disrespect that American youth had towards their president they would surely start recruiting at our junior high and high schools.
It would be the next step to anarchy and the possible destruction of our western civilization.
OH THE HORROR!!!!

[Some Friggin Guy]

Point of reference: Daryn Kagan is a female.

[RandFan]

The tape was damn funny.

[KelvinG]

So, is the final word that the kid actually was standing there, or was this a big con job by the Letterman show? Or are we forever left to speculate.

[epepke]

It isn't terribly hard to find a sequence of events that is plausible:

1) Bush does an hour-long speech with some snot-nosed kid in the background.

2) David Letterman edits it into a short presentation, showing the bits where the kid is obviously bored, and presents it as one of his typically sarcastic bits.

3) The White House calls and points out that the tape was edited, which it was.

4) Somehow, through various lackeys, and given the usual lax standard for accuracy shown with Ted Turner's empire, and the normal operation of the game "Telephone," this gets translated into "edited in."

5) The announcer gets a note with a few scrawls on it and interprets it with a bunch of reasonable-sounding words, which is what an announcer does.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by epepke
It isn't terribly hard to find a sequence of events that is plausible:

1) Bush does an hour-long speech with some snot-nosed kid in the background.

2) David Letterman edits it into a short presentation, showing the bits where the kid is obviously bored, and presents it as one of his typically sarcastic bits.

3) The White House calls and points out that the tape was edited, which it was.

4) Somehow, through various lackeys, and given the usual lax standard for accuracy shown with Ted Turner's empire, and the normal operation of the game "Telephone," this gets translated into "edited in."

5) The announcer gets a note with a few scrawls on it and interprets it with a bunch of reasonable-sounding words, which is what an announcer does. A little common sense in an otherwise paranoid world.

[evil sutko]

Common sense???

Of course the tape was edited. That's pretty obvious to any sane person watching it. What is the point of White House stating the obvious?

What is notable is that the situation would have probably gone uncorrected if Letterman hadn't mentioned the fiasco on-air.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by epepke
It isn't terribly hard to find a sequence of events that is plausible:

1) Bush does an hour-long speech with some snot-nosed kid in the background.

2) David Letterman edits it into a short presentation, showing the bits where the kid is obviously bored, and presents it as one of his typically sarcastic bits.

3) The White House calls and points out that the tape was edited, which it was.

4) Somehow, through various lackeys, and given the usual lax standard for accuracy shown with Ted Turner's empire, and the normal operation of the game "Telephone," this gets translated into "edited in."

5) The announcer gets a note with a few scrawls on it and interprets it with a bunch of reasonable-sounding words, which is what an announcer does.

The problem with that theory is that it's blatantly edited. No one needs to be told that it's just a series of clips from the speech, because that's obvious.

[epepke]

Originally posted by evil sutko
Common sense???

Of course the tape was edited. That's pretty obvious to any sane person watching it. What is the point of White House stating the obvious?

They need a point?

I'm sure the White House employs a dozen or more people whose sole underpaid job it is to watch television and call someone every time there is a mention of Bush on television with some sort of official response. It's called CYA. Pointing out the bleeding obvious is precisely what I'd expect those underpaid staffers to do. Am I the only person on the planet who has some experience with how government workers function?

Do we really think that it's totally impossible for a snot-nosed kid to make thirty seconds of bored gestures during an hour-long speech? Haven't we seen edited-in videos on late-night television before? Do we really believe that the Letterman show, which regularly features bits involving dumping objects into a tub of water is going to do a paste-in job worthy of Pixar in a day but somehow not be able to do it without visible edits?

Or are the edits just a sneaky ploy of the Tri-Lateral Commission, the International Conspiracy of Communist Jewish Bankers, and the John Birch Society to make us think that the footage is genuine, which is guaranteed to unseat Bush?

Or do we believe that Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and Powell had a staff meeting over The Letterman Threat™ and prepared a dossier on Operation Chipmunk-Cheeks?

Great "Bob," people, we're talking George W. Bush and David Letterman here.

Have a beer or take some Haldol, folks. It's Just a Joke. It isn't any higher class than the Grinder Girl or the Word from Dr. Phil or the Hello Deli meat plates.

[evil sutko]

Originally posted by epepke


They need a point?

