Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Government Technology Politics

Viewing Tool Provides Scrutiny of Debate Footage 144

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the everything-under-a-magnifying-glass dept.
The New York Times has an interesting tool for reviewing the debate. Alongside the actual video, there is a transcription (which you can click on to go to that section of the video), a search tool (that counts the number of usages by each candidate), a topic segmentation view, and even a fact checker that links to corrections.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Viewing Tool Provides Scrutiny of Debate Footage

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    The Canadian English Language debates were just last night as well, you insensitive clod!

  • I will have to watch the debate again, but I'm pretty sure Palin referred to herself as a "maverick" at least once in the debate, but I cannot find it by using the tool to search for "maverick".
    • Probably, most of her responses were taken straight from John McCain's debate last week. I have to say I'm surprised that so many in the MSM seem to think she did a good job. Even the NPR coverage was favorable towards Palin. I thought she was extraordinarily stiff, and had to work really really hard to fit her scripted answers to Gwen Ifill's questions. She was hanging on for dear life.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by try_anything (880404)

        I have to say I'm surprised that so many in the MSM seem to think she did a good job.

        She set expectations so low. I didn't watch the debate, but my friends who did were really depressed afterwards, because they expected her to humiliate herself again. She delivered a controlled, heavily scripted, marginally competent performance, which is exactly what VP candidates are expected to do.

        Come to think of it, controlled, heavily scripted, and marginally competent is exactly what VP candidates are expected to

        • I watched some of the debate because I was expecting both of them to humiliate themselves. Biden is great at sticking his foot in his mouth and Palin keeps getting that deer in the headlights look. Once I realized both them were going to manage to stick to the script I flipped the channel.

        • Yes, but there's a pretty good chance that either of them will die (Obama by some racist asshole, McCain by being a hundred and twelve), so the VP is unusually important here.

          I thought Biden actually did better than Obama in the first presidential debate... but I digress.

          • by Bob-taro (996889)

            Yes, but there's a pretty good chance that either of them will die (Obama by some racist asshole, McCain by being a hundred and twelve), so the VP is unusually important here.

            Out of curiosity I looked up some actuarial tables on the web and calculated McCain's chances of dying in the next 4 years (based on averages - of course, being president would introduce factors that could skew the figure either way - i.e. he might get assassinated, he might succumb to stress, but then again he has bodyguards and probably much better medical care than most of us). Let's put it in positive terms and say that statistically he has a 85.5% chance of surviving 4 more years, and a 68.2% chance o

            • by Hatta (162192)

              Did those tables take into account the repeated melanomas McCain has had removed?

              • by sumdumass (711423)

                Melanoma, the type McCain had, isn't really life threatening in these days. They aren't non-serious but if found and put in check, there is nothing to really effect his life span. In fact, the previous experiences with it probably make him a better candidate to discover new problems and have them taken care of before they are life altering.

                But I like the fear in your comments. Show you to be a good soldier.

                • Melanoma is still a bad ass cancer. Yes, if you catch it before it goes too deep 1mm, you can be ok. However, having it four times, is really pushing the odds, because sometimes they are hard to spot.
                  Once melanoma has become metastatic (spread), is is usually 100% fatal within 6 months untreated, and 1 year if treated with some really, really harsh chemo (interferon, etc).

                  • by sumdumass (711423)

                    I don't think the 6 months and the 1 year numbers are still accurate. My mother had skin cancer and is in remission but she gets a special X-ray every 3-6 months that looks for it. It hasn't found any more for over 5 years. They are actually talking with her about getting scans even less now.

                    If you survive the first round with it, you have a better then normal chance of surviving the later rounds if any because it will be caught a lot sooner.

                    • by spineboy (22918)

                      I was talking about metastatic disease, for which those numbers are accurate. If your Mom had it, then they probably caught it BEFORE it spread. The scans are just surveillance to see IF it is metastasizing, on the possible assumption that maybe they did not get it all.

                    • by sumdumass (711423)

                      I know what you were talking about. We had discussed something along the lines of 2-4 years left to live with treatment unless somehow they eradicate everything. We talked about using a Gamma Knife and some of the impractical applications of it combined with Chemo and quite a bit of stuff. Of course I got second hand information from my mother who spent a good amount of time finding out exactly what she was dealing with seeing how it was possible to kill her. She comes from a medical background (RN, Physica

      • Mara Liasson(sp), NPR's political correspondent, carries water for the Right.

        Listen to the way she frames everything when dealing with the 2 campaigns. Her coverage is one of the major reasons I didn't contribute to NPR this year.

