describe a clip that was edited for time seems a little off.
its the truth though
He's had multiple presspool code-of-conduct problems in the last year. I think this was just the most public so they're using it as the excuse.
so they doctor a video and call it "assault on a woman" ..............
even buzzfeed is calling it semantics because the clip tweeted was a gif - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/acosta-video-trump-cnn-aide-sarah-sanders
There's no evidence that the video was deliberately sped up — but the change in format, from a high-quality video to a low-quality GIF, turns the question of whether it was "doctored" into a semantic debate.
This video analysis by BuzzFeed News demonstrates what the GIF conversion process does to video. While it's not technically "sped up" by intent, it effectively is in practice. The video-to-GIF conversion removes frames from the source material by reducing the frame rate. The GIF-making tool GIF Brewery, for example, typically reduces source video to 10 frames per second. Raw, televised video typically has a frame rate of 29.97 frames per second.
Using the clip created by infowars was still a bad move, and using the gif format with no sound makes it look even worse. It also doesn't show the first two times she reached for it with her other hand.
edit: WH tweet in question - https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1060374680991883265
Both sides are in the wrong, but using "doctored" to describe a clip that was edited for time seems a little off. People shorten clips for time and for gif making all the time. There were 68 questions asked between 35 people in a 90 minute window. Each person was supposed to get about 2 mins and two questions about the election and what was happening with Sessions. Acosta already had three questions and was continuing to talk after being told multiple times to go to the next person. He's had multiple presspool code-of-conduct problems in the last year. I think this was just the most public so they're using it as the excuse.