I watched the video comparison a couple of times, and I can't really tell one way or the other. In fact, at some points, the CNN version seems to have louder booing, and it shows visually that some members of the audience are actually showing approval of Moore's speech, while the ABC version does not.

There is a single male voice that sounds very loud on the CNN version. Could this just be the result of a difference in the placement of microphones or some other more innocent set of circumstances?

Could it not just be different audio processing used by different networks? In the UK the Paramount Comedy Channel gets put through some pretty hefty compression / limiting (Viacom seem to do that to all their channels here) and the laugh tracks in shows are far more noticeable / annoying than when they're broadcast elsewhere.

It could be worse. They could have chopped up his speech and mixed it in with some other speeches made at different times to make it seem like he was saying something completely different.

Could just be they had their mikes in a different place. The booing seems mostly to be from near the back of the audience, so microphone placement would make a huge difference to what you hear.

uh, let's be reasonable here: if there are only the two clips to compare, and without other evidence, isn't it just as likely that ABC turned their boos down?

Are the Moore fans really so paranoid as to think there's a massive conspiracy to marginalize him? He seems to be capable of doing that very well all by himself.

If you say something the average person thinks is obnoxious, erroneous, and just plain moronic, all the while claiming to represent their views, it shouldn't be a huge surprise to get booed off stage.

Of course they turned up the boos -- to do Mikey a favor.

Come on folks, remember? According to Mikey there were just a few faint boos, and then the loud boos you hear are Mikey's fans booing the original booers. So obviously some commie sympathizers at CNN turned up the volume on those people booing in support of Mikey.

Just another example of the liberal media at work.

The villification of Moore is disturbing. Sure, he's the left's Rush Limbaugh, and he's using broad strokes, but it's fairly obvious there is a Moore talking points campaign going on.

In Russia they used to just say you were crazy and lock you up.

Craniac:

"The villification of Moore is disturbing. Sure, he's the left's Rush Limbaugh, and he's using broad strokes, but it's fairly obvious there is a Moore talking points campaign going on."

Why is vilification of Moore anymore disturbing than vilification of Rush? Two inaccurate windbags who get what they deserve. I suppose there's also a talking points campaign going on against Rush, right? (It couldn't just be that liberals honestly don't agree with him and point out his differences -- not, it must be some sort of nefarious "campagin" against the man).

Craniac:

Perhaps. But it's interesting here that it's Moore who's saying everyone else is crazy...and from reports of the disgruntled ex-employee he had arrested for turning the same 'guerilla media' tactics back upon him, Moore also seems to have no problem locking up those he doesn't like (and has the legal wherewithal to do so).

I agree there is a campaign against him, and there rightly should be. Bowling for Columbine has been falsely presented to the public as a documentary. How can pointing out purposefully-made factual errors/misrepresentations/lies be the wrong thing to do?

they did the same thing when the marshalls were bringing out timothy mcveigh. on some news broadcasts you could hear the booing a lot louder than others.

media manipulation. who'da thunk it?

For what it's worth, I downloaded the two mp3s and imported them into Audacity. I aligned the audio so it was synchronized and then made the ABC version of the speech the left audio track, and the CNN version the right audio track. Listening to the result with headphones, almost everything seems centered -- except that the boos seem located way on the right. No pun intended. Speech in the center, cheers in the center, boos way off to the right, and then the CNN commentary on the right.

Try it yourself.

Or if anybody wants my copy, say in mp3 form, email me at "qt at-sign edheil dot fastmail dot fm". (Yes, my email ends in .fm not .com or the like)

So, it sure sounds to me like it's doctored, but make your own call. I don't have the knowledge to some how "subtract" the one version from the other and see if the "difference" consists of boos. If somebody's more audio-savvy than me, great. :)

It seems like this would probably work much better with the original aiffs than with mp3s, but I couldn't get ahold of the aiffs.

Apparently, the ABC footage is the source that CNN used -- IOW, ABC had the only cameras in the hall, and CNN licensed the footage for broadcast.

I made a short analysis of the data provided by this article, with spectrum analysis, waveform analysis and a separated stereo file, everything on http://asyo.com/michaelmooresspeach/

Edited by author 04-15-2003 01:08 PM
Thanks for leaving the conclusion up to us!

Well, in CNN's defense, they were just trying to drown out his disrespectful references to "Saddam" instead of "President Saddam Hussein."

It's not that the boos were phony.
It's that the phonies were boozed.

