Posted by Frank James at 1:52 pm CST
A conspiracy theorist in Chicago asked who controlled the camera shots during last night's State of the Union speech.
There must be some partisan agenda afoot with the camerawork, he suspected.
His suspicions were based on a particular moment during Bush's speech when broadcasters cut to audience-reaction shots, first showing appreciative Republicans standing and applauding the president, quickly following up with a shot of a seated and apparently underwhelmed Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY).
I called Tina Tate, director of the House Radio-TV Correspondents' Gallery, to find out who controls the cameras and the shot selection.
It turns out on State of the Union night, the networks bring in cameras which they control to broadcast the speech. One network is given the job of mounting and running the cameras and providing the images to the other networks. Last night, that happened to be CNN.
"What you saw on the five networks was the CNN, pool-produced feed with 10 cameras that they control and operate and choose the shots on," Tate said.
C-Span did what it usually does. It took the floor feed from the official House cameras and made that available to its viewers.
"So depending on what feed you're watching it's either controlled by the House or it's controlled by the networks themselves with total editorial judgment," Tate said.
The congressional employees who run the House-controlled cameras ultimately answer to the Speaker though they have latitude in terms of what shots to show, Tate said. The House-controlled cameras are essentially meant to provide a legislative record as much as anything, she said.
They really aren't intended to provide interesting television. So any dramatic, cut-away shots of individual lawmakers etc. seen last night were likely the handiwork of the CNN producers, not the House-controlled cameras, Tate said.
Sitting in the chamber last night, I could take in a lot broader canvas of audience reactions than the television viewer and I can assure you there were times when Clinton was up on her feet applauding the president.
One moment really stuck out. Bush said the Patriot Act should be re-authorized. While most Democrats sat with hands firmly in their laps as Republicans jumped to their feet to applaud, Clinton rose a bit more slowly, maybe tentatively, and applauded as well. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) who was seated next to her seemed to take his cue from her and rose to applaud as well.





Comments
"Clinton rose a bit more slowly, maybe tentatively, and applauded as well."
Which is why she will never get my vote. I don't vote Republican anymore, and I won't vote Repub-lite.
Posted by: Cheryl | February 1, 2006 2:50 PM
Wait a minute....are there people out there who actually think she is a genuine person?...c'mon.
ET
Posted by: Eric | February 1, 2006 3:33 PM
It's not like she has a chance to win anyway. Why can't we find someone in our party who can represent us as a whole? Or at least someone we can all rally behind. I mean look at Bush. Half the replublicans I know don't like him or his policies but they'd still vote for him again if they could. Now I know Democrats aren't republicans and we don't vote with our wallets but we need to figure something out find a common cause to stand behind.
Posted by: Greg | February 1, 2006 3:54 PM
Speaking of camera shots, who was the person standing next to Rahm Emanuel and wearing the Harry Potter scarf?
Posted by: Steve | February 1, 2006 4:09 PM
The Democrats have to find someone
who represents the majority.
Posted by: Paul | February 1, 2006 4:12 PM
Liberals are the most unhappy people in politics. They are miserable, and want everyone else to be as well. Hillary looking disrespecful is nothing more than her true colors. They believe their views are mainstream when they are not. She is not respectful of the president, nor is she respectful of the country in which she should be honored to serve.
Posted by: Robert | February 1, 2006 5:29 PM
The yawning German Shepherd was reflective of my viewing attention...It's all about "Spin".
Posted by: Eric | February 1, 2006 7:06 PM
Dem's don't vote with their wallets? Really? Then what was the Clinton era about in your expert opinion? I guess you'll have to ignore that his first election was swung thanks to the infamous "It's the economy, stupid" line and his impeachment averted thanks to fear that it would lead to the end of the 90's stock market boom.
Think before you type, please.
Posted by: Mike | February 1, 2006 7:12 PM
Robert,
A MAJORITY of Americans are unhappy with Bush, it isn't just some fringe liberal group.
http://www.newsdaily.com/TopNews/UPI-1-20060109-18331900-bc-us-cnnpoll.xml
And please knock it off with this business about liberals wanting everyone to be miserable.
That's kind of like me saying the neocons want America to get hit with another terrorist attack just so Bush's approval ratings go up, and so that he can seize some more power.
Posted by: Karl B. | February 1, 2006 11:35 PM
"and his impeachment averted"....Clinton was impeached. The House impeached him, but the Senate did not convict. Maybe you ought to think first as well.
Posted by: Rob | February 1, 2006 11:45 PM
Liberals are the most unhappy people in politics. They are miserable, and want everyone else to be as well...
What BS! If this is what passes for insight, please spare us.
She is not respectful of the president...
This is not a president in the traditional sense. he was appointed by a partisan court after much illegality in Florida, he was given Ohio in '04 when, once again, the exit polls seemed to indicate the Diebold rather than the American public wanted bush in office. Yet, Robert, you seem quite content to surrender your freedoms to a mediocre man with desires on being a king. No patriot would so easily give up his freedoms. If you wish to be a grateful slave, do it quietly please?
Posted by: bigdaddy | February 2, 2006 7:29 AM
Yes, Hillary showed her true colors.
You forgot to mention her body language!
PLEASE, don't roll your eye anymore, and how about a real clap.
Even my 10 year old daughter said, "What's her problem?".
Posted by: Gregg | February 2, 2006 8:00 AM
Jeb is shredding Abramoff documents (ref. Rock River Times) and Cheney is shredding Plame documents (ref NY Daily News) but Hillary Clinton shouldn't be President?
After all, she only devoted most of her professional life to the Children's Defense Fund, and tried to provide health care coverage to all Americans. No wonder people hate her so much.
Maybe we should renominate Al Gore so he can once again forbid Senators from signing a House objection to a stolen election, or John Kerry who couldn't even hold out 24 hours before leaving John Edwards and the American people twisting in the wind?
As for you Bush defenders, 5 years from now when you realize how low your standard of living has become because of the ruthless policies of this President, remember this moment.
Yeah, the men are doing such a great job - why nominate a woman?
Posted by: Martha | February 2, 2006 8:20 AM
The whole idea of Hillary running for Presifdent is basically the hype of the GOP supported by Faux News and the rest of the MSM. Any time the GOP runs short of money, they yell "Hillary is running for President!!!!", and Jack Abramoff and his cronies run to them with checks. Bush and his friends should be more concerned with this year's election, and his impeachment once the Dems take back the House.
Posted by: Bob Seelig | February 2, 2006 8:22 AM
A CNN Anti-Hillary conspiracy? What a joke. CNN did not cover the Los Angeles trial of Hillary's finance director David Rosen in May, 2005, for the election fraud that won Hillary her Senate seat. CNN, like all the mainstream media, did not cover the significance of Hillary's Senate campaign treasurer's recent admission, in an FEC settlement on December 13, 2005, (www.hillcap.org), that he filed false FEC reports hiding more than $720,000 in contributions I made to Hillary's campaign.
Much more significant than a runaway lobbyist's excesses in seducing Congressmen with gratuities is the role Hillary and President Clinton played in obstructing the FBI investigation that led to the indictment and trial of the lowest functionary in her campaign, for crimes now admitted by her most senior campaign finance official, Andrew Grossman! Is that refusal to report on a major development in an election fraud scandal linked to Hillary and Bill Clinton part of the anti-Hillary conspiracy??
Posted by: peter paul | February 2, 2006 8:59 AM
A CNN Anti-Hillary conspiracy? What a joke. CNN did not cover the Los Angeles trial of Hillary's finance director David Rosen in May, 2005, for the election fraud that won Hillary her Senate seat. CNN, like all the mainstream media, did not cover the significance of Hillary's Senate campaign treasurer's recent admission, in an FEC settlement on December 13, 2005, (www.hillcap.org), that he filed false FEC reports hiding more than $720,000 in contributions I made to Hillary's campaign.