        • by Shotgun (30919)

          So you'll only contribute to NPR if they only hire correspondents that carry water for the Left?

          Well, at least we know why you're BitterAndDrunk.

      • So I'm not the only one who thought she usually couldn't form a coherent sentence when the discussion veered away from one of her scripts?

        Listen, Biden didn't do amazingly (he had trouble connecting his good ideas into a coherent thought) but whenever he stopped talking about his canned sentences, he could form a sentence. In fact, when he elaborated on the script, he did his best...

        I can't figure out why the MSM was so nice either. She didn't bomb, which is all they were hoping for, but I like my president

      • by geekoid (135745)

        Considering how low the bar of expectations has dropped from her previous media interview, it didn't take much for her to seem passable.

    • Try "mavericks" since she grouped herself with McCain.
    • As I recall, she used the phrase "we are the mavericks". And you won't be able to search the text in this tool. It's completely Flash-based.

      • Ah, nm. I just noticed the built-in search box. It claims two results for "mavericks", but only shows one. The text is: "And I've joined this team that is a team of mavericks..."

        • It claims two results for "mavericks",

          Interesting that a search for "maverick" doesn't turn up any of the "mavericks" matches. And the search box says to use anything 3 letters long or longer...

      • I'm figuring more out with this tool. (Nifty!) The other spot was: "A team of mavericks, of course we're not going to agree on 100 percent of everything."

      • by langelgjm (860756)

        CNN has a searchable, text-based transcript here [cnn.com].

        I count six "maverick" instances by Palin.

    • by mweather (1089505)
      Yep, she actually used the term "a team of mavericks".
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        Well, what's correct?

        - A "herd" of mavericks? Well, maybe.
        - A "gaggle" of maverics? No, that's for geese.
        - A "murder" of maverics? No, that's for crows.

        I suggest, an "oxymoron" of mavericks...
  • The fact checking is something I wish they would do live during the debate. Maybe a ticker at the bottom.

    Still, this is a step in the right direction!
    • by zehaeva (1136559)
      Even better if the candidates were called on the facts while still talking about them
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by schwaang (667808)

      Well factcheck.org [factcheck.org] gets their stuff out the next day, which is pretty good since they put together source material and also put the claims in the context of the whole campaign.

      • by TubeSteak (669689)

        Well factcheck.org gets their stuff out the next day, which is pretty good since they put together source material and also put the claims in the context of the whole campaign.

        I'd like to see the networks run a factcheck hour the day after [debate].

        They could play it straight or just put Stewart/Colbert on tv to try and draw in extra viewers with comedy.

      • by geekoid (135745)

        Yes, but tossing facts live during a debate would be all awesome!

  • by Hatta (162192) on Friday October 03, 2008 @02:43PM (#25250113) Journal

    No thanks, I already viewed those tools last night.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by $RANDOMLUSER (804576)

      No thanks, I already viewed those tools last night.

      Yeah. My folksyometer redlined about ten minutes in.

  • In summary (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 03, 2008 @03:25PM (#25250599)

    Flowchart of Palin's debate tactics [imageshack.us]

    The fact that it's so accurate actually stops me from laughing.

    • by Shotgun (30919)

      I stopped laughing when I realized that was all it took to beat down Biden. I started crying when I realized that Obama's was almost identical in the substance (replace hockey mom with change, and replace maverick with George Bush).

  • Which channel's footage does it use?

    I watched CBS's coverage in HD and saw the color balance change frequently when showing Biden, revealing the uneven patterning of makeup. It was worst when they did a split-screen presentation of Biden and Palin.

    I'll see about getting the section of transcript around the color balance changing back and forth to see if this tool also has affected video.

    • by geekoid (135745)

      Backing my argument that HD may fail becasue it is too good.
      Do we really need to see the makeup, hairs, zit's and vein count of people on TV?

      • by Shotgun (30919)

        No, especially when most of the closeups are of overweight football coaches.

        I was eating at a sports bar a few nights ago during a football game, which I usually avoid and haven't done in a long time. I wasn't used to HD TVs being everywhere, and it was most disgusting.

    • I watched CBS's coverage in HD and saw the color balance change frequently when showing Biden, revealing the uneven patterning of makeup. It was worst when they did a split-screen presentation of Biden and Palin.

      Ah yes, major flaws that completely ruined the vice presidential debate and overshadowed the actual substance and point of the whole charade. Horrible!

There are never any bugs you haven't found yet.

Working...