Re:Dawkins and increase in information

Glenn R. Morton (grmorton@waymark.net)
Wed, 30 Sep 1998 17:48:27 -0500

At 09:49 AM 9/30/98 -0700, Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
>Glenn: You wrote
>
>>>Now, Gillian (whom I am sure will eventually get this note) admitted the
>>>editing, and I deplored it and told her so, precisely because it undermines
>>>HER credibility! She could have informed the reader that the narrator was
>>>repeating a question, but they went to some length to make it look like the
>>>narrator was facing Dawkins. That in and of itself is a deception in my
>>>book although others, including Gillian, say it is common practice in the
>>>video world. I will go to my grave thinking that that practice is unwise.
>
>I guess you must never have been involved in the production of a video or
>seen how documentaries are made. There are always two cameras at least,
>and the two are mixed in the video to give the impression that the camera
>is switching positions, but in fact the segments have to be edited
>together. Unless someone has deliberately done something to put words in
>anothers mouth, the practice is absolutely necessary.

No, I have never been involved in putting together a video, nor am I ever
likely to be. I want to stress this. this was not a case of editing
together 2 different camera angles of the same room. It was a case of
editing the tape of Dawkins in England with a tape of a narrator videoed in
Australia. That is an entirely different state of affairs than what you
describe. The only thing tha mollified me a bit was that the audio of
Gillian asking Dawkin's the question were exactly repeated by the Narrator
in Australia.

One curious thing when first began talking to Gillian, I don't recall her
mentioning a second camera. Her reply to the skeptic article mentions a
second camera. That was a surprise to me, because she said something about
it showing the unedited interview with the question and the time period
after Dawkins asked that the tape be turned off. I would of course
encourage Gillian to produce that video since it would support her case.
But it appears that everyone's memory improves with age.

You have never seen
>a documentary in your life that was professionally made that did not have
>exactly this kind of editing done deliberately and constantly. Of course,
>in Hollywood, it is more extreme. One party may go through all their
>speaking lines without the other person even being present, the the other
>person does likewise and the two segments are edited together...but then
>that is hollywood....

And that is what happened in the Frog video. The narrator and Dawkins
never met eyeball to eyeball

>
>>>But to conclude. Christians are supposed to be moral. I don't think
>>>doctoring tapes without alerting the viewer is moral. Do you?
>
>You cannot call inserting a questioner asking a question that was not
>captured on tape doctoring. If you do so, you exclude every professionally
>produced documentary. There was no intent on the part of the producers to
>deceive the audience that I (or you, apparently) could detect.

You have not followed what I have been saying. The question was on the
audio tape and supposedly Gillian's voice was on the original unedited video.

glenn

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm