Presidential Debates Discussion Thread

[JJ Husker]

^ Must not have ever heard of white balance before.

Found this interesting. Normally not a source I would cite but, if you watched the debate last night, you probably noticed this....I sure did. It's definitely worth a look if you think what is being presented to you by the media is not being manipulated.

http://libertynews.com/2016/10/busted-debate-camera-crew-caught-rigging-hillarys-appearance-using-camera-filters/?Ref_ID=38253

So the implication is that a supposed camera filter impacted the outcome of this debate?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*cough*

*SNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIFFF*

*cough*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Um, no.

(Edit for clarification--I'm laughing at the source site, not JJ).

I took another look at that site. They made no implication whatsoever that this impacted the outcome of this debate. They simply reported on the extremely obvious hue differential between Trump and Clinton. Their only implication was that the media was trying to rig the candidates appearance to aid Hillary.

You guys can snort, chuckle and guffaw all you want. If you're satisfied with media outlets subliminally affecting peoples perception of candidates, I must say I'm a little disappointed in you. Do you also like it when somebody pisses on you and tells you it's raining? I know I'm quite a bit older than most here but it used to be that these guys would report the news and events, as they really happened, and they made some effort in letting the people decipher what that meant for themselves. Either this was done on purpose to portray Hillary in a better light (no pun intended) than Trump or it was an honest mistake that somebody would have to explain to me how that happens. My first thought when I saw HRC in that debate was, hey she looks a hell of lot better than normal, she must have been in makeup for about 3 days prior to this shindig. Then I found out her image was being enhanced and Trumps was not. I could give a rip less about which person it harmed or helped or really even if it helped in this particular debate. The point is, the people who are presenting this information to normal everyday citizens are being dishonest with them. I don't like being lied to, apparently you guys do. Or, maybe you're just more comfortable with it since it's pretty much been happening your whole lives and you don't know any better.

I don't know the entire back story here - but it's quite possible that part of her negotiation was to have a filter on her during these debates. Wouldn't be unusual, and that very well would be something Trump and his advisors or whomever was negotiating for the debates had no idea to ask for.

Thank you. That is a reasonable and possible explanation. We all know Trump's people can't handle the simplest things. They sure as heck probably wouldn't know if requesting a filter was an option or they would have tried defeating that orange tint a long time ago.

 

[Mierin]

^ Must not have ever heard of white balance before.

Found this interesting. Normally not a source I would cite but, if you watched the debate last night, you probably noticed this....I sure did. It's definitely worth a look if you think what is being presented to you by the media is not being manipulated.

http://libertynews.com/2016/10/busted-debate-camera-crew-caught-rigging-hillarys-appearance-using-camera-filters/?Ref_ID=38253

So the implication is that a supposed camera filter impacted the outcome of this debate?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*cough*

*SNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIFFF*

*cough*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Um, no.

(Edit for clarification--I'm laughing at the source site, not JJ).

I took another look at that site. They made no implication whatsoever that this impacted the outcome of this debate. They simply reported on the extremely obvious hue differential between Trump and Clinton. Their only implication was that the media was trying to rig the candidates appearance to aid Hillary.

You guys can snort, chuckle and guffaw all you want. If you're satisfied with media outlets subliminally affecting peoples perception of candidates, I must say I'm a little disappointed in you. Do you also like it when somebody pisses on you and tells you it's raining? I know I'm quite a bit older than most here but it used to be that these guys would report the news and events, as they really happened, and they made some effort in letting the people decipher what that meant for themselves. Either this was done on purpose to portray Hillary in a better light (no pun intended) than Trump or it was an honest mistake that somebody would have to explain to me how that happens. My first thought when I saw HRC in that debate was, hey she looks a hell of lot better than normal, she must have been in makeup for about 3 days prior to this shindig. Then I found out her image was being enhanced and Trumps was not. I could give a rip less about which person it harmed or helped or really even if it helped in this particular debate. The point is, the people who are presenting this information to normal everyday citizens are being dishonest with them. I don't like being lied to, apparently you guys do. Or, maybe you're just more comfortable with it since it's pretty much been happening your whole lives and you don't know any better.

I don't think they're laughing that it happened. I think they don't think it happened. Or at least don't think it was done purposely. Also, Red Five wrote "Each channel had a slightly different hue. On a couple Trump looked very white. On others, he looked his normal orange. Now that could have been the TVs as well."

It's also possible that Hillary looked awful on camera because everything was all white and they adjusted the contrast. Which might be something they'd do for an anchor without thinking.

