Charlie Gibson and ABC News Camera Trickery

What would also be interesting is to take the questions asked from each interview and compare them.

Take a clip of only the question (not the answers), and string them together so you get the first question from each interview, second, etc..

I wonder just how revealing it would be to understand how very different the questions were between interviews.

I noticed that Palin looked very small and girl like in the shots as well.

Looking forward to your stuff. Keep up the good work.

I'm glad to see this is being talked about. I noticed the use of camera angle to make Sarah Palin look like a student trying to defend her Master's Thesis. It is so disgusting to see the condescending prune-faced teleprompter-reader try to discredit this lady. Also I have recently found out that much of the interview has been edited to make her look unqualified,

Great work! thanks for the info.

Wow, awesome work!

I'm not sure why, but only the first sentence of my comment appeared. Strange.

Anyway, what I added is that I found it annoying that ABC seemed to have a habit of showing her giving answers while the camera was on the back of her head. It sounded like a disembodied voice answering the questions. Or they showed her from an annoying sideshot where you could sort of, almost, kind of see her face but not really. An interview should be about the person being interviewed, and their face should be the most prominent. Watching someone's face as they talk is the best way of judging their meaning and what they're saying. This seemed more like "The Charlie Gibson Show" and appeared to be more about him than her. The camera work reflected that. I guess we weren't supposed to make up our own mind about her answers, but instead we were supposed to study Gibson's reaction to her answers and learn what our opinion should be from that.

Welcome to the blog world. Breaking the Hollywood monopoly is a valuable service.

I too noticed the "disembodied voice" effect. I was trying to determine if the sound was out of sync with the video. The conspiracy theorist in me is wondering if it's out of sync because someone clipped a couple words (or even one word) out of her audible answer, then tried to slowly sync up the sound and video again afterwards.

Only 1 or 2 words omitted would be enough to radically change the effect of her comments. As an example, removing "Pray that" from the beginning of her quote about praying there is a plan and it is God's plan" made a humble prayer for guidance become some crusade against the middle east.

Thank God!

M...mm.mmm.mmmm.mmm.mmm...... Merci Beaucoup!

They used camera angle as well. There's one shot of Gibson in the near foreground with Palin in the distant background. That perspective shot also made her look very, very small when compared to the looming figure of Charles Gibson. Leni Riefenstahl lives.

For some reason, VOX concatenated my reply. Here it is in its entirety:

There was some other "hollywood" style trickery in the lighting and camera angles as well. While Charlie wore his trademarked reading glasses pearched on his nose, during the Palin interview the camera frequently shot Charlie head on, creating a magnified appearance of his downward (disapproving) appearing gaze of Palin. In the other interviews, the shots of Charlie are more angular creating a less disapproving appearance.

Additionally, the lighting differentials were striking - Palin was frequently cast in darkness or with high contrast (unflattering light). Obama's interview had none of these lighting issues.

Finally, the Palin interview was highly edited with many responses taken out of context. I would refer the reader to Mark Levine's website for the actual transcripts with highlights of the edited portions.

Keep up the good work.

Note the backgrounds: Hillary's "frame" (what is visible when you see

More democrat dishonesty.

Pat, are you one of those loving - *snicker* - tolerant liberals?

I too am a creationist and reject the hogwash that is Darwinism - and I'm no moron, buddy.

You were so dead on in your analyzation of the subtleties of editing and the way it can create bias.

I don't suppose the camera angle wouldn't have to do with the fact that Obama is 6'2" and Palin is 5'5"?

Your argument makes no sense. According to your argument, if ABC is making Palin look weak, they're also making Gibson look like a villain. That makes Gibson look like a bully more than Palin a victim.

I'm conservative, but I'm not going to be one of those people that blindly support a candidate because they're Republican and act like the other candidate is always wrong because he's a Democrat. I made that mistake in 2004 and look at where we are now under Bush.

My party has become horribly corrupt, and they pander to religious leaders and lobbyists. I want the GRAND old party, like in the days of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. With Obama in office, it'll give the GOP a chance to clean house and become the party it SHOULD be instead of the embarrassment it is now.

Thank you so much for stepping up and admitting that there is a black list for non liberals in Hollywood.

