OH MY! FACT CHECK HAS POSTED A DOCTORED VIDEO OF CLINTON'S "TRUE" AD

[berni_mccoy]

And they are Defending the Clinton Campaign with it.

See this discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Original Fact Check article here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/did_clinton_dar...

Fact Check has taken the stance that the Clinton Ad was not manipulated by Clinton's campaign to exaggerate Obama's racial characteristics.

So, I downloaded the WMV video from their site (file here: http://www.factcheck.org/video/clintontruecmagcodeddown... )

Then I downloaded the video (a Quick Time file) directly from Clinton's website. Both the time-stamp on the file and embedded in the Quick Time file are accurate to when the commercial was released. You can download the Quick Time file here (it's in a ZIP file):
http://static.hillaryclinton.com/i/video/vids/ad_200803...


I then loaded them into Quick Time (v 7.4.1.14) WMV file loaded with Flip4Mac 2.1.3.10 plugin and played to same frame at 13 seconds.

The left is Fact Check's High Quality Video. The Right is the video from Clinton's own website. The difference is clear in the screen shot below:



On edit: Both videos are 640x480, Quick Time was sized to the movie size. These videos were side-by-side on same monitor and the screen capture was done so that both were captured in one screen shot.

Note: the left movie looks like it was scaled as there is a dark band along the left side of the video in most of the frames.

It is clear that Fact Check is COMPLETELY WRONG on this issue and they have either BEEN DUPED or are DIRECTLY FALSIFYING the "facts".


Second Edit:
Adding left and right screen shots on top of each other so people do not have to scroll left/right to see full effect. Fact Check video is on Top below. Clinton Website Video on Bottom.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. Recommended

I love this stuff.

[moobu2]

2. Looks like everything the same darkness to me.

The Background and everything. Political attack ads are often darkened. It political attack ads 101. Everybody does it.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

3. You had better seek an optometrist.

[anigbrowl]

7. It might look that way on a laptop, especially on battery power.

Not on a regular monitor.

[JimGinPA]

10. Yeah, Who Could Think Darkening A Black Man's Face In An Attack Ad Would Be Offensive To Anyone?

Nice defense there.

[anigbrowl]

4. Email fact check

Frankly I think you're all wrong, but as a video expert I can explain why...only I'm sick of it. So I suggest that as long as this is going around, that you pop it into a mail and send it to them and anyone quoting them.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

8. You're all wrong? If you have explained all, please point me to the link.

Thanks.

[berni_mccoy]

17. I have notified both Kos and Fact Check. We'll see who responds.

I too work with digital video and graphics content as a professional.

[hey560]

5. Kick.

[City Lights]

6. I hope you notify them of your findings!

Great work, BTW!

[berni_mccoy]

59. Thanks. I notified both Kos and Fact Check. Kos has responded. No Comment from Fact Check. Yet.

[blogslut]

9. your screen grabs are different widths

n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

11. The concluding summation paragraph in Fact Check was revealing also

Still, the Clinton ad makers may have darkened the Obama images intentionally, to some degree. When it comes to video editing, the possibilities are overwhelming. But that doesn't necessarily mean their motives were racist. (also doesn't mean that the motives were not either..my words)


Good work

[barack the house]

12. Hillary will bring honesty and integrity to the Whitehouse, erm maybe erm hmmm....

This positive and gracios stuff is very hard.

[Hieronymus]

13. MSNBC revealed that there's no way Hillary can catch up to Obama's ....

delegate total, unless she wins all the remaining states by 65% each.

[JanusAscending]

14. Make that 70%

At least that is what I heard from their number cruncher on Countdown tonight.

[FlyingSquirrel]

15. One thing about all this..

It looks a lot worse in still frame while you're staring and staring at it than the actual video does. Earlier I looked at the two pictures and was pretty mad. Then I went to her website and viewed it, and really it wasn't so bad. Obviously they're going to try to portray him in the least favorable light, but it seemed obvious that the video was vertically condensed and so I don't see that too many people wouldn't get that. It didn't really make him look very much "blacker" to me when being viewed as an actual political video and not just a still-frame.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/145.aspx

Gave Hillary some monster jowls at the same time.