 

[JJ Husker]

^ Must not have ever heard of white balance before.

Found this interesting. Normally not a source I would cite but, if you watched the debate last night, you probably noticed this....I sure did. It's definitely worth a look if you think what is being presented to you by the media is not being manipulated.

http://libertynews.com/2016/10/busted-debate-camera-crew-caught-rigging-hillarys-appearance-using-camera-filters/?Ref_ID=38253

So the implication is that a supposed camera filter impacted the outcome of this debate?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*cough*

*SNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIFFF*

*cough*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Um, no.

(Edit for clarification--I'm laughing at the source site, not JJ).

I took another look at that site. They made no implication whatsoever that this impacted the outcome of this debate. They simply reported on the extremely obvious hue differential between Trump and Clinton. Their only implication was that the media was trying to rig the candidates appearance to aid Hillary.

You guys can snort, chuckle and guffaw all you want. If you're satisfied with media outlets subliminally affecting peoples perception of candidates, I must say I'm a little disappointed in you. Do you also like it when somebody pisses on you and tells you it's raining? I know I'm quite a bit older than most here but it used to be that these guys would report the news and events, as they really happened, and they made some effort in letting the people decipher what that meant for themselves. Either this was done on purpose to portray Hillary in a better light (no pun intended) than Trump or it was an honest mistake that somebody would have to explain to me how that happens. My first thought when I saw HRC in that debate was, hey she looks a hell of lot better than normal, she must have been in makeup for about 3 days prior to this shindig. Then I found out her image was being enhanced and Trumps was not. I could give a rip less about which person it harmed or helped or really even if it helped in this particular debate. The point is, the people who are presenting this information to normal everyday citizens are being dishonest with them. I don't like being lied to, apparently you guys do. Or, maybe you're just more comfortable with it since it's pretty much been happening your whole lives and you don't know any better.

I don't think they're laughing that it happened. I think they don't think it happened. Or at least don't think it was done purposely. Also, Red Five wrote "Each channel had a slightly different hue. On a couple Trump looked very white. On others, he looked his normal orange. Now that could have been the TVs as well."

It's also possible that Hillary looked awful on camera because everything was all white and they adjusted the contrast. Which might be something they'd do for an anchor without thinking.

Well I'm pretty sure it did happen. I only watched it my tv and there was a definite hue difference depending on which candidate was on camera. There were a few times where they both were in frame. When it was just Hillary, her pantsuit was severely cream (off white-almost yellow). When she was in the background of a Trump shot, it was white white. But maybe it was like NM said and she negotiated that filter. I know they do have crazy lists of demands.

 

[Landlord]

or it was an honest mistake that somebody would have to explain to me how that happens.

Cameras have something called white balance that determines the color temperature of the image (the goal being so that pure white is pure white and not slightly orange or blue). Color temps are dependent on a million things and not the easiest thing in the world to sync up perfectly in a multi-camera broadcast.

 

[JJ Husker]

or it was an honest mistake that somebody would have to explain to me how that happens.

Cameras have something called white balance that determines the color temperature of the image (the goal being so that pure white is pure white and not slightly orange or blue). Color temps are dependent on a million things and not the easiest thing in the world to sync up perfectly in a multi-camera broadcast.

And that seems plausible as well. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist so I was hoping there would be some possible innocent explanations. I'm still not convinced it wasn't done purposely to influence people's perception but at least it may not have been and there are some other options of how it could've come about. It was weird though. The candidate's appearance is not something I normally pay much attention to, and for sure not hue differences like that. But I commented to my wife a few times how much better than usual Hillary looked and that Trump was his usual self and that he should hire better makeup people. Even with purposeful hue manipulation, she had some miracle work done on her face and neck. Not a line or crease to be had. Almost to wax museum degree. It didn't really register on debate night but I did also comment how her pant suit had seemed to change color. I guess when the substance is off putting, we find other things to pay attention to.

 

[NM11046]

Its so funny you mention how bad Trump's looked - I read an artical today that said he has refused all offers for make up assistance from tv people - he "has his own". The article went in to say how inconsistent they are w/his looks; the tanning booth circles from the goggles under his eyes are fixable etc. They compared it to when Nixon tried to wear pan make up to hide his 5o'clock shadow when he debated Kennedy on tv and it melted when he started sweating.

Hillary on the other hand has had help since getting beat up early on in the white house - around the same time as the "stay at home and bake cookies" comment. She really has turned it up a notch for the convention/debates etc.