Excellent article. I stopped watching ABC in high school, before I even considered myself a conservative,

Good work.

(Trying this again as my first effort looks truncated).

Thanks for a very interesting post. (I came here from the Instapundit link). Reading your article made me recall a 60 Minutes interview I saw a month or so ago, when it was re-run from earlier in the year. The story concerned Frank Wuterich, who is charged with 18 murders (of civilians) in Haditha. Charges against some of his fellow soldiers have been dropped and the trial for Wuterich has been postponed, but I believe the charges are still there. Anyhow, on the 60 Minutes interview, they framed his face in a grotesquely tight close up that really made him look freakish. The video can be seen here. The grotesque close ups start around 1:35 into the story (which appears after a short ad).

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2582351n%3Fsource=search_video

I'd love to get your take on this. Honestly, the close ups are so tight that his hole head is not even in the picture. The shot goes from a couple of inches above his eyebrows (just below the hairline) down to the chin. I don't recall ever seeing anyone framed quite like that in an extended interview before and the intended affect, I think, was to make look bizarre and abnormal. Am I imagining this?

Sounds like this should be an interesting blog. Perhaps if it works out, you can make up some of your lost income.

OK... let me get this straight. ABC uses a shot to make Gibson look more like a villian, presumably bullying the tiny, defenseless govenor, and it's supposed to be anti-Palin?

Most Americans stand up for the small guys, last I heard. Perhaps you live in a different America? I'd see this working to Palin's favor.

" I'd see this working to Palin's favor."

It very well might. And, if so, it then becomes another screw up on mainstream media's part. That's the point we're making - they're so cloddish that they don't even realize when they're being stupid. Going overboard with Palin has done nothing but hurt the media's credibility so far, regardless of the faults Palin might legitimately have. They've made themselves the game, instead of her.

[Someone needs to fix the somewhat serious problem this blog has with cutting off most of a poster's comment when they aren't signed in yet and after they type their comment they are directed through the sign in, or registration, process. That's twice for me already.]

I think you can see clearly some of the proportional issues that ABC News was working with here. Quite clearly. Small woman. Large man. Simple as that. Unless you're trying to paint Palin as some kinda victim... something I doubt she'd go for.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/abc/new_yorker_column_short_on_facts_long_on_attacks_of_abc_news_94445.asp

"Small woman. Large man. Simple as that."

And they've never dealt with that before. Please.

That's our host's point. There are technical ways to handle that sort of situation. ABC chose not to be professional about it and do their job right. Was it technical incompetence by experienced cameramen or was it purposeful because it fit the story they were trying to tell? It's up to the viewer to decide.

It also still doesn't explain the shots where she's answering questions while they show the back of her head. It was shoddy, shoddy camera work and editing.

I agree she wouldn't go for the victim card. Good for her. But there is nothing wrong with us holding ABC to a minimum level of professionalism. Unflattering camera angles, as evidenced by the scandal at the Atlantic Monthly, can certainly be be used in an unscrupulous way.

I don't think anyone has mentioned that most people's torsos are about the same length. It's your legs that give you height. So sitting down, most adults have about the same head level. I'm wondering if chair height had anything to do with it too, or can you do this simply with lenses?

Has anyone ever wondered if Obama is a real Christian or a Muslim. When he was a small boy in Indonesia, he went to a chatolic school but because he registered as a muslim and is a practicing muslim they sent him to a Muslim tutor for his religious part of the studies. In Indonesia, they will accept you in their schools no matter what faith you practiced as long as you are a good student. Mr. Obama was a good student and a good faithful muslim. I know he has been saying in his campaign that he never practice muslim but his student record in Indonesia proves otherwise. If you have the means and the right connection maybe you should find out for yourself and decide whether you want this country to become Muslim someday or go back to the way this country was before Americans compromised their honor and integrity for the sake of almighty dollar.

Gibson didn't look like a villain, but more like a school principal berating a wayward student, or as a stern father chastising his daughter. That image, with the tone of the interview, gives the viewer the impression that Palin is out of her element and is too young or inexperienced to be VP.

Thanks so much for showing this.

the two different shots from your storyboard pictures are not possible simply by changing the height of the camera and using a telephoto lens. if you mean you are able to produce these differences by changing the distance to the subject(s), rather than the height, then that would be correct. otherwise, your statement is demonstrably false.