[berni_mccoy]

16. Not when I watch them playing Side-by-Side on my LCD. They Look COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

The FACT CHECK Video HAS BEEN COMPLETELY ALTERED to both lighten the coloring and stretch the face to be taller.

[FlyingSquirrel]

18. I didn't look at the fact check one... If they altered Clinton's, then that's

an issue with regard to their neutrality. The point is this is kind of overblown. Nice to know fact check is not the best source for fact checking. (Is there an alternative?)

[Ichingcarpenter]

21. Wired News did their own analysis

And they are pretty tech savvy and you can vote

63% of 4500 votes say it was:
"Troutnut's got a point. This is an underhanded, dirty way to wage a presidential campaign."

link:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/did-the-clinto...

[moobu2]

19. The first thing done when making political attack ad

is darken the opponents image.. You people are sickening.

[berni_mccoy]

22. you are totally bogus.

[Milo_Bloom]

20. There is no doubt they darkened the video...

... The question is intent. Was it done as factcheck claims, it is just done that way in attack ads, or was it done for a different purpose.

There is no proof either way.

[moobu2]

23. I was watching the history channel a few weeks ago

And the subject was presidential elections throughout American history. By the way, there were vicious attack ads in George Washington’s day as well. Anyway, this guy who made very effective political attack ads over the years said the first thing he does is “darken the opponents image” and they showed a few examples. Both parties do it and it’s very very common.

[FlyingSquirrel]

24. I would love to have seen those vicious attack ads in George Washigton's day

Of course it was all in black and white back then, wasn't it?





I now return you to your regular programming.

[berni_mccoy]

25. If it's just innocent attack ad fun, WHY EDIT THE VIDEO TO MAKE IT LOOK AS IF IT WASN'T DARKENED?!

Can't answer that, can you?

[moobu2]

26. Its an attack ad

They all darken the subject of the attack. that’s all it is. I know you want there some sort of racism here, but there isn’t.

[berni_mccoy]

27. You aren't Answering the question: WHY DOCTOR IT TO LOOK LIKE THEY DIDN'T?!

[Milo_Bloom]

57. The "Everybody does it" defense.

It is one possible explanation.


However, there is another.


We will never know for sure, unless they admit it, which they won't

[guruoo]

28. It's starting to look like this was a made up issue from the very beginning

Like so many others.

[Nick Lento]

67. Made Up? Etc...

Let's see; the Clinton people tried to suck the Obama people into making demonstrably false accusations by setting up a situation in which the net result is that hundreds of thousands of people see Barack Obama as more negroid than he actually is.

The "rationale" would be to make borderline racists (which is lots and lots and lots of Americans) feel uncomfortable with him; if only on some kind of unconscious level......and then be able to claim that the outraged Obama supporters were being paranoid when something like "Fact Check" revealed that it could have just been an artifact of the technical ramifications of video being rejiggered in different sites/venues/formats.

Are the Clinton dirty tricks people that clever? That insidious? I wouldn't put it past em; but I don't know. This could just be some horrific "coincidence" that ends up playing to the Clinton strategy of reminding "whites" that Obama is "black" (which is all so damn dumb because nobody is white or black anyway!)

It is telling that at the youtube Clinton site this afternoon the view count was 130K with only SIX comments; and the vid was rated with only two stars!!! That means a lot of negative comments were never allowed on the site and that most of the viewers who commented gave it a low rating......on the other hand; we'll never know how many of that 130K were subliminally influenced in a negative way.

I suppose that the Bill Clinton SC Jesse Jackson crack can also be interpreted as just an off the cuff wiseass remark or as a calculated attempt to remind people that Obama is black. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqd2dfjl2pw

IMHO The American people had accepted Obama as just another American; race really was never an "issue" until Clinton's remarks and the way the press played it all to the hilt......so now when this situation comes up with the video, we're all primed to believe, or at least suspect, the worst.