Good. Michael Moore deserves to be booed. He's a painful, inflamed, pus-filled boil on the ass of liberals everywhere.

I have been editing video of nearly 20 years. I'm
also a long standing member of the Bay Area Black
Journalist Association. When I saw the AMPAS credit
for the clip CNN broadcasted in it's report, I was concerned that the sound was so different from the ABC broadcast. When I then saw the MSNBC report and clip, also from AMPAS, the audio was exactly the same as the orginal broadcast, and I became very concerned about the CNN reports.

The orginal broadcasted audio does a fine job of
presenting the sounds heard in response to Moore's
speech. Bottom line, the orginal audio demonstrates
there was a mixed reaction to Moore's speech.

Isn't it interesting that the caption CNN used during
the Moore clip states: "Filmmaker Michael Moore
Receives Boos at Oscars" -- and THEIR audio supports
that statement. Even so, I would have expected a more accurate caption such as "Filmmaker Michael Moore Receives Mixed Responses at Oscars".

Lot of people out there sleepwalking with CNN "the most trusted name in news". Imagine what this use of technology with social concern is doing in terms of consciousness raising.

In bringing this to public attention there is now
a growing concern about the CNN report of the Moore
speech. Sometimes it is the seemingly little things
that can reveal a larger problem.

I am calling for a full investigation of this matter
to get this cleared up once and for all.

Onward and upward,
Ellison

didn't CNN broadcast video of people cheering around 9/11 that was actually old festival video? i may be remembering an unsubstantiated rumor..

Edited by author 04-15-2003 04:59 PM
It was actually footage from the David Lean classic Lawrence of Arabia.

Edited by author 04-15-2003 10:26 PM
"Did CNN turn up the Boos on Michael Moore's Oscars speech?"

Does anybody give a rip?

Are you so desperate for your own conspiracy that you are calling for investigation of this? Give me a break. That fat windbag got his ill-deserved oscar, he got his much-deserved boos, and he's already given his explanation of how stage hands hiding in the wings are now equiped with mics. the guy can't even truthfully represent an moment seen around the world even though it was witnessed by millions around the world.

Why in the hell would Moore raise his voice as he did, if not to be heard over all the fictitious boos?

Who said if you keep telling the lie that it eventually becomes the truth?

Get a life. And get real credentials that are relevant before you throw them out here.

So wait - you're saying that even if CNN manipulated the information they broadcast to support a specific viewpoint that you just don't care?

I gotta admit, Michael Moore kinda gets on my nerves, but if CNN actually did this then I very much care. I can't see how anyone with even minimal electrical activity in their cortex could not care about this.

Yeah, this is definitely a bigger bombshell than that whole Eason Jordan thing.

Which Eason Jordan thing? And why would you only be interested in one and not the other? Seems to me that you're implying that we should talk about the Eason Jordan thing and *not* this, or that if we're not talking about the Eason Jordan thing then we shouldn't talk about this either. WTF kind of logic is that?

Again - you're seriously trying to say that even if CNN manipulated the audio on this clip the whole issue doesn't matter to you? Why? Does it make your brain hurt to think about it? Do you not want to beleive that would happen here? Do you not care because this case happens to support your beliefs?

Edited by author 04-16-2003 01:45 PM
Damn, calm down.

You haven't heard about the Eason Jordan thing? He's an executive at CNN, and he's been making news himself lately. Check his piece in the op/ed section of last Friday's NY Times for details. Or a Google search would probably work. Me, I think the revelations he makes about CNN's Iraq coverage are a bit more damaging to their credibility than this particular conspiracy theory, but YMMV, as they say.

Anyway, back to Boo-Gate!

How about the silencing of Kevin Site's blog by CNN? doesn't anybody care about that?

What are you people, Animals?!?!?!?!?!

Edited by author 04-16-2003 02:22 PM
"...can't see how anyone with even minimal electrical activity in their cortex..."

Well, using such brain-scientist technical talk is just unfair.

O, Lord! Moore's Whores are at it again. Trying desperately to spin his lies into something approaching honesty. O, for an HONEST liberal to discuss things with! O, for a leftist who doesn't use his own prejudices to define reality. O, for a democrat who isn't a fraudulent liar! O, for a liberal who doesn't take their marching orders from a prevaricating, contemptible, piece of shit like Moore!

Dogzilla,

I'm saying that Michael Moore is so insignificant that if CNN went to the trouble of manipulating the audio, they are even more stupid than I thought.