I'm sure the White House employs a dozen or more people whose sole underpaid job it is to watch television and call someone every time there is a mention of Bush on television with some sort of official response. It's called CYA. Pointing out the bleeding obvious is precisely what I'd expect those underpaid staffers to do. Am I the only person on the planet who has some experience with how government workers function?

Do we really think that it's totally impossible for a snot-nosed kid to make thirty seconds of bored gestures during an hour-long speech? Haven't we seen edited-in videos on late-night television before? Do we really believe that the Letterman show, which regularly features bits involving dumping objects into a tub of water is going to do a paste-in job worthy of Pixar in a day but somehow not be able to do it without visible edits?

Or are the edits just a sneaky ploy of the Tri-Lateral Commission, the International Conspiracy of Communist Jewish Bankers, and the John Birch Society to make us think that the footage is genuine, which is guaranteed to unseat Bush?

Or do we believe that Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and Powell had a staff meeting over The Letterman Threat™ and prepared a dossier on Operation Chipmunk-Cheeks?

Great "Bob," people, we're talking George W. Bush and David Letterman here.

Have a beer or take some Haldol, folks. It's Just a Joke. It isn't any higher class than the Grinder Girl or the Word from Dr. Phil or the Hello Deli meat plates.

You're the one making up an imaginary badly-written note that absolves both the White House and CNN from guilt. Then you go off on this left-field tangent. :)

The real issue here is media transparency. The claims made were very specific. First was the claim about the boy being edited in, which seemed to me that they were implying that Letterman hired a child actor and spliced him in. Then came the claim that the boy was actually there, but not standing right next to the President.

Apparently, neither one of these claims were checked with Letterman's staff before they ran. Both were false. They made it onto national TV. Even if CNN did make an error after receiving an innocuous call, it never should have been broadcast, period.

CNN messed up, and they should come clean about exactly what happened. The generic "staff error" won't suffice in this case.

edited to add smiley that got zapped

[Snide]

Have any of you actually been watching Letterman, or just getting the info from other sources?

[pgwenthold]

Instead of this silly "an error was made" nonsense, why doesn't someone just ask the CNN guy who told him that the White House said it was forged?

And then, when he gives a name, ask where that person got the information. And do so until someone says "I got a phone call from the White House" or "I made it up."

We know it was either a lie from the White House or someone at CNN made it up. These things don't just materialize. Apparently it was not from the White House. So somewhere, someone invented the concept that it was from the White House. Whoever did it should be fired. Making up a White House claim is not a "mistake." It is the fabrication, a lie, and something that legitimate news organizations cannot accept.

I see no reason for CNN to protect the clown that did it.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Nasarius


The problem with that theory is that it's blatantly edited. No one needs to be told that it's just a series of clips from the speech, because that's obvious.

CNN needs to clarify what they mean by "edited into that footage." To me that sounds like they're implying that the kid was taken from elsewhere (ie. he wasn't actually standing beside the president) and composited into the shot. Naturally, if that is the case then it does need to be mentioned. So, if that was the case are they implying that the Letterman show created this shot through special effects but now are denying this for some reason? Why would the Letterman show be denying it?

However, if "edited into" means the speech was cut down to only show certain sections then all I can say is "Well Duhhhh."
Is there anyone out there really dumb enough to think that we didn't see just key edited sections as opposed to seeing the whole speech. Perhaps sportscasters may want to clarify after they show baseball highlights that "Folks that wasn't actually the whole game you were just watching, only sections that we edited down to focus on the important moments."

Somebody in this story, most likely CNN or the White House must have taken stupid pills the day this item was shown.

[Snide]

Originally posted by KelvinG


CNN needs to clarify what they mean by "edited into that footage." To me that sounds like they're implying that the kid was taken from elsewhere (ie. he wasn't actually standing beside the president) and composited into the shot. Naturally, if that is the case then it does need to be mentioned. So, if that was the case are they implying that the Letterman show created this shot through special effects but now are denying this for some reason? Why would the Letterman show be denying it?

However, if "edited into" means the speech was cut down to only show certain sections then all I can say is "Well Duhhhh."
Is there anyone out there really dumb enough to think that we didn't see just key edited sections as opposed to seeing the whole speech. Perhaps sportscasters may want to clarify after they show baseball highlights that "Folks that wasn't actually the whole game you were just watching, only sections that we edited down to focus on the important moments."

