No, the White House didn't intentionally edit a question to Putin out of a video (WaPo, Philip Bump)

[oberliner]

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow led her show Tuesday night with an explosive allegation: The administration of President Trump had intentionally buried a question asked of Russian President Vladimir Putin during last week’s news conference in Helsinki. Not an insignificant question, either. The one about whether or not Putin wanted Trump to win.

“We can report tonight that the White House video of that exchange has also skilfully cut out that question from the Reuters reporter as if it didn’t happen,” Maddow claimed.
...


Here’s the thing: That’s also how The Post’s transcript of the news conference initially read, too. Ours came from Bloomberg Government and ours, too, excluded the first part of the reporters question in which he begins, “President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election”.

What happened? If you watch the videos, it’s pretty clear. At some point in the middle of that question, there’s a switch between the feed from the reporters and the feed from the translator. In the White House version of the video, you can hear the question being asked very faintly under the woman who is translating saying “president.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/25/no-the-white-house-didnt-intentionally-edit-a-question-to-putin-out-of-a-video/

[stonecutter357]

1. lol.

[greyl]

2. Let us know when they intentionally fix it, WP. nt

[oberliner]

4. The White House must amend their transcript now that it has been pointed out

but to claim it was intentional seems wrong since Bloomberg and WaPo had the same transcript with the same omission.

[greyl]

12. I'm talking about the video, not to diminish importance of accurate transcript. nt

[leftynyc]

13. The VIDEO was edited by the white house

Forget the transcript. This writer is trying to cover up for donnie and it wont work.

[oberliner]

14. The article asserts that the video was not edited by the WH

I really don't think Philip Bump would be covering for DT.

[leftynyc]

22. I do

Take a look at the white house video. The question is not there, nor is it in the russia version. They've also known for a while the transcript was wrong and refuse to correct it. We're dealing with scumbags and they in no way deserve the benefit of any doubt.

[underpants]

3. "Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening."

[ProfessorGAC]

5. So, They Weren't Being Sneaky, They Were Just Incompetent?

That's what we're going with?

[NewJeffCT]

7. maybe both

incompetent at first, and then sneaky and lazy when they didn't change it.

[oberliner]

8. Abby Phillip: It seems clear that there was no editing of the video by the WH

Link to tweet

[ProfessorGAC]

9. That Addresses My Question, How?

Either they were too oblivious to know the thing was recorded 2 channel, or they knew and cherry picked the channel.

I know they are the gang that can't shoot straight, but NOBODY figured it out before they released the transcript?

Then they're incompetent. That's not a shining defense.

[oberliner]

11. Neither incompetence, nor malevolence

Just different feed sources.

Edit to add: At least with the initial transcript/video - that they haven't since made any correction suggests both potentially.

[Hortensis]

16. "463 Migrant Parents May Have Been Deported Without Their Kids"

Thought you might like this story to support the issue of sloppy, irresponsible reporting, Oberliner. It's also being pushed by all major media.

After all, the media don't KNOW these children were deported, just irresponsibly insinuate (incompetence? malevolence?) it after the DOJ says 463 of the parents the administration is court-ordered to reunite with their children are missing. Really? We know clerical errors and omissions have caused hundreds of children to go missing, so why not their parents?

[spanone]

6. then why did they edit the video?

[oberliner]

10. The WaPo article asserts that the WH did not edit the video

Excerpt:

What happened? If you watch the videos, it’s pretty clear. At some point in the middle of that question, there’s a switch between the feed from the reporters and the feed from the translator. In the White House version of the video, you can hear the question being asked very faintly under the woman who is translating saying “president.”

You can hear the same audio in The Post’s feed, starting at about a minute in.

We did not edit the question out. This is the feed we were provided.

[LanternWaste]

15. Lots of people have zero reason to question the WP's assertion.

[oberliner]

25. Abby Phillip of CNN made the same assertion

They are pretty reputable reporters for outlets that have been critical of Trump.

[bettyellen]

17. Bullshit- they deleted significant parts of the audio too. As did Russian sources...

As well as altering transcripts. Sorry/ can’t buy that this was a mistake.