I'm sure the ultra-spectro-soundometer equipment you are using to conduct your technical analysis explains how CNN was able to separate the boos from the rest of the room ambience and moore's mic.

I thought CNN was too busy covering up assasination plans hatched by Uday Hussein. How do they find the time?

Lizardflix, the "pumped up" boos mostly appear in pauses in Moore's speech. The volume is cranked up at the moments when the boos are made. Simple as that.

Easier than airbrushing a disgraced communist party member out of a photo with Stalin....

I didn't see Bowling for Columbine. I haven't read Moore's books. I happen to agree with the statements he made at the Oscars, but otherwise I have no particular love for Moore. I cobbled together the sound clips and checked this because I thought that it was pretty remarkable if it were true.

As far as I can tell, it's true.

CNN actually digitally edited a video feed in order to support the spin they put on the story.

We live in ficticious times indeed...

Ed,

The boos were under his speech and there were no pauses of any significance in the speech. Simple as that.

Whatever, trollboy. I downloaded the mp3s, and put them together in a sound editor myself to check it out. I'm telling you what I heard. If you tried it and heard different, then we'll have to agree to differ. If you didn't try it, then, well, you know that hole? The one you put pie in?

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about, your piehole!

Shut it.

Ed downloaded mp3s and did his analysis hisself on his home 'puter.

Geez, CNN's conspiracy authors never counted on such advanced technological review.

Does the Pulitzer committee consider mp3 analysis? Maybe you can get recognition for your fine work.

Or maybe you can apply to the double-naught, secret agent spy agency.

And stop obsessing over my piehole. Why such interest?

I always suspected that Cory Doctorow was an idiot, because he's the front man for an organization that claims to be all for civil liberties while consistently ignoring the most wide-ranging assault on civil liberties in our time, the child support enforcement system. (Most people don't know that state and federal child support agencies routinely arrest without warrant, search bank and utility records of all citizens, child support obligors or not, and sieze property and assets of suspected child support obligors without notice or hearing. But the EFF doesn't care about this issue, probably because it's just not very sexy.)

But this allegation against CNN is the smoking gun that proves Doctorow has no credibility on any technical issue. The base volume level of the CNN clip is a little higher than the base volume level of the ABC clip, not just in the boo section but in the section where Moore is drooling into the mike on his own. So? That means the person who captured the clips did so with different settings. If there were a difference in the boos alone, then a reaonable person would ask whether CNN had raised the level or if ABC had lowered it, because side-by-side comparison can't answer that question. But there isn't such a difference, so it doesn't matter.

How stupid and hypocritical can you be? Doctorow, do yourself a favor and take your head out of your ass before you make a fool of yourself again.

Edited by author 04-18-2003 11:19 PM
Ahahahaha! They kicked him off the WELL, he tried to make trouble for Joi, and now he's found me!

Ladies and gentlemen, meet Richard "Bubbadude" Bennett, virtually the reason for the invention of the killfile (where he is going right as soon as I finish this message).

Bubbadude is just about the only person whose behaviour was so completely, unforgivably, pathologically odious that he got booted off of the WELL. He's really one of the most predictable vitriolic trolls online, a genuine nutcase who lives to pick endless rathole fights riddled with lame ad-hominems like the ones below.

It's amazing to think that a person this broken, this clearly in need of strong meds is capable of using the Internet, but it's a kind of testament to the robustness of the human psyche and the compartamentalization of cognition that Richard can not only learn to tie his shoes, he can actually negotiate society well enough to afford a computer and an Internet connection instead of mumbling into his beard as he scratches his tinfoil underwear while trundling a junk-filled shopping cart down the street.

A number of you have written to me lately about the steep increase in trollery in the Boing Boing QuickTopics: it's been bugging me, too. But I'll tell you how I've solved it: I subscribe to the message boards by email and use mail-rules to blackhole messages from the idiots who've taken up unfortunate residence here. Truly, one of the wonders of the Internet age is that we can trivially make all the dickheads invisible to everyone except each other.

Please, don't feed the trolls: arguing like Richard and his ilk is like hitting yourself repeatedly with a hammer: the only good thing you can say about it is that it feels a lot better when you stop.

Notice that Cory doesn't address my argument on his asinine conspiracy theory on the CNN/Michael Moore issue, but sinks to immediate ad hominem instead. At least I made my case before slipping the rhetorical knife in his bowed back.

Like I said, this is the smoking gun on Cory Doctorow, world-class idiot and snake-oil peddler.