Much more significant than a runaway lobbyist's excesses in seducing Congressmen with gratuities is the role Hillary and President Clinton played in obstructing the FBI investigation that led to the indictment and trial of the lowest functionary in her campaign, for crimes now admitted by her most senior campaign finance official, Andrew Grossman! Is that refusal to report on a major development in an election fraud scandal linked to Hillary and Bill Clinton part of the anti-Hillary conspiracy??
Posted by: peter paul | February 2, 2006 9:00 AM
Mike,
The line "it's the economy stupid" had nothing to do with trying to solidify their already Democratic base. Yes, the economy was shot at the time, but they were trying to get those independent swing voters and the Republicans that were unhappy with George I's economic policies. It was more directed at them, than at the Dems that were going to vote for him anyway.
And on top of that, his great economic policies were not what got his base to vote for him the first time around. How did the Dems know he would definitely turn the economy around? As for the second-term, maybe it had something more to do with it, but we were in a better spot financially as a nation, and people wanted to stay with the status quo. That does not really = Dems voting with their wallet. There was prosperity everywhere, not just the economy.
Yes, Dems DO handle the economy better, but they aren't the party "known" for that, so people who THINK they are voting with their wallet, tend to vote Republican, because that's the propaganda that's been associated with the Republican Party. Dems are known as the party of "taxes", despite evidence to the contrary.
Maybe you should take your own advice, and think before you type.
As for Robert,
I'm sorry, but just having the title "President" does not mean I, or the officials elected by me, have to show repsect for him. President's earn my respect. Bush had mine immediately after 9/11 - but lost it due to his own actions. I would never stand up for him, because he does not deserve it.
And Hillary most certainly is honored to serve her country, her distaste for the President has nothing to do with how she does her job - and outside of the war in Iraq - I think she does the job that her constituents voted for her to do. And by questioning the President on his policies, rather than rubber-stamping everything he wants, she is fulfilling her promise to the constituents. Unlike the Republicans who don't know their job is to provide a "check and balance" to the President and not allow him to get away with every damn thing he wants - look how far that's gotten us.
Posted by: Janie | February 2, 2006 9:03 AM
The Republican rhetoric and slander of Sen. Hillary Clinton is a disgrace. It's just another example of the power the Bush administration has over the media. And that is the scariest part about it, when you control the media you control the minds of otherwise intelligent people.
Posted by: Rory M | February 2, 2006 10:30 AM
Hey Democrats, Here come Barack Obama. Cliff
Posted by: cliff zeider | February 2, 2006 11:47 AM
Hey, Who was that Black Lady the Democrats made go to the back , so Sen Ried could have the seat in the front row. Shame on the Sen.
Posted by: cliff zeider | February 2, 2006 12:03 PM
Hey, Who was that Black Lady the Democrats made go to the back , so Sen Ried could have the seat in the front row. Shame on the Sen.
Posted by: cliff zeider | February 2, 2006 12:03 PM
I am delighted to see some of networks get off the Hillary High. She has never been worth it and never will be.
Posted by: B | February 2, 2006 12:40 PM
Why would the cameras even focus on Hilary?
What a waste of time.
Posted by: Ron | February 2, 2006 3:28 PM
THe Anglo Saxon White Male Protestant is afraid of dear ole Hillary. She is the matriarch of the political arena .. an intelligent female which is especially threatening to a male dominated political playing field... but those in office with balls could not play the game without getting hurt ANYWAY....
Posted by: makesenseofit | February 2, 2006 4:50 PM
Leftwing CNN, the "Clinton News Network", anti-Clinton?
Posted by: Bruce | February 2, 2006 4:57 PM
the immediate impact Hillary has on the media and the people makes those concerned shiver..
she has charisma, intelligence, charm, personality, and the ability to communicate very well .. a scary combination for many .. and especially for a woman on a mission to be president of the U.S.
