Video Recordings, Downloads and Streaming

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Struggling to Understand TV Dialogue? Join the Club.

      by

      More from our inbox:Airbrushing Older ModelsHaley’s Raised HandSea Life in CaptivityDerek AbellaTo the Editor: Re “Huh? What? There Are Ways to Improve the Sound on Your TV?” (Business, Aug. 18):As an American expat, I got a good chuckle out of Brian X. Chen’s article about poor dialogue sound quality in streaming. The premise, that using subtitles is a terrible inconvenience that diminishes one’s enjoyment of video entertainment, is one of those peculiarly American complaints that seem bizarre to many people overseas.In Chinese-speaking areas and other parts of East Asia, the wide variety of languages, accents and usages can make it tough to comprehend dialogue regardless of sound quality, so video nearly always comes with subtitles, whether it’s on TV, in a movie theater or online. Nobody here seems to mind.Indeed, the people in Malaysia who build the Sonos equipment that Mr. Chen praised must be thrilled that Americans will spend $900 on soundbars to avoid those irritating subtitles.Michael P. ClarkeTaoyuan City, TaiwanTo the Editor:We do not have to bring speakers to a movie theater to watch a movie and we should not have to put speakers on our TV sets to enjoy a television show. Modern television sets should come with high-resolution pictures and high-quality, audible sound. The quality of the sound is as important as the quality of the picture. We should not have to buy soundbars.Bill ChastainNew YorkTo the Editor:I’ve used closed captioning for a while now, not only because the sound quality on streaming services is far from as good as it should be but also because programs produced in England — many of the shows on PBS, which I like — use a lot of slang and hard-to-understand dialects.But a major problem is that some of the streaming services, like Netflix, have closed captions that are far from helpful. They come on well before or well after the spoken words, and too often they flash on so fast that it is impossible to read the entire line of dialogue.Michael SpielmanWellfleet, Mass.To the Editor:Brian X. Chen suggests that we can hear the dialogue in movies and television shows better by installing new equipment. Along with the attempts at improvements made by directors and sound mixers, producers might insist upon better diction from the actors.I’ve noticed this slurring and breathy quality in stage performers, too. Perhaps Broadway shows need closed captioning?Lawrence RaikenQueensAirbrushing Older ModelsRafael Pavarotti/VogueTo the Editor: Re “Do Supermodels Age, or Get Airbrushed Instead?” (Sunday Styles, Aug. 20):The timing couldn’t be more prescient. Just as Greta Gerwig’s irreverent blockbuster “Barbie” is sweeping theaters around the world, Vogue has released its iconic September issue featuring the likes of America’s supermodels — Linda Evangelista, 58, Cindy Crawford, 57, Christy Turlington, 54, and Naomi Campbell, 53 — on its cover.As Vanessa Friedman aptly remarks, they are “paragons of mature beauty whose years have seemingly been smoothed from their faces,” which “look so retouched that they seem more like A.I.-generated bots than actual people.” A Vogue spokeswoman claimed there was only “minimal retouching.” We know better.Although we can surely applaud Vogue’s decision to feature 50-something models on its cover, “retouching” them is perpetuating a big lie. It is, in effect, “Barbiefying” them. Barbie was the icon that fed upon young girls’ feelings of inadequacy. Now older women can gaze at Vogue’s cover and feel inadequate too. Thank you, Vogue.If Vogue, “the fashion Bible,” had elected not to retouch these mature beauties, it would have been a truly groundbreaking event. Certainly a missed opportunity.Thank you, Vanessa Friedman, for speaking truth to Vogue. As Ms. Gerwig’s Barbie comes to realize, “It’s time to change the Constitution.”Elizabeth LangerNew YorkThe writer is a co-founder of the Women’s Rights Law Reporter, the first U.S. journal devoted to women and the law.To the Editor:I laughed this morning reading Vanessa Friedman’s column at the silliness of an article criticizing the airbrushing of aging models. The fashion industry runs on unrealistic representations of beauty. Why should those standards be different for older models?I’ve attended fashion shoots where young models had terrible acne that was ultimately airbrushed out. It seems that, no matter how young or beautiful a model is, there’s almost always flattering lighting and image manipulation. The industry runs on fantasy.So, whether or not older models have their wrinkles airbrushed seems irrelevant if everything is unrealistic. This is commerce. They aren’t profiling women curing cancer. At least now they’re democratizing fashion to allow older women to put their best selves forward, too.I hope they can continue to do that without being criticized for tricks of the trade. I think focusing on airbrushing undermines how great it is that Vogue is keeping women over 50 relevant.Jenifer VogtDobbs Ferry, N.Y.Haley’s Raised HandJoe Buglewicz for The New York TimesTo the Editor: Re “Nikki Haley Is the Best Alternative to Trump,” by David Brooks (column, Aug. 25):Wednesday night’s Republican debate persuaded Mr. Brooks that Nikki Haley is the best alternative to Donald Trump. Yet while Mr. Brooks makes a convincing case that Ms. Haley is a preferable candidate to Mike Pence, Ron DeSantis and especially Vivek Ramaswamy, he fails to address the fact that Ms. Haley, along with every other candidate on the stage except Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson, raised her hand when asked if she would support Mr. Trump if he is convicted of one or more felonies and is the Republican nominee.I would ask Mr. Brooks how Ms. Haley’s raised hand shows that she is “one of the few candidates who understands that to run against Trump you have to run against Trump”? And should that not, by itself, render her unfit to become the next president of the United States?David A. BarryCambridge, Mass.Sea Life in CaptivityLolita during a performance at the Miami Seaquarium in 1995. She has been in captivity since 1970.Nuri Vallbona/Miami Herald, via Associated PressTo the Editor: Re “Lolita the Orca, Mainstay of Miami Seaquarium for 50 Years, Dies,” by Jesus Jiménez (news article, nytimes.com, Aug. 18):I know I am not alone in grieving the tragedy of the kidnapping of this orca, also known as Tokitae, her decades spent in captivity, and her untimely death just when freedom and the possibility of being reunited with her family in the Salish Sea were close enough to touch. Her sorrowful life story hurts all the more because our human collective doesn’t seem to have learned a thing from it.Orcas remain endangered and continue to struggle to hear each other and catch dwindling salmon in polluted waters that are choking with boat noise from unceasing human commercial and recreational activity. Worse, the captive industry carries on, including in Seattle, which is intent upon building a shiny new shark tank to imprison even more animals.My hope is that Tokitae’s death will galvanize support against the captivity industry locally and beyond, and serve as a beacon of hope for other beings languishing in tanks simply so that they can be ogled by humans. Let’s honor Tokitae and her bereaved family by ensuring that nobody else has to suffer similarly.Stephanie C. BellSeaTac, Wash. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      YouTube Restores Donald Trump’s Account Privileges