What's the Well? A collection of Doctorow think-alikes, apparently.

This morning I woke up unusually early and all I could think about was how fascinating and vital it is, this use of technology through the Internet. I’m learning so much about these latest capabilities and uses that it occurs to me what is happening is a redefining of journalism, a new kind of civic journalism.

I don’t know Michael Moore. I’ve never met him, but I do know his work. As a video producer of grassroots documentaries for nearly 20 years, I am inspired by Moore’s personal activism-by-example: if you see the bridge is out ahead, don’t just sit there, cry out, do what you can to stop the train! And this is what I’m attempting to do by pursuing the issue of how the CNN reported on Moore’s speech at the Academy Awards. This is not just about Michael Moore, or my respect for his work. It is, however, a call to be more diligent and not complacent about the trappings of massively financed corporate media.

CNN boasts of being the “most trusted name in news”, and the word “trust” is constantly displayed throughout their intensive and aggressive advertising—worldwide. In light of the mounting evidence against CNN’s reporting on reaction to Moore’s speech, it appears that CNN may have violated the public trust.

In my call for a full investigation, I have been heartened by the outpouring from others who, like me, are taking reasonable steps to see if indeed there is something the public needs to know in guarding against possible abuses of power by corporate-owned media. (There are literally thousands of studies that show a systemic influence the media, and the messages, have on social behavior).

It is new for me to come forward like this, reaching out through the Internet. But I see this new form of civic journalism as galvanizing out of a single action—when I noticed a discrepancy in the CNN reports there were many people who came forward to help bring this concern to greater public attention.

Just as Moore encourages by example, I cried out through the Internet and someone named Lisa responded by converting my analog video recordings into a digital format and posting them on the Internet. Tristan then added the visually powerful waveform of the audio tracks so that people could actually see, as well as hear, the difference in the two recordings. Ed put the MP3 formats in stereo—one channel CNN the other ABC—to reveal further discrepancies. George conducted extensive audio processing and analyses, and David spread the word throughout his list of other concerned citizens, and on, and on.

As I see it, this kind of electronic democracy is forging a new definition of journalism from the grassroots to the grasstops and beyond. As more evidence is brought forward I’m hoping we get a few good investigative journalists to probe this matter of questionable integrity by a powerful and influential media enterprise.

Onward and upward,
Ellison

So all these people are wasting all this time analyzing digital conversions of analog recordings you made with your VCR, and all of this points to a vast corporate conspiracy to marginalize that Great American Hero, Michael Moore, by showing that even the Hollywood stiffs think he's an insufferable blowhard?

When a few years pass and we review the Great Internet Hoaxes, this will be among the leading examples.

"Just as Moore encourages by example, I cried out through the Internet and someone named Lisa responded by converting my analog video recordings into a digital format and posting them on the Internet. Tristan then added the visually powerful waveform of the audio tracks so that people could actually see, as well as hear, the difference in the two recordings. Ed put the MP3 formats in stereo—one channel CNN the other ABC—to reveal further discrepancies. George conducted extensive audio processing and analyses, and David spread the word throughout his list of other concerned citizens, and on, and on. "

Ellison, dude, 39 messages in a week? "On and on."? More like "nobody cares". I could create a topic about pasta noodles and get more interest. The only reason I even show up to this is to read the next post that calls your conspiracy idiotic. At least that is entertaining.

Ok, a message for the "spectral analysis" sceptics.

Forget the the spectral analysis for a moment if you do't agree. Forget the waveforms, etc..

Then listen to the ducttape soundfile. I put CNN on the left, ABC on the right, that's very simple. No sound manipulation at all.

The more it seems that the boo comes from the left, the strongest the difference is between the two TV channels. It eclipses the eventual overall level difference between the two samples.

But I didn't spend time on making those samples to lose even more time to argue against bad faith.. sorry

Look, your problem isn't whether your analysis is faulty or not. your problem is that nobody really cares. Unless of course you feel that CNN is secretly working with the government to discredit Michael Moore by manipulating audio to boost boos. Wow.

Geez, our de facto government went from assasinating its own president to this. How pathetic can a secret government cabal be if they are reduced to that?

Move on to the illuminati or the masons or something.

I'm sorry, lizardflix, but I feel you are missing the point of these actions. This is not about a conspiracy. There is no conspiracy. It is, however, about negligence and corporate self-interest.

As my dear father, who survived growing up in Jasper Texas, would say, "You don't have to pick up an elephant to know it's heavy."

