Just saw this on another site. Michael Moore's speech doctored by CNN?

[dopcombo]

This site actually did a comparison of his speech on CNN and ABC.

Text

Basically, it says that CNN supposedly turned down the volume on the "whoo-hoos" and made the "Boos" louder.

hmm. Could just be the television broadcast....

 

[Amused]

Somebody has been playing with their little black helicopter a bit too much, it seems.

This whining by the far left in Hollywood has become pathetic. With Babs whining about free speech at the Oscars, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins whining about being left out of the ceremony at the Baseball Hall of Fame and the Dixie Chicks complaining about lack of radio play I can only sit back and laugh.

What they do not seem to realize is that freedom of speech means freedom from government and legal consequence. It does NOT mean freedom from social consequence.

If you say something stupid and offensive, people have EVERY right to call you an idiot and refuse to associate with you, your business, and your products.

Moore will probably not suffer much, because his core audience are a bunch of leftist whiners just like him.

 

[MC]

Originally posted by: Amused
Somebody has been playing with their little black helicopter a bit too much, it seems.

This whining by the far left in Hollywood has become pathetic. With Babs whining about free speech at the Oscars, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins whining about being left out of the ceremony at the Baseball Hall of Fame and the Dixie Chicks complaining about lack of radio play I can only sit back and laugh.

What they do not seem to realize is that freedom of speech means freedom from government and legal consequence. It does NOT mean freedom from social consequence.

If you say something stupid and offensive, people have EVERY right to call you an idiot and refuse to associate with you, your business, and your products.

Moore will probably not suffer much, because his core audience are a bunch of leftist whiners just like him.

They just want attention and that's what they do for living.

 

[tcsenter]

Basically, it says that CNN supposedly turned down the volume on the "whoo-hoos" and made the "Boos" louder.

hmm. Could just be the television broadcast....

What did they do, have a separate mic just for the boos and another for woo-hoos? In fact, they came different intervals, really. What began at first as a lot of 'yeas' increasingly gave-way to more 'nays' as Moore spoke.

On a related note:

Revoke Moore's Oscar

The Academy can reward propaganda, if it pleases. It can reward anti-Americanism, if it pleases. But its own rules establish that it cannot reward fiction as "best documentary." We call upon the Academy to enforce its own rule.

 

[Czar]

http://www.lisarein.com/michaelmoore/michaelmoorecompare.html

saw this on buzz

 

[BDawg]

How could this be. Every patriotic, God fearing Christian...I mean Republican knows CNN is leftist.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BDawg
How could this be. Every patriotic, God fearing Christian...I mean Republican knows CNN is leftist.

Of course, you'll blindly believe the audio was doctored by CNN rather than question the validity of the claims, right?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BDawg
How could this be. Every patriotic, God fearing Christian...I mean Republican knows CNN is leftist.

Of course, you'll blindly believe the audio was doctored by CNN rather than question the validity of the claims, right?

listen to the recordings then

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Czar
http://www.lisarein.com/michaelmoore/michaelmoorecompare.html

saw this on buzz

Geez...people need to get a freaking life. Audio inconsistencies abound in about any type of live production.

 

[NogginBoink]

Without much data, I'd hypothesize CNN just had a compression circuit in the audio stream.

A compression circuit makes the loud parts of the audio softer, and the soft parts of the audio louder. It "compresses" the dynamic range of an audio track and is quite useful for certain audio applications. Such as broadcasting events with a wide dynamic range.

Assuming that there's only one microphone, it makes sense that Mr. Dipshit shouting into the microphone would be somewhat muted after compression, and the background noise of the audience would be boosted.

 

[tcsenter]

listen to the recordings then

Sure, provide me with relevant links to ABC News and CNN so I can hear it from them.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BDawg
How could this be. Every patriotic, God fearing Christian...I mean Republican knows CNN is leftist.

Of course, you'll blindly believe the audio was doctored by CNN rather than question the validity of the claims, right?

listen to the recordings then

I did. The only difference I noticed is that CNN's audio is compressed quite a bit.