Somebody in this story, most likely CNN or the White House must have taken stupid pills the day this item was shown.

Having watched the shows, it is clear to me that when CNN was saying the White House told them it was edited, they meant superimposing...or that type of thing. They weren't talking at all about just showing the funny stuff (you said it best: "duh!").

I could, however, see the White House calling CNN after they aired it, and saying words to the effect of, "Don't forget to remind your viewers that the footage was edited." Just one way a misunderstanding could have taken place.

BTW...CNN's apology was aired on Letterman last night...great stuff! The anchor did well, being serious, but making some light out of it as well. ("This will probably be on David Letterman tonight...")

My bet is Dave will be inviting the kid on his show soon.

(edited typos)

[RandFan]

It is really funny that people are so certain that there is something nefarious on the part of the White House. Rule of parsimony would suggest that this was simply a mistake.

Of course that doesn't sell very well in a world where flashing orange lights are perceived to be Aliens. Nope this must have been a dirty tricks campaign carried out to discredit David Letterman. :D

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by RandFan
It is really funny that people are so certain that there is something nefarious on the part of the White House. Rule of parsimony would suggest that this was simply a mistake.

Of course that doesn't sell very well in a world where flashing orange lights are perceived to be Aliens. Nope this must have been a dirty tricks campaign carried out to discredit David Letterman. :D

I don't think anyone is saying for certainty that it is the White House who is to blame here or is up to something.
It's simply speculation. We're still allowed to do that, right? If I start passing off my speculation as iron clad fact then there is a problem, but I'm not doing that nor does anyone else seem to be doing that.
Is anyone really "so certain" that the White House is up to something "nefarious." I'm not and I don't get the sense that anyone else is.
Although when the words "nefrarious" comes up I do think of the White House. Call me a paranoid nut I guess.:D

Sadly, I can't be privy to every single fact in this case so I'm left to draw an opinion every once in awhile.
My whole point is I want to know more about exactly what happened here. Yes, it might seem like a futile waste of time to dwell on something so trivial, but hey, I like dwelling on trivial things. So much more fun than dwelling on the big stuff.

So what do you think happened here RandFan. Or are you totally withholding judgement of any kind based on lack of information?
I won't hold it against you if you speculate.;)

[Snide]

Originally posted by RandFan
Nope this must have been a dirty tricks campaign carried out to discredit David Letterman. :D

I know you put a smiley there, so I hope you really don't think anyone who has followed this somewhat closley truely suggests the White House is out to discredit Dave. If anything, they are only out to cover themselves, and that's assuming they did indeed call CNN in the first place.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by KelvinG
So what do you think happened here RandFan. Or are you totally withholding judgement of any kind based on lack of information? I thought it was clear from my post. There was a simple mistake.

During an hour plus speech a child does what children do during political speeches. He ocassionally yawned and looked at his watch and cranked his head etc. If we watched the entire piece it would not be so funny. It is only funny when it is compressed. The white house called to point out that it had been edited to make it funny.

From there it was simply a matter of communication breakdown. Happens all of the time on the News.

But that is not much fun is it? It's better to imagine all sorts of actions on part of the white house. We should keep an open mind but not so open that our brains fall out.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Snide
I know you put a smiley there, so I hope you really don't think anyone who has followed this somewhat closley truely suggests the White House is out to discredit Dave. If anything, they are only out to cover themselves, and that's assuming they did indeed call CNN in the first place. It is likely they did, so what? The piece had been edited and they made that point. Again, if we watched the entire speech without editing the actions of the boy don't seem so funny.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by RandFan
I thought it was clear from my post. There was a simple mistake.

During an hour plus speech a child does what children do during political speeches. He ocassionally yawned and looked at his watch and cranked his head etc. If we watched the entire piece it would not be so funny. It is only funny when it is compressed. The white house called to point out that it had been edited to make it funny.

From there it was simply a matter of communication breakdown. Happens all of the time on the News.

But that is not much fun is it? It's better to imagine all sorts of actions on part of the white house. We should keep an open mind but not so open that our brains fall out.