AT this point I'm leaning 60 40 that it was done in a way that would be intentionally ambiguous and that that Clinton campaign and the McCain campaign have become political bedmates, at least until they have dispatched Obama....they have made common cause.........and anything that reminds people of race is "good" for them.

I hope Obama keeps his cool and doesn't get down into the muck with these rats; but that he finds a way to go negative on the negativity thereby exposing the ugliness for all to see.

So far, not one of the issues/charges that McHillary have raised against Obama have amounted to anything substantive......but I do give McHillary credit for "changing" the psychological dynamics in a negative way.

Sadly, the politics of personal destruction is alive and well.

<b>I pray Obama beats the odds and hands kicks the establishment in the ass as he wins the nomination and the presidency; and that Hillary is primaried out of office next time out. She's another Lieberman at this point.</b> (And, yes, I would still vote for her over McCain if she steals the nomination.)

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

29. et tu, FactCheck?

One more formerly respectable website down the tubes.

[berni_mccoy]

30. Kicking for the morning crew.

[Schema Thing]

31. Frankly, his skin looks unaturaly lightened in the lighter version. Where I

editing that video, I would enrich it to make it look more like the second image.

This is a loosing argument folks. He looks good either way.

And for those of you pursuing this, the next time Obama, or Hillary, or John McCain, for that matter, is doing a speech carried by different networks, switch your channels around and notice how incredibly different it can look from one station to the next. While this footage came off of a single camera, the same holds true for tape that is played back on a variety of systems and capture devices. The OP has a sort of "closed loop" of digitized video > into his own capture device, the people responsible had other sources, and even other formats of video.


Besides all that, Obama supporters (like me), does it ever occur to you that maybe it's not in our best interest to "make this a race thing", even if the other side would like to?

This is called cutting off your nose to spite your face. The second image is both better looking and closer to the reality of the man's skin tone than the lighter image.

[berni_mccoy]

32. You missed the point. WHY WOULD FactCheck DOCTOR THE ORIGINAL VIDEO?

[bigtree]

34. I don't think Fact Check did any thing of the sort. I think you've gone over the deep end

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. !

[berni_mccoy]

40. You wild-eyed hillary supporters are sounding more like Bush's 19% every day.

[LeftCoast]

42. Ad hominem

The argument to make when you can't make an argument.

[berni_mccoy]

44. He's ended the debate with insults and needs to be made aware of his own insanity

[bigtree]

50. you need to calm down. I'm just someone who thinks you're argument is full of it.

You can't get everyone to agree with you on this. You have to realize that this is a political arena, and we all come to the table with our own political bias. I just happen to think that disagreeing with berni mccoy, on this post, may be the most sane act anyone commits today.

[bigtree]

46. there it is, the accusation of republicanism

the last refuge of political demagogues

[berni_mccoy]

47. Your last refuge is to ignore the facts. That's just like the Bush 19%. Good luck with that.

[bigtree]

51. now you've gone and hurt my feelings

you can go back and play with your pictures now.

[berni_mccoy]

56. I'm sorry bigtree, I truly am.

[Schema Thing]

60. I didn't miss the point, I just think your full of yourself and hyped up on your pet theory

If it was "doctored", it was "doctored" because it needed to be to make Obama look better. Pretty much what any video pro would do, out of force-of-habit if for no other reason.

[bigtree]

33. the bottom one looks SLIGHTLY darker, but more realistic. The others have highlights

which make his skin look lighter than it actually is. He isn't as light skinned as he appears in the top pics. I think this is hysterical (and ignorant) to make something of these.

[berni_mccoy]

35. You are completely Blind not to mention AVOIDING the POINT. Why Would FactCheck DOCTOR it at ALL?

[bigtree]

39. go holler at someone who gives a shit. I think this is completely ignorant.