      by

      The Google-owned video platform became the latest of the big social networks to reverse the former president’s account restrictions.YouTube suspended former President Donald J. Trump’s account on the platform six days after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The video platform said it was concerned that Mr. Trump’s lies about the 2020 election could lead to more real-world violence.YouTube, which is owned by Google, reversed that decision on Friday, permitting Mr. Trump to once again upload videos to the popular site. The move came after similar decisions by Twitter and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.“We carefully evaluated the continued risk of real-world violence, while balancing the chance for voters to hear equally from major national candidates in the run up to an election,” YouTube said on Twitter on Friday. Mr. Trump’s account will have to comply with the site’s content rules like any other account, YouTube added.After false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen circulated online and helped stoke the Jan. 6 attack, social media giants suspended Mr. Trump’s account privileges. Two years later, the platforms have started to soften their content rules. Under Elon Musk’s ownership, Twitter has unwound many of its content moderation efforts. YouTube recently laid off members of its trust and safety team, leaving one person in charge of setting political misinformation policies.Mr. Trump announced in November that he was seeking a second term as president, setting off deliberations at social media companies over whether to allow him back on their platforms. Days later, Mr. Musk polled Twitter users on whether he should reinstate Mr. Trump, and 52 percent of respondents said yes. Like YouTube, Meta said in January that it was important that people hear what political candidates are saying ahead of an election.The former president’s reinstatement is one of the first significant content decisions that YouTube has taken under its new chief executive, Neal Mohan, who got the top job last month. YouTube also recently loosened its profanity rules so that creators who used swear words at the start of a video could still make money from the content.YouTube’s announcement on Friday echoes a pattern of the company and its parent Google making polarizing content decisions after a competitor has already taken the same action. YouTube followed Meta and Twitter in suspending Mr. Trump after the Capitol attack, and in reversing the bans.Since losing his bid for re-election in 2020, Mr. Trump has sought to make a success of his own social media service, Truth Social, which is known for its loose content moderation rules.Mr. Trump on Friday posted on his Facebook page for the first time since his reinstatement. “I’M BACK!” Mr. Trump wrote, alongside a video in which he said, “Sorry to keep you waiting. Complicated business. Complicated.”Despite his Twitter reinstatement, Mr. Trump has not returned to posting from that account.In his last tweet, dated Jan. 8, 2021, he said he would not attend the coming inauguration, held at the Capitol. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Political Campaigns Flood Streaming Video With Custom Voter Ads

