Letterman vs White House

[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.

 

[KelvinG]

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.

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.

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]

Nope this must have been a dirty tricks campaign carried out to discredit David Letterman.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[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...

 

[Snide]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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 ◊◊◊◊.

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
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

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!