Letterman vs White House

[KelvinG]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

Washington paranoia

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]

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]

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 ◊◊◊◊.

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."

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]

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 ◊◊◊◊.

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]

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]

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?

 

[RandFan]

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?