Not literally. The cut to b-roll is still evident, so there’s a different perception (perhaps not a conscious one) on the part of the viewer when it comes to the on-camera clip from a given interview vs. the covered portion (VO/SOT) that there may not be continuity. In this case the editing occurs within the on-camera clip and is unacknowledged (unless you notice Houdini Jr., which ends up as confusing at worst and hilariously sloppy-looking at best)
Also, the “umms” and “errs” and pauses (and in the uncovered OC clip, the body language) aren’t wiped out as they are with this technology.
Agreed, and it will also provide truly bad actors who screw people over with the technology to say “well, mainstream media outlets do the same thing” when they’re caught. There’s no reason that the BBC, of all news organisations, has to use this lazy, corner-cutting tech. But it’s not much better when local Eyewitless News shops do it.
That kind of thing was a big no-no in my old shop. There’s an art to cutting a package, but the standard was to leave as much of a person’s usable statement in place (including "um"s – this is how most people talk) to get the point across before cutting to the next usable statement under whatever b-roll coverage was needed.*
A good reporter knows how to ask questions in a way that elicits enought distinct, useable, and at least semi-coherent statements/soundbites for the editor to cut together. If she doesn’t let the subject ramble during the interview it makes for cleaner cuts.
Yep. Media literacy, along with personal financial literacy, are left out of all too many American K-12 curricula. Civics education doesn’t seem to be a high priority, either. The powers that be like that just fine.
[* to be fair they were still using Beta and U-matic editing decks, which would have made such fine-toothed edits difficult. Digital has changed a lot in newsrooms, for better and worse.]