I guess I'm wondering why the CNN anchor said right after the piece on their network the kid was "edited into that video." To me that sounds very different than "that piece was edited."
Edited into to me means taking something from somewhere else and placing it into already existing footage. That is not what happened with this clip.
Did the White House phone up and say "That kid was edited into that video" and the anchor repeated those words exactly. Or, did they same something along the lines of "That pieced was edited" and she simply conveyed it to the viewer incorrectly. It's a big difference.
When the White House phones CNN after a story airs do the anchors just simply repeat immediately whatever the White House says. Sounds like poor journalism. But granted, since I'm not privy to the exact conversations and chain of events, I can't say with any real accuracy what happened. But neither can anyone else. We're all left to speculate.

Yes, it's probably just a miscommunication and I'm sure it's all very innocent. I think the only way to clear this up is for CNN to do an investigative report. We need to get to the bottom of this. It's matter of national security.;)

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by RandFan
It is likely they did, so what? The piece had been edited and they made that point. Again, if we watched the entire speech without editing the actions of the boy don't seem so funny.

Absolutely. Such is the nature of editing.
That is why editors are some of the smartest, creative and most brilliant people around.:D

[crimresearch]

Yeah...

Smart..also news anchors, they're real smart too...and White House staffers...

Oh yeah,and Letterman too...very, very,very smart...all of them...
:p

[Snide]

Originally posted by RandFan
It is likely they did, so what? The piece had been edited and they made that point. Again, if we watched the entire speech without editing the actions of the boy don't seem so funny. SO...it was not to discredit Letterman.

[Clancie]

I saw the clip on CNN and it looked so -obviously- like a funny Letterman skit using special effects. The adults are so oblivious, and the kid looks so out of place, that it just obviously looks like a comedy bit.

But after reading this thread, I'm confused.

1. Did the White House say the kid was edited in?

2. Was he? Wasn't he?

3. Does Letterman say it's real footage? (Sure doesn't look real!)


Someone might say, "Who cares?" but it -is- kind of interesting to read through this thread and be confused about who is lying.

(And I wouldn't blame Daryn Kagan. She just read the copy to introduce it, looked entertained, then read the correction "from the White House" after the commercial. Obviously, there was a lot of behind-the-scenes confusion at CNN regarding if this was really a funny gag (as they first said) or not and if they'd actually been called by the White House or not.

Now I'm curious, too....:

[Clancie]

Posted by Tmy

Isnt there a Letterman clip where Bush cleans his glasses on some Late Shpe staffers dress when shes not looking. Now thats embarrasing.
Yes, I'm glad someone else remembers that. I thought Bush's noblesse oblige using -her- clothes rather than his own was going to cost him the election. A very telling gesture, imo, (but, sadly, it got very little press at all).

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Snide
SO...it was not to discredit Letterman. I think that is the point. Of course no one but David Letterman ever suggested otherwise.

[pgwenthold]

Here's a snippet from the USAToday:

But then CNN host Daryn Kagan added: "We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video, which would explain why the people around him weren't really reacting."

Later, during CNN's Live From ... anchor Kyra Phillips reran the tape but cautioned viewers: "We're told that the kid was there at that event, but not necessarily standing behind the president."

The truth was: The White House never complained, and the footage was real.

emphasis added

So if the White House never complained, how did anyone get the idea the the kid was "edited into that video, which would explain why the people around him weren't really reacting"?

As I said before, someone had to make that up, it's not something that happens by mistake. Someone fabricated the information as from the White House.

I guess another possible explanation is that the White House claimed that the kid was edited into the footage but were't really complaining about it. Of course it would mean they were wrong, and it seems a stretch.

In the end, I disagree with the claim that it was just a mistake. You don't mistakingly fabricate information. Somewhere, this was made up by someone.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Clancie
I saw the clip on CNN and it looked so -obviously- like a funny Letterman skit using special effects.

Yes, it's real, Clancie. It's been established by multiple sources that it's real. The white house now agrees that it's real, as does CNN. Letterman always maintained that it was real. It's not a special effect. People ARE reacting to the kid, there's a guy standing right next to him that looks at him in an annoyed way at least once.



The main point, I think, is that it shows that the white house has a severe stick up their butts, and can't take a joke at the president's expense.

And also, that CNN doesn't check their copy or EITHER of their sources BEFORE they

1: Run a clip.
or
2: Tell people what the White House says.