      by

      The targeted political ads could spread some of the same voter-influence techniques that proliferated on Facebook to an even less regulated medium.Over the last few weeks, tens of thousands of voters in the Detroit area who watch streaming video services were shown different local campaign ads pegged to their political leanings.Digital consultants working for Representative Darrin Camilleri, a Democrat in the Michigan House who is running for State Senate, targeted 62,402 moderate, female — and likely pro-choice — voters with an ad promoting reproductive rights.The campaign also ran a more general video ad for Mr. Camilleri, a former public-school teacher, directed at 77,836 Democrats and Independents who have voted in past midterm elections. Viewers in Mr. Camilleri’s target audience saw the messages while watching shows on Lifetime, Vice and other channels on ad-supported streaming services like Samsung TV Plus and LG Channels.Although millions of American voters may not be aware of it, the powerful data-mining techniques that campaigns routinely use to tailor political ads to consumers on sites and apps are making the leap to streaming video. The targeting has become so precise that next door neighbors streaming the same true crime show on the same streaming service may now be shown different political ads — based on data about their voting record, party affiliation, age, gender, race or ethnicity, estimated home value, shopping habits or views on gun control.Political consultants say the ability to tailor streaming video ads to small swaths of viewers could be crucial this November for candidates like Mr. Camilleri who are facing tight races. In 2016, Mr. Camilleri won his first state election by just several hundred votes.“Very few voters wind up determining the outcomes of close elections,” said Ryan Irvin, the co-founder of Change Media Group, the agency behind Mr. Camilleri’s ad campaign. “Very early in an election cycle, we can pull from the voter database a list of those 10,000 voters, match them on various platforms and run streaming TV ads to just those 10,000 people.”Representative Darrin Camilleri, a member of the Michigan House who is running for State Senate, targeted local voters with streaming video ads before he campaigned in their neighborhoods. Emily Elconin for The New York TimesTargeted political ads on streaming platforms — video services delivered via internet-connected devices like TVs and tablets — seemed like a niche phenomenon during the 2020 presidential election. Two years later, streaming has become the most highly viewed TV medium in the United States, according to Nielsen.Savvy candidates and advocacy groups are flooding streaming services with ads in an effort to reach cord-cutters and “cord nevers,” people who have never watched traditional cable or broadcast TV.The trend is growing so fast that political ads on streaming services are expected to generate $1.44 billion — or about 15 percent — of the projected $9.7 billion on ad spending for the 2022 election cycle, according to a report from AdImpact, an ad tracking company. That would for the first time put streaming on par with political ad spending on Facebook and Google.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.Midterm Data: Could the 2020 polling miss repeat itself? Will this election cycle really be different? Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, looks at the data in his new newsletter.Republicans’ Abortion Struggles: Senator Lindsey Graham’s proposed nationwide 15-week abortion ban was intended to unite the G.O.P. before the November elections. But it has only exposed the party’s divisions.Democrats’ Dilemma: The party’s candidates have been trying to signal their independence from the White House, while not distancing themselves from President Biden’s base or agenda.The quick proliferation of the streaming political messages has prompted some lawmakers and researchers to warn that the ads are outstripping federal regulation and oversight.For example, while political ads running on broadcast and cable TV must disclose their sponsors, federal rules on political ad transparency do not specifically address streaming video services. Unlike broadcast TV stations, streaming platforms are also not required to maintain public files about the political ads they sold.The result, experts say, is an unregulated ecosystem in which streaming services take wildly different approaches to political ads.“There are no rules over there, whereas, if you are a broadcaster or a cable operator, you definitely have rules you have to operate by,” said Steve Passwaiter, a vice president at Kantar Media, a company that tracks political advertising.The boom in streaming ads underscores a significant shift in the way that candidates, party committees and issue groups may target voters. For decades, political campaigns have blanketed local broadcast markets with candidate ads or tailored ads to the slant of cable news channels. With such bulk media buying, viewers watching the same show at the same time as their neighbors saw the same political messages.But now campaigns are employing advanced consumer-profiling and automated ad-buying services to deliver different streaming video messages, tailored to specific voters.