Posted by: ron | February 2, 2006 5:02 PM
It wasn't just at this year's SOTU. Every single major speech President Bush has made in front of both houses of Congress has been witness to Sen. Clinton rolling her eyes or generally looking like she knew better than everyone in the room. There is no conspiracy, just a regular pattern of behavior.
Posted by: Nancy | February 2, 2006 6:57 PM
It is conservatives who are the fringe minority in this country. (They only win b/c the media is run by them.) The Conservatives believe in an economic agenda in which a wealthy few may do whatever they please to make money (so what if you die or don't get school funding, etc..) a social/moral agenda that morphs the Taliban, and a foreign policy agenda rooted in perpetual war to ensure corporate profits.
Most Americans don't agree with conservatives on anything. Once enough Democrats ignore the corporate media and simply speak from the hearts, the Republican party will cease to exist and the American Dream will be restored.
Posted by: big dave from queens | February 2, 2006 9:26 PM
Even if Hil isn't your cup of tea, one
thing she isn't is afraid. She has stood
against alot of fellas.( Some scare me on
a daily basis.) Hillary has been around
since Nixon. So she's seen the likes of
our current occupant of the White House
before. CNN? They mess with Hillary at
their own peril(If they are even savvy
enough to know what they are doing) I
have seen and heard alot from CNN that
if it was print they would be writing
retractions.Maybe some people don't
like the former lawyer/First lady/Senator.
In addition to being unafraid of
CNN perhaps she's more qualified to be
President than say someone who misleads
even about the part about being a uniter
not a divider.
Posted by: sharon | February 2, 2006 9:57 PM
As Bruce said, CNN - Clinton News Network.
Attention liberals - the reason you lose elections is not due to conspiracy. It is due to your lack of new ideas and the failure of your policies - Public housing, welfare, appeasement, etc.
Posted by: David Kaplan | February 2, 2006 10:17 PM
the fact that everyone here is hung up on what Hillary should have done or whether she disrespects the President is nonsense. Worry about Hillary when she runs for President and in the meantime just listen to George W.'s speech. Why does there always have to be a conspiracy. Maybe the 15 dollar an hour camera guy wasn't doing his job right. Or maybe, just maybe, CNN and the rest of the networks just want everyone to get hung up on this so they can increase viewers. Worry about your kids doing their homework properly. Worry about how your job is going. Worry about your mothers, your fathers, and your community watch programs. Worry about the things you can control, not the things you can't. Vote for who you like, but don't get hung up on the stupid things.
Posted by: Figureitout | February 3, 2006 1:35 AM
Frankly, it looked to me that she was doing all she could to keep from gagging or vomiting at the smell of the crap coming from the Shrub on the podium.
Posted by: George Lester | February 3, 2006 5:05 AM
IT'S TIMES LIKE THESE WHEN I AM ASHAMED TO BE AN AMERICAN....WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE. YOU SEEM TO BE LIVING IN THE SAME BUBBLE JC WATTS WAS IN WHEN HE SAID THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS 4.5%....WHERE? NOT IS THE MIDWEST....NOT IN ILLINOIS...NOT IN CHICAGO. THINGS ARE BAD OUT HERE AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT TYPE OF SPIN THE REPUBLICANS TRY TO PUT ON IT. DID YOU HEAR BUSH TALK ABOUT IMMIGRANT WORKERS. WHO STARTED THIS LIE ABOUT THEM WORKING JOBS AMERICANS DON'T WANT? (OH YEAH IT WAS THE MEXICAN PRESIDENT) AND BUSH RAN WITH IT IN HIS SPEECH. WHERE IS THE GREAT ECONOMY I HEAR REPUBLICANS SPEAK OF? OH I FORGOT THAT'S ONLY IF YOU MAKE 150K OR MORE A YEAR RIGHT?
Posted by: YOLY | February 3, 2006 12:44 PM