[Grammatron]

A new development in the story.

From the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3593209.stm):
A teenage boy caught on TV yawning behind President Bush as he delivered a speech has come out in favour of the president in the upcoming elections.

Tyler Crotty, 13, repeatedly checked his watch and seemed to fall asleep on his feet as Mr Bush addressed a rally in Orlando, Florida, last month.
...
Rather than bored by the president, he was just tired, he added.

On the night before the rally, his son was so excited about seeing the president, he had trouble sleeping but still had to wake up at 6.30am to get to the event on time.

"He was probably on stage for a minimum of three hours, including the speech," Mr Crotty said.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
In the end, I disagree with the claim that it was just a mistake. You don't mistakingly fabricate information. Somewhere, this was made up by someone. What????

Christ, how do you make something out of what you don't know. You don't know anything but what others have said. This is also known as hearsay.

All we know is what CNN said and it is very plausable that the White House said that the video was edited and someone else added the part about the boy. This type of communication problem is very common.

Who fabricated anything? Why is critical thinking so hard?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by RandFan
It is likely they did, so what? The piece had been edited and they made that point. Again, if we watched the entire speech without editing the actions of the boy don't seem so funny.

This i san absurd statement. In the sense that you are suggesting, EVERYTHING except completely live TV is edited.

That the piece was "edited" to show selective time frames is more than obvious. Claiming that "it was edited" does not refer to the piece not being sequential, it implies that special effects were used to alter the image or make it appear that something that did not really happen happened.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Malachi151


This i san absurd statement. In the sense that you are suggesting, EVERYTHING except completely live TV is edited.

That the piece was "edited" to show selective time frames is more than obvious. Claiming that "it was edited" does not refer to the piece not being sequential, it implies that special effects were used to alter the image or make it appear that something that did not really happen happened. Bull sh*t.

It suggests nothing of the sort. Unless you wan't it to suggest that. Then it suggests what ever you want it to.

Local 6 (http://www.local6.com/news/2969328/detail.html)
The "Late Show" skit edited some of the funnier moments from the video into the bit. That was the point. For all anyone knew this kid was doing this through the entire show. It was edited (compressed) to make it funny. That was a valid point. I would have let it go but some moron in the White House probably Bush wanted to point out the fact that it was edited.

But you know what, screw that. The alternative is better isnt it?

[RandFan]

'Bored Boy' To Appear On Letterman Show (http://www.local6.com/news/2969328/detail.html)

David Lettermen
It turns out we heard from his father that he'd been up very late the night before because he was excited about meeting the president, so they got him out of bed the early next day," said Letterman at a taping. "So, the kid, in addition to being bored silly, as would any right-thinking kid, was very, very tired and behaved just the way a kid behaves - nothing wrong with that." The piece is damn funny. And the fact that anyone from the white house cared at all to call is funny.

Why do we have to add things that just aren't there?

[Clancie]

Posted by Silicon

Yes, it's real, Clancie. It's been established by multiple sources that it's real. The white house now agrees that it's real, as does CNN. Letterman always maintained that it was real. It's not a special effect.
Well, hard to believe, but it looks like you're right, Silicon. Which makes it even funnier. :)

As for Letterman...guess he just showed a real clip, exactly as he said.

CNN thought it was funny but faked (considering the source was Letterman--and it has a faked look). I don't have a problem with that (since I assumed the same :) ).

As for the White House? Either someone without a sense of humor called CNN from the WH or (more likely to me) a Bush supporter called CNN and said he/she was making a correction from the White House (to stop people laughing at the Prez's expense). I really doubt CNN made that call up, though, whoever the source was. (I hope it wasn't the WH, trying to cast phony ideas it was "edited" -- i.e. "staged", though. That'd be pretty dumb, as well as obviously dishonest.)

Anyway, good for CNN for broadening the audience who saw this!

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by RandFan

That was the point. For all anyone knew this kid was doing this through the entire show. It was edited (compressed) to make it funny. That was a valid point. I would have let it go but some moron in the White House probably Bush wanted to point out the fact that it was edited.

But you know what, screw that. The alternative is better isnt it?

As I've said several times in this thread, I find the phrase that was used odd. The kid was "edited into the video." That doesn't indicate at all to me that they were simply passing along that the video was edited.
Now, we don't have any way of knowing what exactly someone from the White House said. Did they say those very words, "edited into the video." If they did, what exactly did they mean? If they were simply phoning to say that the piece had been edited then why did they say the boy was "edited into the video." Is it possible they were trying to create the idea that the kid wasn't actually standing behind the president but was composited in by the Letterman show in order to make a joke?
Who knows.

By the way, if the White House did call up to say that the video was edited, they must have a very low opinion of the intelligence level of the average person. Only a total idiot would think that that wasn't an edited piece.

[JesFine]

Wow, I don't log on for one day and I miss all the fun. By the way, here is the "apology" from Kagan:So we aired it on this show and then after we did, they had me come on here and tell you that the White House called and told us it was faked.

Well, it turns out due to a, what we might say, a misunderstanding among the folks who are usually so fantastic behind me here in the newsrooms, it turns out that was not true. The White House, it turns out, I guess never did call us about the tape. The Letterman show, if you’ve been watching at night, strongly denies it was fake. Boy, do they strongly deny that! And we’ve been looking through our tapes and apparently we now see no evidence that it was faked.Thanks! That explains everything! Nope, no loose ends here! To think I was worried when this whole time it was just that "they" had her come on TV and explain what they "might say" is a "misunderstanding" and "apparently" they "now see" that it was real the whole time (she "guess[es]"). My trust safely restored by the good folks at CNN. I hope nobody asks any hard questions about this because those make me uncomfortable. Hey! American Idol is on! Gotta go!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by KelvinG
As I've said several times in this thread, I find the phrase that was used odd. The kid was "edited into the video." That doesn't indicate at all to me that they were simply passing along that the video was edited.
Now, we don't have any way of knowing what exactly someone from the White House said. Did they say those very words, "edited into the video." If they did, what exactly did they mean? If they were simply phoning to say that the piece had been edited then why did they say the boy was "edited into the video." Is it possible they were trying to create the idea that the kid wasn't actually standing behind the president but was composited in by the Letterman show in order to make a joke?
Who knows. Speculations and assumptions. You are trying to make something out of allot of unknowns. You don't know if they said "into the video". You don't even know if they said edit. All we know is what CNN said. Which has been pointed out time and time again. Yet you don't want to give it up.

By the way, if the White House did call up to say that the video was edited, they must have a very low opinion of the intelligence level of the average person. Only a total idiot would think that that wasn't an edited piece. No, that is not true at all. People don't necassarily stop and make the connection. They see something funny and laugh. Comedy isn't about deep thinking. It is not unreasonable for someone not to stop and think "oh that was edited". Yes anyone who did stop and think about it would come to that realization. But then most people who stop and think about it know how to vote and they don't do that very well either.

If the White house called then they were stupid to respond to something so silly. But that is it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by JesFine
...here is the "apology" from Kagan... Yes, but you can be sure that there are people on this forum who are wondering if Kagan is part of grand conspiracy or if she was ordered to lie for the white house.

If we can imagine all sorts of things before the apology why should we stop now?

Like I said, why is critical thinking so hard?

The tape is still damn funny.

[epepke]

Originally posted by KelvinG
By the way, if the White House did call up to say that the video was edited, they must have a very low opinion of the intelligence level of the average person. Only a total idiot would think that that wasn't an edited piece.

Two weeks ago, Bush was a moron and an incompetent and a chimp and a con man and a liar. Now all of a sudden he's a competent leader at the head of a competent staff who would never possibly insult the intelligence of the American public.

Wowie zowie, Batman.

[Lemastre]

Of course the kid was right where the video shows him. He was understandably bored by some guy in a suit droning on about something in which a kid should have no interest. An adult, on the other hand, would mostly be distracted by Bush's inarticulateness. The White House is so paranoid about everything that they may well want to dispute anything brought to their attention just as a matter of standard procedure.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RandFan
What????

Christ, how do you make something out of what you don't know. You don't know anything but what others have said. This is also known as hearsay.

All we know is what CNN said and it is very plausable that the White House said that the video was edited and someone else added the part about the boy. This type of communication problem is very common.

Who fabricated anything? Why is critical thinking so hard?

Did you read the statement?

"We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video, which would explain why the people around him weren't really reacting."