“In the digital ad world, you’re buying the person, not the content,” said Mike Reilly, a partner at MVAR Media, a progressive political consultancy that creates ad campaigns for candidates and advocacy groups.Targeted political ads are being run on a slew of different ad-supported streaming channels. Some smart TV manufacturers air the political ads on proprietary streaming platforms, like Samsung TV Plus and LG Channels. Viewers watching ad-supported streaming channels via devices like Roku may also see targeted political ads.Policies on political ad targeting vary. Amazon prohibits political party and candidate ads on its streaming services. YouTube TV and Hulu allow political candidates to target ads based on viewers’ ZIP code, age and gender, but they prohibit political ad targeting by voting history or party affiliation.Roku, which maintains a public archive of some political ads running on its platform, declined to comment on its ad-targeting practices.Samsung and LG, which has publicly promoted its voter-targeting services for political campaigns, did not respond to requests for comment. Netflix declined to comment about its plans for an ad-supported streaming service.Targeting political ads on streaming services can involve more invasive data-mining than the consumer-tracking techniques typically used to show people online ads for sneakers.Political consulting firms can buy profiles on more than 200 millions voters, including details on an individual’s party affiliations, voting record, political leanings, education levels, income and consumer habits. Campaigns may employ that data to identify voters concerned about a specific issue — like guns or abortion — and hone video messages to them.In addition, internet-connected TV platforms like Samsung, LG and Roku often use data-mining technology, called “automated content recognition,” to analyze snippets of the videos people watch and segment viewers for advertising purposes.Some streaming services and ad tech firms allow political campaigns to provide lists of specific voters to whom they wish to show ads.To serve those messages, ad tech firms employ precise delivery techniques — like using IP addresses to identify devices in a voter’s household. The device mapping allows political campaigns to aim ads at certain voters whether they are streaming on internet-connected TVs, tablets, laptops or smartphones.Sten McGuire, an executive at a4 Advertising, presented a webinar in March announcing a partnership to sell political ads on LG channels.New York TimesUsing IP addresses, “we can intercept voters across the nation,” Sten McGuire, an executive at a4 Advertising, said in a webinar in March announcing a partnership to sell political ads on LG channels. His company’s ad-targeting worked, Mr. McGuire added, “whether you are looking to reach new cord cutters or ‘cord nevers’ streaming their favorite content, targeting Spanish-speaking voters in swing states, reaching opinion elites and policy influencers or members of Congress and their staff.”Some researchers caution that targeted video ads could spread some of the same voter-influence techniques that have proliferated on Facebook to a new, and even less regulated, medium.Facebook and Google, the researchers note, instituted some restrictions on political ad targeting after Russian operatives used digital platforms to try to disrupt the 2016 presidential election. With such restrictions in place, political advertisers on Facebook, for instance, should no longer be able to target users interested in Malcolm X or Martin Luther King with paid messages urging them not to vote.Facebook and Google have also created public databases that enable people to view political ads running on the platforms.But many streaming services lack such targeting restrictions and transparency measures. The result, these experts say, is an opaque system of political influence that runs counter to basic democratic principles.“This occupies a gray area that’s not getting as much scrutiny as ads running on social media,” said Becca Ricks, a senior researcher at the Mozilla Foundation who has studied the political ad policies of popular streaming services. “It creates an unfair playing field where you can precisely target, and change, your messaging based on the audience — and do all of this without some level of transparency.”Some political ad buyers are shying away from more restricted online platforms in favor of more permissive streaming services.“Among our clients, the percentage of budget going to social channels, and on Facebook and Google in particular, has been declining,” said Grace Briscoe, an executive overseeing candidate and political issue advertising at Basis Technologies, an ad tech firm. “The kinds of limitations and restrictions that those platforms have put on political ads has disinclined clients to invest as heavily there.”Senators Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner introduced the Honest Ads Act, which would require online political ads to include disclosures similar to those on broadcast TV ads.Al Drago for The New York TimesMembers of Congress have introduced a number of bills that would curb voter-targeting or require digital ads to adhere to the same rules as broadcast ads. But the measures have not yet been enacted.Amid widespread covertness in the ad-targeting industry, Mr. Camilleri, the member of the Michigan House running for State Senate, was unusually forthcoming about how he was using streaming services to try to engage specific swaths of voters.In prior elections, he said, he sent postcards introducing himself to voters in neighborhoods where he planned to make campaign stops. During this year’s primaries, he updated the practice by running streaming ads introducing himself to certain households a week or two before he planned to knock on their doors.“It’s been working incredibly well because a lot of people will say, ‘Oh, I’ve seen you on TV,’” Mr. Camilleri said, noting that many of his constituents did not appear to understand the ads were shown specifically to them and not to a general broadcast TV audience. “They don’t differentiate” between TV and streaming, he added, “because you’re watching YouTube on your television now.” More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      YouTube Deletes Jan. 6 Video That Included Clip of Trump Sharing Election Lies