BTW, did anyone ever stop to think that CNN's audience microphones were in a different part of the theater than ABC's? Or that CNN recieved a different sound track than ABC?

Naw, it MUST be a vast right wing consipiracy. Yeah, that's it!

 

[MacGaven]

 

[dopcombo]

Both of those arguments make sense.

It could be a technical thing since DAC and ADCs screw up the sound range etc.
Or maybe one mic was nearer the front, and the other was at the back.

Multitude of reasons. People really read too much into certain things if you ask me.

CNN, if they had decided to doctor it, could have just removed certain sections of the speech from its broadcast or something.


Not to mention that this person might already be at the predisposition to favor a certain result....

 

[tcsenter]

And of course, this begs the question: Why is it that the 'analyst' came to the conclusion it was CNN who 'muted' the yeas, or 'amplified' the boos, but not ABC who muted the boos, or amplified the yeas??

Of course, because the author set out to prove something.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BDawg
How could this be. Every patriotic, God fearing Christian...I mean Republican knows CNN is leftist.

Of course, you'll blindly believe the audio was doctored by CNN rather than question the validity of the claims, right?

listen to the recordings then

I did. The only difference I noticed is that CNN's audio is compressed quite a bit.

BTW, did anyone ever stop to think that CNN's audience microphones were in a different part of the theater than ABC's? Or that CNN recieved a different sound track than ABC?

Naw, it MUST be a vast right wing consipiracy. Yeah, that's it!

I don't know, but I would think they both received the same feed from the mics setup throughout the hall by the Academy. It's not like CNN and ABC have mics set up on the podiums, so obviously they are getting their feed straight from the same mic and mix board.

The real problem would be in CNN's audio broadcast and encoding/decoding (compression) equipment. How it's sent from the truck to the SAT to be broadcast and the equipment used is more than likely different from the ABC and could change the audio's feed a bit.

 

[StageLeft]

Good.

 

[rufruf44]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
And of course, this begs the question: Why is it that the 'analyst' came to the conclusion it was CNN who 'muted' the yeas, or 'amplified' the boos, but not ABC who muted the boos, or amplified the yeas??

Of course, because the author set out to prove something.

hehe, nice

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Basically, it says that CNN supposedly turned down the volume on the "whoo-hoos" and made the "Boos" louder.

hmm. Could just be the television broadcast....

What did they do, have a separate mic just for the boos and another for woo-hoos? In fact, they came different intervals, really. What began at first as a lot of 'yeas' increasingly gave-way to more 'nays' as Moore spoke.

On a related note:

Revoke Moore's Oscar

The Academy can reward propaganda, if it pleases. It can reward anti-Americanism, if it pleases. But its own rules establish that it cannot reward fiction as "best documentary." We call upon the Academy to enforce its own rule.

That revoke site is a joke. Charlton Heston is 'upstanding'. Give me a break. Probably a site set up by some NRA fanatic who wants to use their guns at any cost.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Basically, it says that CNN supposedly turned down the volume on the "whoo-hoos" and made the "Boos" louder.

hmm. Could just be the television broadcast....

What did they do, have a separate mic just for the boos and another for woo-hoos? In fact, they came different intervals, really. What began at first as a lot of 'yeas' increasingly gave-way to more 'nays' as Moore spoke.

On a related note:

Revoke Moore's Oscar

The Academy can reward propaganda, if it pleases. It can reward anti-Americanism, if it pleases. But its own rules establish that it cannot reward fiction as "best documentary." We call upon the Academy to enforce its own rule.

That revoke site is a joke. Charlton Heston is 'upstanding'. Give me a break. Probably a site set up by some NRA fanatic who wants to use their guns at any cost.

How is Heston not "upstanding?" How many people do you know who marched with MLK during the civil rights struggle? How many actors do you know who delivered the first interracial love scene in the movies?

Heston believes in our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and you think this makes him less of a person?

BTW, what "cost" are you speaking of?