Something is wrong here and I am calling for an investigation. People are responding. Research is being conducted, and the evidence is mounting.

It would be well worth the effort if from this we learn something about the variety of methods used by mass media to transmit images and sound which in turn influence how messages are crafted. The result may be a new set of standards and practices that protect the public from arbitrary institutional manipulation of source material. Who decides what gets modified for transmission and how is it conducted? What impact does that modification have on the resulting news report? What are the social implications of how the ripple effect is generated that influences mass opinion?

If the evidence didn’t support my concern I would move on. Like you, I am a very busy person. More material is about to be brought forward that will most likely further support my concerns—this time from MSNBC.

lizardflix, you appear to be a long-standing member of the technology revolution. And as growing numbers of people, like me, become acquainted with this new electronic frontier, they too will come forward, speak up, and get involved. I hope you will be a little more understanding of what this likely means: There will be vastly more possibilities for social outcomes stemming from many diverse cultural insights addressing human concerns and conditions worldwide.

Therefore, I hope that cynicism and narrow mindedness give way to positive attitudes and an abundance of possibilities cultivating a global solutions ecology.

Onward and upward,
Ellison

I've never been here before, followed a link.

I'm a regular reader of moorewatch.com, and I've been hearing about this thing for some time. I've worked in broadcast TV for over 30 years, and I know that it's common in live situations to include a little thing called "AGC" (Automatic Gain Control) in the signal path, to maintain a more-or-less consisitent (if not absolutely constant) level output. As there is no industry standard for the degree of AGC employed, it's quite possible (and it could be checked) that if either or both CNN and ABC were using it, they set their AGC's differently. Furthermore, the degree to which sound emanating from any particular location in the hall were picked up by the various microphones would depend upon where they were aimed.

So while it may be possible to demonstrate differences in the booing levels between the CNN and ABC broadcasts, there are sufficient incidental sources for such differences to invalidate the conclusion that the staff of either one intentionally spiked the booing level for any reason.

I don't think anybody cares but UberMike anyway.

Keep in mind, Richard, that the source footage came to CNN from ABC/AMPAS.

Thanks,
Ellison

Sorry, Robert, I meant to put your name, not Richard. I think it will be very interesting when we have another source of reporting the event such as MSNBC which also used the ABC source material since no other cameras were allowed to shoot during the show.

Ellison

Please address this question, Ellison: assuming you are correct that the booing level is louder in CNN than on ABC's live broadcast (which I don't really accept, but this is just for discussion), how do you know that ABC didn't turn it down to make Moore look more like a normal human being than he really is?

If there were a discrepancy between your two recordings, in other words, that discrepancy doesn't clearly point to either ABC or to CNN, unless you're too blinded by your conspiracy theories to see the truth.

And just for the record, Michael Moore is a pompous, lying idiot, and the vast majority of the people who know who he is know that; no conspiracy required.

Richard: The audience response is very different on the CNN clip from its original ABC source. The analyses conducted thus far is amazing. The case will indeed be made stronger when footage of the MSNBC report, with the same clip, is digitized and posted.

Although the heading for this discussion asks if CNN turned up the boos, I'm not saying the audio is simply turned up in volume but rather it is (or may be) manipulated in a variety of ways to suit the message.

Regarding Michael Moore, and more, read my response to lizardflix below.

Thanks,
Ellison

You didn't answer the question, Ellison.

I believe, Richard, your question may be better answered when we post the MSNBC report.

What I know for sure about ABC is that it is the source of the material for each report, FOX, CNN, NBC, etc.

Onward and upward,
Ellison

You won't know any more when you look at MSNBC than you know now, which is nothing.

I know people who were at the Oscars, in real life, and they say the boos were quite loud, almost deafening. They say that ABC turned the volume down on the boos so you could hear what Moore said, which they couldn't hear in the hall.

Take that for what it's worth.

I have a theory about Moore's speech. I believe that he shouldn't have won the Oscar for Best Documentary because "Bowling for Columbine" isn't a documentary at all, it's a highly staged work of fiction posing as a documentary. Moore knew it shouldn't have been nominated, and he knew there would be controversy if he won. So he decided to deflect criticism off his highly fictitional movie by throwing a hissy fit about the (now finished) war.

And thanks to the morons, it worked. Nobody's talking about the lies and distortions in "Bowling for Columbine" any more, they're just talking about what a pompous ass Michael Moore is.

LkhtSY