top bar
QuickTopic free message boards logo
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

Did CNN turn up the boos on Michael Moore's Oscars speech?

^     All messages            39-54 of 54  23-38 >>
  Messages 54-53 deleted by author between 08-02-2009 02:03 AM and 07-25-2009 02:02 AM
52
Bhjyudep
07-15-2009
11:39 AM ET (US)
LkhtSY
51
Richard BennettPerson was signed in when posted
04-23-2003
10:08 PM ET (US)
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.
50
Ellison HornePerson was signed in when posted
04-23-2003
07:43 PM ET (US)
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
49
Richard BennettPerson was signed in when posted
04-23-2003
02:59 PM ET (US)
You didn't answer the question, Ellison.
48
Ellison HornePerson was signed in when posted
04-22-2003
07:24 PM ET (US)
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
47
Richard BennettPerson was signed in when posted
04-22-2003
05:06 PM ET (US)
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.
46
Ellison HornePerson was signed in when posted
04-21-2003
06:47 PM ET (US)
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
45
Ellison HornePerson was signed in when posted
04-21-2003
02:34 PM ET (US)
Keep in mind, Richard, that the source footage came to CNN from ABC/AMPAS.

Thanks,
Ellison
44
Robert LundPerson was signed in when posted
04-21-2003
06:51 AM ET (US)
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.
43
Ellison HornePerson was signed in when posted
04-19-2003
05:09 PM ET (US)
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
42
lizardflixPerson was signed in when posted
04-19-2003
02:28 PM ET (US)
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.
41
tristanPerson was signed in when posted
04-19-2003
12:15 PM ET (US)
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
40
lizardflixPerson was signed in when posted
04-19-2003
12:11 PM ET (US)
"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.
39
Richard BennettPerson was signed in when posted
04-19-2003
04:12 AM ET (US)
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.
38
Ellison HornePerson was signed in when posted
04-19-2003
01:04 AM ET (US)
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
^     All messages            39-54 of 54  23-38 >>

Print | RSS Views: 1888 (Unique: 1222 ) / Subscribers: 2 | What's this?