Dear Unknown Director,

Got a hunch who you might be, and since you've already been "outed," why bother hiding your I.D.? :)

Really good stuff, although this appears to accrue to our benefit, as you imply. Why does that SOB, Gibson, want to look like an overbearing SOB?

Cheers,
Ben

PS To avoid credibility issues, I suggest you get spell check. "Tyraids" should be "tirades." Saw another also, but have forgotten now.

I wish I could tick off a choice for "this is GREAT!" I was browsing through Yahoo news and came upon a video entitled, "Trooper testifies in Palin probe" It was an ABC piece that had aired recently. The video went a bit into how Palin was under investigation in "Troopergate", and how Monagan, the Public Safety Commissioner, had evidence to prove Palin tried to force him to fire Palin's ex-brother in law against his will, which the media wants to claim is the real reason behind Palin firing him. Then a short bit of rhetoric from Alaska Democratic Senator HOLLIS FRENCH, in which he crucifies Palin because" There were several emails between Palin and Monagan, and telephone calls, there is simply no way it's plausable that there had been no contact, or no pressure from Palin, it just doesn't stand up" HUH? Then ABC cuts to an AWAIC shelter with the narrative that "Monagan was gaining support with some groups who advocate for abused women. ABC then cuts to an interview with a GERAN TARR, a woman who talks about how Palin has really not shown any indication of caring for abused women, and her firing of Monagan had angered women because he was a strong advocate of preventing the abuse and rape of women in the community. ABC doesn't tell you that TARR is a member of the ALLIANCE FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE, and the ALASKA WOMENS LOBBY, both Pro-Choice organizations, and clearly would be anti-Palin because of Palin's Pro-Life stance. This report is a downright falsehood, and leads the viewer to anticipate a report about Troopergate, but is just a front for a smear that questions Palin's integrity and compassion for abused women, and presents TARR as a woman ABC wants you to think works for AWAIC, but is in fact a Pro-Choice member of the Alliance for Reproductive Justice. Turns out there is also compelling evidence that FRENCH is the lead man in the investigation of Palin, and may have tampered with the subpoenas in this case.
Outrageous. ABC news is a sham. It should be held to task for such deceptive "reporting" I will list the links below:

Link to video (Yahoo video is gone), YouTube has the full clip though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlYIVNqgoMs&feature=related

http://akwomenslobby.org/who.php (Alaska Women's Lobby webpage)

Link to Newsbusters account of GERAN TARR speaking on CNN about Palin:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/colleen-raezler/2008/09/02/cnn-reveals-anti-abstinence-bias-report-palins-daughter

Link to evidence of FRENCH tampering with subpoenas:

http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/09/13/obama_partisan_tampers_with_palin_subpoena_list?page=2


ABC is practicing switch and bait on it's viewers. SHAMEFUL.

Hey, bluecat you say:

"It's scary how biased network news has become."

What has ACTUALLY happened is that WE (thanks to Fox & talk radio) have become informed in recent years. Those network clowns have been biased as heck for decades!!!

rfdz3,

I tried TheAnchoress.com, and it's a social site!

I work in the business too.

Very well explained. We all felt it was wrong and condescending. Many of my friends and I who watched felt the way the camera viewed her was all wrong but we couldn't put our finger on it. It it is so deceitful and shameful. Whatever happened to good journalism?

I attended the massive McCain/Palin rally in Fairfax, VA with my daughter last week, and she echoed your sentiment---in her school, the conservatives are on the down-low, and she felt very much that attending the rally gave her the courage to express her political beliefs.

This is SO good! Just look at all the responses! Welcome to VOX, and keep up the great articles!
I feel for you working in Hollywood. Just stick to your guns, knowing that most Americans do NOT think like the lefty crazies out there.

Hollywood trenches: A heads up on Madonna - This person trolls around on the internet dropping her bile everywhere. If you so choose, you can hoover over her avatar and you'll see a popup box. At the bottom of that you have an option to block. If you click that it (Madonna) will not be able to spam you pages with it's trash.

Also the person who types in greek is also a spammer for porn. It also has many accounts on Vox. Anytime you see the greek (or whatever language that is) it's porn everytime.