      by

      The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot has been trying to draw more eyes to its televised hearings by uploading clips of the proceedings online. But YouTube has removed one of those videos from its platform, saying the committee was advancing election misinformation.The excerpt, which was uploaded June 14, included recorded testimony from former Attorney General William P. Barr. But the problem for YouTube was that the video also included a clip of former President Donald J. Trump sharing lies about the election on the Fox Business channel.A screenshot of the committee’s website showing the video removal notification. The message initially said the video had been removed.Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol“We had glitches where they moved thousands of votes from my account to Biden’s account,” Mr. Trump said falsely, before suggesting the F.B.I. and Department of Justice may have been involved.The excerpt of the hearing did not include Mr. Barr’s perspective, stated numerous times elsewhere in the hearing, that Mr. Trump’s assertion that the election was stolen was wrong. The video initially was replaced with a black box stating that the clip had been removed for violating YouTube’s terms of service.“Our election integrity policy prohibits content advancing false claims that widespread fraud, errors or glitches changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, if it does not provide sufficient context,” YouTube spokeswoman Ivy Choi said in a statement. “We enforce our policies equally for everyone, and have removed the video uploaded by the Jan. 6 committee channel.”The message on the video page has since been changed to “This video is private,” which may mean that YouTube would allow the committee to upload a version of the clip that makes clear that Trump’s claims are false. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      YouTube’s stronger election misinformation policies had a spillover effect on Twitter and Facebook, researchers say.

      by

      .dw-chart-subhed {
      line-height: 1;
      margin-bottom: 6px;
      font-family: nyt-franklin;
      color: #121212;
      font-size: 15px;
      font-weight: 700;
      }