What a reflection on the Obama campaign. Hysterical ignorance.

[berni_mccoy]

41. If you don't give a shit, then why are you spamming this thread?

[bigtree]

43. spamming? heh. If I agreed with you I'd be welcome.

Ignorant.

[berni_mccoy]

45. Well, I will thank you for kicking the post so much. Thanks!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

36. adjust your meds! and here it is again>>>>always an Obama peep playing the race card

[berni_mccoy]

38. Take off your blinders.

[Renew Deal]

53. Fact check says the ad is darker, but they don't think it's race motivated

They're giving her the benefit of the doubt. She doesn't deserve it after this campaign.

[Renew Deal]

48. Fact check says the ad is darker, but they don't think it's race motivated

Sounds like a bullshit response.

[berni_mccoy]

49. What I don't get is why they would Change the original? Their whole article is suspect now.

[Renew Deal]

52. The fact check article is bullshit.

They checked the facts and determined the ad was darker. Then they speculated on the motives and intent. The problem is that there are no "facts" when it comes to motives and intent. It's a cheap attempt to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt.

[berni_mccoy]

55. I agree. But they didn't just write a b.s. story, they tried to COVER IT UP by DOCTORING the video.

[City Lights]

54. I'm suuuure it was just an honest mistake.

Isn't Fact Check the site The Dick of Death was pushing in 2004?

[berni_mccoy]

58. I don't recall if Cheney was pushing it then, but they sure have revealed themselves

this time.

[eShirl]

62. he tried but he got the url wrong

in one of the debates, I think

[HughMoran]

61. The one on the right looks better. The other looks compressed and washed out

Something happened to the video on the left - it was converted or something.

[IndyOp]

63. Factcheck replies directly to Berni_McCoy...

Another blogger who posts under the handle Berni_McCoy on DemocraticUnderground.com falsely accused us of having "POSTED A DOCTORED VIDEO" of Clinton’s ad. Since his mistaken claims are attracting some notice in the blogosphere, we will point out his error here.

He compared the Windows Media video of the ad posted on our site with a QuickTime version of the ad that he obtained from Clinton’s campaign Web site. He then displayed frame shots from these two versions and stated "the difference is clear." He concluded that we are "completely wrong" or "directly falsifying the 'facts.' "

McCoy, however, falsely said that our Windows Media video is derived from the Clinton QuickTime version, which it is not. Our video is a copy of the high-quality video recorded by CMAG as it appeared on the air in Texas. So what McCoy imagines is evidence that we "doctored" video obtained from the Clinton Web site is actually evidence that supports what we said in the first place: Versions of the Clinton ad from different sources show different shadings, and the YouTube version on which the "racism" claim rests is the darkest of the lot.

[berni_mccoy]

64. My response is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[OzarkDem]

65. More Obama-myths busted

Its pretty sad when his campaign will go to such great lengths to avoid discussing the issues that voters are clamoring to hear about.

People are worried about losing their jobs and homes and this is the best he can offer. Some leader.

[noamnety]

66. The first time I uploaded a video to youtube

it got all stretched because I did the export wrong. I'm pretty sure that's all the stretching is, having had to fight the same exact problem on my own videos. And I can assure everyone here I wasn't trying to play a dirty trick on my own bad self.

If you layer the images in a graphics program, you'll see the text is stretched as well.

[berni_mccoy]

68. The original Clinton Video is stretched in comparison to the MSNBC digital feed.

The only comparison that should be made is the comparison of the two digital sources.

Fact Check didn't do that.

[zulchzulu]

69. They admit in the article that the video WAS darkened

That's the whole point of the argument.

As for the Windows Media version, it's easy to brighten the video and other parameters with video conversion software.

The video in question was darkened and the contrast was muted. I've seen excuses like TVs show different colors, video is like print and other clueless assumptions. I've been working in digital video production for years and know every trick in the book for video editing, compression and other parameters. This video was intentionally darkened to make Obama look darker. It is beyond argument....it is obvious.