So even if the White House claimed the video was edited, someone, somewhere, created the statement "the kid...was edited into that video, which would explain why the people around him weren't really reacting."

Who was the person who decided that "edited" meant that the kid was "edited into the video"? Especially if we are to believe the statement that the White House never complained.

Even assuming the White House commented that the video was edited (and we have no reason to even think they did!), someone turned that into a claim that the kid was edited into the video. That part was fabricated.

It's either that or the White House is lying when they said they didn't complain. Take your pick.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by RandFan
Speculations and assumptions. You are trying to make something out of allot of unknowns. You don't know if they said "into the video". You don't even know if they said edit. All we know is what CNN said. Which has been pointed out time and time again. Yet you don't want to give it up.

But, you've drawn a conclusion it would seem. You keep saying it was a mistake or miscommunication. How dare you make such an assumption. You are not privy to all the facts so how dare you attempt to SPECULATE whether it actually was a mistake or not. You have no real idea do you? (Gee, sounds patronizing when someone else does it to you, doesn't it?)

If read my post again you will realize I have said that at this point no one can be certain what the White House said, if they indeed said anything. BUT, since the anchor came on and said the White House has informed us the kid was "edited into the video" I'm left to wonder did they really say that and what did they mean if they did say it. Something prompted the anchor to say what she said. I'm sure she didn't just fabricate it.
Yes, we're dealing with a lot of unknowns. That is why I'm asking questions. Keep in mind in all my posts I've dealt with POSSIBLE scenarios. I've never said "Oh, the White House definitely called. What a bunch of idiots." If you don't like the fact that I'm speculating, then tough sh*t.


No, that is not true at all. People don't necassarily stop and make the connection. They see something funny and laugh. Comedy isn't about deep thinking. It is not unreasonable for someone not to stop and think "oh that was edited". Yes anyone who did stop and think about it would come to that realization. But then most people who stop and think about it know how to vote and they don't do that very well either.

If the White house called then they were stupid to respond to something so silly. But that is it.



Like I said in a previous post, if this is the case, sportscasters better start telling viewers that highlights of a game are not actually the whole game, but simply edited clips to show only the key moments.

And I realize people don't know how to vote very well. President Bush is testament to that.;)

[RandFan]

CNN
"We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video, which would explain why the people around him weren't really reacting."

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Did you read the statement? Yes.

So even if the White House claimed the video was edited, someone, somewhere, created the statement "the kid...was edited into that video, which would explain why the people around him weren't really reacting." You are trying to create something from nothing.

After a number of news events there have been many false stories and false pieces of information that come out of the news. When OJ Simpson was arrested there was all sorts of bizarre things that no one was ever able to explain how or why they ended up on the nightly news.

Who was the person who decided that "edited" meant that the kid was "edited into the video"? Who knows, who cares?

Especially if we are to believe the statement that the White House never complained. I believe they very well could have complained, so what?

Even assuming the White House commented that the video was edited (and we have no reason to even think they did!), someone turned that into a claim that the kid was edited into the video. That part was fabricated. BFD. Happens ALL of the time. sometimes the truth gets lost in the retailing.

It's either that or the White House is lying when they said they didn't complain. Take your pick. Did you read what Kagan said?

Kagan
Well, it turns out due to a, what we might say, a misunderstanding among the folks who are usually so fantastic behind me here in the newsrooms, it turns out that was not true. The White House, it turns out, I guess never did call us about the tape. The Letterman show, if you’ve been watching at night, strongly denies it was fake. Boy, do they strongly deny that! And we’ve been looking through our tapes and apparently we now see no evidence that it was faked. So Kagan is lying and the White House is lying or there was a miscommunication as I have said from the beginning. Which is it?

Since miscommunications happens all of the time in the news business it is quite likely this was just that, a miscommunication. But that would hurt your speculation. Sorry to piss on your parade.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by KelvinG
But, you've drawn a conclusion it would seem. You keep saying it was a mistake or miscommunication. How dare you make such an assumption. Rule of parsimony. Don't put in what isn't needed to explain an event. A miscommunication explains this event without allot of conspiratorial BS.