      Share of Election-Related Posts on Social Platforms Linking to Videos Making Claims of Fraud
      Source: Center for Social Media and Politics at New York UniversityBy The New York TimesYouTube’s stricter policies against election misinformation was followed by sharp drops in the prevalence of false and misleading videos on Facebook and Twitter, according to new research released on Thursday, underscoring the video service’s power across social media.Researchers at the Center for Social Media and Politics at New York University found a significant rise in election fraud YouTube videos shared on Twitter immediately after the Nov. 3 election. In November, those videos consistently accounted for about one-third of all election-related video shares on Twitter. The top YouTube channels about election fraud that were shared on Twitter that month came from sources that had promoted election misinformation in the past, such as Project Veritas, Right Side Broadcasting Network and One America News Network.But the proportion of election fraud claims shared on Twitter dropped sharply after Dec. 8. That was the day YouTube said it would remove videos that promoted the unfounded theory that widespread errors and fraud changed the outcome of the presidential election. By Dec. 21, the proportion of election fraud content from YouTube that was shared on Twitter had dropped below 20 percent for the first time since the election.The proportion fell further after Jan. 7, when YouTube announced that any channels that violated its election misinformation policy would receive a “strike,” and that channels that received three strikes in a 90-day period would be permanently removed. By Inauguration Day, the proportion was around 5 percent.The trend was replicated on Facebook. A postelection surge in sharing videos containing fraud theories peaked at about 18 percent of all videos on Facebook just before Dec. 8. After YouTube introduced its stricter policies, the proportion fell sharply for much of the month, before rising slightly before the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. The proportion dropped again, to 4 percent by Inauguration Day, after the new policies were put in place on Jan. 7.To reach their findings, researchers collected a random sampling of 10 percent of all tweets each day. They then isolated tweets that linked to YouTube videos. They did the same for YouTube links on Facebook, using a Facebook-owned social media analytics tool, CrowdTangle.From this large data set, the researchers filtered for YouTube videos about the election broadly, as well as about election fraud using a set of keywords like “Stop the Steal” and “Sharpiegate.” This allowed the researchers to get a sense of the volume of YouTube videos about election fraud over time, and how that volume shifted in late 2020 and early 2021.Misinformation on major social networks has proliferated in recent years. YouTube in particular has lagged behind other platforms in cracking down on different types of misinformation, often announcing stricter policies several weeks or months after Facebook and Twitter. In recent weeks, however, YouTube has toughened its policies, such as banning all antivaccine misinformation and suspending the accounts of prominent antivaccine activists, including Joseph Mercola and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.Ivy Choi, a YouTube spokeswoman, said that YouTube was the only major online platform with a presidential election integrity policy. “We also raised up authoritative content for election-related search queries and reduced the spread of harmful election-related misinformation,” she said.Megan Brown, a research scientist at the N.Y.U. Center for Social Media and Politics, said it was possible that after YouTube banned the content, people could no longer share the videos that promoted election fraud. It is also possible that interest in the election fraud theories dropped considerably after states certified their election results.But the bottom line, Ms. Brown said, is that “we know these platforms are deeply interconnected.” YouTube, she pointed out, has been identified as one of the most-shared domains across other platforms, including in both of Facebook’s recently released content reports and N.Y.U.’s own research.“It’s a huge part of the information ecosystem,” Ms. Brown said, “so when YouTube’s platform becomes healthier, others do as well.” More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Lights, Camera, Run! Behind the Videos of Mayor Candidates

