Letterman vs White House

[Malachi151]

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

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

 

[LFTKBS]

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]

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. 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,

 

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)