Posted on 09/11/2008 4:47:53 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
I just finished watching this interview, and I was quite impressed by Gov Palin. Charlie Gibson was totally inappropriate in the way he asked questions. He was arrogant, swarmy, and acted as if he was angry with Gov. Palin.
Why should she never have agreed to it? The only way she can demonstrate the grace under pressure that she showed tonight is if she's put up against less-than-considerate interviewers.
Yeah, but what of all us single guys that wish she were still available?
They cannot show her face, because then you will know that they are editing the recorded audio of the video. I know, because I've directed, produced, and edited video of conversations.
It's called "cutaways" or "cover" when they show video of something/someone other than who is actually speaking. Virtually every time that they don't show her speaking, they are editing the audio under the video. Believe me, every time.
If they weren't, they would just show the person speaking. It's much easier and less time consuming than doing a lot of audio editing. Editing can be done for purely innocuous reasons, such as tightening up the blank spaces in the dialog. Or it can be done to "put words in someone's mouth" that weren't actually said the way it looks. Sentences from several different times can be edited in the audio to sound like they were actually said by the person at the same time.
For instance, if she said, "I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good" in one part of the interview in response to a specific question, then said "if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready" as a response to a different question, then said "That, in my world view, is a grand -- the grand plan" in a different part of the interview and then as response to another questions said, "I don't know if the task is from God", they could edit those [actually spoken by Palin] lines to get:
Gibson: "And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade."
Palin [video of Gibson, Palin's voice under video]: "I believe that there is a plan for this world...[edit] a grand -- the grand plan... [edit] we [edit] will be ready, [edit] the task is from God."
This is not hard to do... in fact very trivial for a good editor to do and in fact is done virtually all the time in movies and... dare I say, teevee interviews.
I've had to piece different lines together like that when I had an actor who couldn't get his lines out coherently. If you can't see the person who is talking's lips, you can't tell what they are saying. This is exactly why and how the talking head interviews are edited together. They record hours of conversation, then edit it down to a few minutes, using cutaways and cover over the audio edits. So again, you can always be sure that if you don't see the person's face who is doing the speaking, their lines are being edited. For the good or for the bad.
[Fact: in the movies and teevee shows, even if you can see the actor's face and lips moving, the audio that you hear may actually not be them speaking at that time. It may be audio that was recorded later in a sound studio or "looped" and then inserted into the video later. This is done because extraneous sounds were recorded along with the dialog, the audio was bad or not recorded well, or if the actors couldn't be miked to get good audio, such as long shots with dialog. If you've ever seen a movie or teevee show being produced and edited behind the scenes, you'll never look at any such program in the same way, ever again!!! It is ALL illusion. I could put just about any words in your mouth that I wanted if I had the time and money to do so... and don't you think ABC has all that and the technical capability? And desire to do so?]
Very interesting. Thank you for the insider info!
In movies that is definitely; in television, historically, not so much, although improvements in editing systems have cause television production to be much closer to movie production than was the case 30 years ago.
Historically, video has often been produced in comparatively real time, using a live mix. An operator would switch between cameras while the output of the switch was recorded continuously on tape. Individual takes would often be ten minutes or longer; if, eight minutes into a take, an actor flubbed a line so badly that the take was ruined, the entire eight minutes would often have to be rerecorded.
Movies, and television programs shot on film, are often done completely differently: there is one camera, and every change of camera angle implies a switch to a different take. If a scene features two people talking, and cuts between over-the-head shots of the two people and a master shot that shows both, a typical method of shooting would be:
Personally, I would like to see pre-recorded television interviews feature a picture-in-picture wide shot view, including a clock. While there may be legitimate reasons to edit an interview (e.g. to delete a question that both parties agree goes nowhere), having the wide-shot view and the clock would help ensure that things were actually as they appeared. Such a format would even be useful for "cheat-proofing" live broadcasts, since it would make it harder to sabotage someone's performance with camera angles and off-camera distractions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.