You are not privy to all the facts so how dare you attempt to SPECULATE whether it actually was a mistake or not. You have no real idea do you? (Gee, sounds patronizing when someone else does it to you, doesn't it?) Not when you are wrong. Absent any proof to the contrary we can insert all sorts of motivations, actions and behavior on the part of the White House. Of course absent any proof to the contrary we can insert god to explain the unexplained.

If read my post again you will realize I have said that at this point no one can be certain what the White House said, if they indeed said anything. End of story...ooops...looks like you are not finished...let's see.

...BUT, since the anchor came on and said the White House has informed us the kid was "edited into the video" I'm left to wonder did they really say that and what did they mean if they did say it. Fools rush in.

Something prompted the anchor to say what she said. I'm sure she didn't just fabricate it. Perhaps but you DON'T know

Yes, we're dealing with a lot of unknowns. The devil is in the details.

That is why I'm asking questions. Keep in mind in all my posts I've dealt with POSSIBLE scenarios. I've never said "Oh, the White House definitely called. What a bunch of idiots." If you don't like the fact that I'm speculating, then tough sh*t. Speculate all you want. But why when we have a plausible and likely explanation?

I can speculate about the lights in the sky being aliens but why when I have a plausible and likely explanation for them?

Like I said in a previous post, if this is the case, sportscasters better start telling viewers that highlights of a game are not actually the whole game, but simply edited clips to show only the key moments. Non sequitur. The length of a game is a given. The length of the presidents speech was not. It could have been ten minutes. In fact it was over an hour.

The fact that it was edited is quite relevant. Unless of course you want to make something of this more than it likely is.

[fishbob]

The main point, I think, is that it shows that the white house has a severe stick up their butts, and can't take a joke at the president's expense. And the White House ain't the only ones. Why so much energy expended on this silly topic when you could be getting all worked up about war and elections and stuff?

[epepke]

Originally posted by evil sutko
You're the one making up an imaginary badly-written note that absolves both the White House and CNN from guilt. Then you go off on this left-field tangent. :)

Absolve from guilt? What is this, the Nuremburg trials or something?

Crikey, folks. It's David Letterman. It's just a joke.

The real issue here is media transparency. The claims made were very specific. First was the claim about the boy being edited in, which seemed to me that they were implying that Letterman hired a child actor and spliced him in. Then came the claim that the boy was actually there, but not standing right next to the President.

Apparently, neither one of these claims were checked with Letterman's staff before they ran. Both were false. They made it onto national TV. Even if CNN did make an error after receiving an innocuous call, it never should have been broadcast, period.

Um, where did you get the impression that CNN was accurate, truthful, careful, or responsible? What's the weather like on that planet?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RandFan


BFD. Happens ALL of the time. sometimes the truth gets lost in the retailing.



It is attitudes like this that lets the news agencies get away with crap. Hold their damn feet to the fire. You start making things up, and we are going to come after you.




Did you read what Kagan said?

So Kagan is lying and the White House is lying or there was a miscommunication as I have said from the beginning. Which is it?

Since miscommunications happens all of the time in the news business it is quite likely this was just that, a miscommunication. But that would hurt your speculation. Sorry to piss on your parade.

So Kagan says that no one from the White House called. So that means that someone at CNN fabricated the part about the White House calling and claiming that the kid was edited into the film.

You aren't pissing on anything I have said, you are validating it.

Fact: The CNN reporter said the White House said that the kid was edited into the video.
Fact: The White House never called
Fact: The kid wasn't edited in

Thus, the claim that the White House said the kid was edited into the video was made up (fabricated) by someone.

[shecky]

I can't believe either CNN or the White House could make any hay over this issue. It's the Letterman show, fer chrissakes! Perhaps they think the "TV interviews" Conan O'Brian does might be mistaken for real interviews? :rolleyes:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Fact: The CNN reporter said the White House said that the kid was edited into the video.Yes.

Fact: The White House never called We really don't know this.

Fact: The kid wasn't edited in Yes.

Thus, the claim that the White House said the kid was edited into the video was made up (fabricated) by someone. It is quite plausible that there was a miscommunication. Someone said one thing and it was misinterpreted. Trying to make solid conclusions from this is wrong. What could have been said that was misinterpreted? I don't know it happens. There is a history of this stuff.

My only point is that you are trying to make something from nothing. If this were a matter of national security then there should be an investigation. It is not and the only thing you can do is speculate. TO WHAT END?