[rusty fender]

19. Yeah...

I’m not buying the different feeds excuse. Total bullshit

[lark]

20. If it was a mistake, they would fix it.

Since they didn't fix the video or the transcript it shows that they don't want the truth to be out there and are covering it up s it is pretty damn embarrassing for the russian repugs.

[oberliner]

26. No, they didn't

The used the same transcript and video feed that Bloomberg/WaPo used.

The Russians, on the other hand, are a different story.

[bettyellen]

33. I don't buy it- they could see that transcript and video were missing something because it makes no

Sense with that part deleted. And you want me to believe whoever transcribed it had no knowledge of what was shown on the news? Nope. They knew. They’ve made a decision not to correct it for days now. They knew. I know the papers need to give them the benefit of the doubt on small stuff- they’re also trying to let them save face while they get them to correct the record.
They’re scrubbing the WH website to delete all sorts of stuff- there’s no way they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[uponit7771]

41. They DID make a mistake in the transcript, either way they haven't fixed it

[BootinUp]

18. They didn't provide an accurate transcript, period.

[oberliner]

27. That's true

But the claim was that the WH had intentionally edited the transcript, which would've been a lot more nefarious had it been true.

[uponit7771]

42. It is true, no one should give them the benefit of the doubt at this point

[peggysue2]

21. Ah, yes

Just another coinky-dink. Strange how often this happens in this Administration.

Particularly when they're called out, made to look like liars and fools.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Pathetic!

[defacto7]

23. How convenient.

[kcr]

24. If only there was a way to resolve this...

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/23/630643035/ex-white-house-stenographer-with-no-official-transcript-trump-can-muddle-the-tru

Sorry. This is a White House that goes out of its way to be as opaque as possible and there are far too many coincidences. I tend to side with those who believe they intentionally manipulated this.

[oberliner]

28. The WaPo writer is pretty definitive about it

Here's his most recent tweet on the subject:

Link to tweet

[kcr]

39. Wonder if he still stands by this one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/12/28/theres-still-little-evidence-that-russias-2016-social-media-efforts-did-much-of-anything/?utm_term=.c09a9310722d

[skylucy]

34. kcr---Thanks for posting this link. [phone]

[SeattleVet]

29. Well, now that they know, I'm sure they have corrected it...

Nah - just kidding - they still have the original, incorrect transcript posted:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-putin-russian-federation-joint-press-conference/

[eleny]

30. Rachel has probably already written out the mincemeat recipe she'll read tonight

[oberliner]

31. She has responded to the WaPo tweet (and linked to the WaPo article)

Link to tweet

[eleny]

32. She's on it

I can hardly wait for the rest. As if the White House has no responsibility for accuracy. Meh.

[jpak]

35. Memory Hole

yup

[royable]

36. I am curious to know whether there are any other apparent edits to the video

and if so, are those merely a case of selective use of the available feeds, or an actual gap in time.

If there are other edits, the missing or re-contextualized content could hint at possible future tactics of this mis-administration.

[oberliner]

37. There are no edits to the video

[royable]

40. What I meant is that the entire video is edited, in that a choice was made to use...

...various of the available sound feeds--mics for Drumpf and Pootie, translator(s?), and room mics for the press questions. I was wondering whether there may have been any other part of the audio that could have the spoken words be perceived differently depending on what audio track was used exactly where, and whether the WH may have taken advantage of that.

I do agree that no time is missing from the video. I compared the run time from a moment right at the start to a moment at the end, between the CNN video and the WH video, and they were exactly the same number of seconds.

I believe I heard Rachel Maddow say on her Wednesday evening program that the WH admitted that the reporter's question was not fully audible and they would adjust that (presumably with another one of the available sound feeds) in their archived copy, the "official" WH video that is currently posted had not yet been altered. And that could just be due to the WH Web support people having higher priority things to do.

Cheers!

[MyNameGoesHere]

38. They used a glitch to accidently

Misplace a piece of the Putin ass polishing by some peoples hero. People saw the tree fall in the forest. They heard it. A fucking tree fell. Why is this shit even posted? I couldn't, and I wouldn't, even 20 minutes after I am stone cold dead, enable these fuckers in any way. They don't get a pass.

[smirkymonkey]

43. Um, yeah, ok. Whatever.