      by

      What did it take to record videos of eight Democrats who are vying to lead New York City? Collaboration, hustle and a willingness to talk to ambulance drivers, for starters.Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.On June 22, New Yorkers will go to the polls to choose the Democratic candidate who will very likely be the city’s next mayor. After a chaotic year, many voters are, understandably, just tuning in now.As a politics producer on The New York Times’s Video desk, I spend most of my time thinking about how we can use original visual reporting to bring additional depth to key races and issues. For this project on the mayoral race, our goal was to help readers get to know a big group of contenders in a way that was clear, informative and fun.Last month, we digitally published our final product, an interactive set of videos featuring interviews with the top eight Democratic candidates. The interviews, conducted by the Metro reporters Emma Fitzsimmons and Katie Glueck, along with photography done on set, inform a print version of the project that appears in Sunday’s newspaper.When we started planning, we knew that the race had a number of distinct qualities we needed to take into consideration. First, many of the candidates were not well known to those who didn’t closely follow city politics. This was also the first year New York City would be using ranked-choice voting — in this race that means voters can rank up to five candidates on the ballot. (A full explanation of how this voting will work can be found here.)Our team included Metro editors and reporters, designers, graphics editors and video journalists. The initial idea for the piece was based on past Times projects that focused on Democratic presidential candidates in advance of the 2020 primaries. (here and here). The core idea was simple: Bring in the candidates, ask them all the same questions and publish their answers in an interactive format that allowed readers to “choose their own adventure” and navigate through topics of interest.We wanted to give these interviews and the project a New York City feel, so we selected two different spaces in The New York Times Building where we could use the city as a backdrop.Emma Fitzsimmons, The Times’s City Hall bureau chief, on set for an interview with Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president.Tony Cenicola/The New York TimesOur interviews were set primarily in natural light, which can pose certain challenges. Ideally, an overcast sky or a clear sunny day is best, because you want light to hit your subject evenly. A cloud that moves in front of the sun and casts a shadow on your subject’s face can ruin a shot. This meant closely tracking the weather and cloud movements with Noah Throop, our cinematographer, in advance of every shoot. On bad weather days, we filmed in the Times Center auditorium, which was less susceptible to light change.We also had to navigate the challenges of filming during a pandemic, meaning we needed to find large open spaces and set up testing regimens and safety protocols for both staff members and guests.Shaun Donovan, a mayoral candidate, on set. When filming in natural light, either an overcast sky or a clear sunny day is best.Tony Cenicola/The New York TimesBehind the scenes, we coordinated with the campaigns in an effort to catch each candidate arriving, which at times meant running through the Times Square subway station, trying to scout for their vehicles in traffic and looking to confirm whether Andrew Yang and his team were in fact having lunch at Schnipper’s (a burger joint in the Times building) before his interview. The cameras were rolling from the moment we met up with candidates outside until the moment they left the building.The author looks out for Mr. Throop in the Times Square Subway station.Tony Cenicola/The New York TimesWe decided to make one video per candidate, instead of organizing videos by topic, to give viewers an opportunity to sit and listen to a particular individual if they desired. The interviews ranged in length from 40 minutes to more than an hour based on the candidate’s speaking style and brevity.The videos on Kathryn Garcia and the other top seven Democratic candidates were organized so that viewers could sit and listen to a candidate at length. Tony Cenicola/The New York TimesMy role during an interview as a producer is to focus on how everything will look and sound on video. This means that the array of things I do includes listening for good sound bites, monitoring what questions might need an additional take, fixing people’s hair and running outside to ask ambulance drivers on a break to turn off their flashing lights (which I had to do numerous times during these shoots).In editing down the interviews, we tried to highlight what made a candidate unique and pull out key differences among members of the group — along with some moments of levity. But ultimately what we wanted to provide was a resource where voters could hear from each person, relatively unfiltered, to help them make up their minds.Who Wants to Be Mayor of New York City?The race for the next mayor of New York City may be one of the most consequential elections in a generation. Here are some of the leading candidates vying to run the nation’s largest city. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      5 NYC Mayor's Race Takeaways: Yang Drives the Bus, Republicans Joust

      by

      The Democratic candidates vowed to stop Zooming and get out more, and a rap video earned mixed reviews.With less than three months before Primary Day in New York City, most of the Democratic candidates for mayor appear to be quickly tiring of two things: mayoral forums on Zoom, and Andrew Yang’s presumptive role as front-runner.Rival campaigns launched their most vigorous attacks yet against Mr. Yang, the former 2020 presidential candidate, as they scrambled to define him and draw attention to policy differences.Mr. Yang was even called a “mini-Trump” by an aide to Maya Wiley, the former MSNBC analyst, over his comments about the city budget.Yet Mr. Yang continued to set the agenda, visiting Yankee Stadium on Opening Day, releasing a campaign rap video — he did not rap — and finally drawing some get-well sentiments from his rivals after he was sidelined by a kidney stone.The Democratic candidates also released a flurry of proposals to combat inequality and reopen arts venues, and two Republican front-runners traded insults at a debate.Here is what you need to know about the race:An uproar over busesMost discussions about public transit in New York City center on the subway. That changed last week — with Mr. Yang, as usual, driving the bus.He did so by saying that he was “open to re-examining” a new busway on Main Street in Flushing, Queens. The remark upset transit advocates, who have called for more bus priority corridors across the city, especially after the 14th Street Busway, which debuted in Manhattan in 2019, was widely celebrated.Mr. Yang said he generally supports busways, but he had “heard numerous community complaints” about the one in Flushing. His campaign said he does not want to get rid of it but might want to consider tweaks to the layout that critics fear would give more access to cars.Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller, quickly staged an event to ride the bus down 14th Street to criticize Mr. Yang and to highlight his own plans to improve New York City’s buses, which are the slowest of any major city in the world.“New York City needs a mayor who’s going to stand up for what’s right, and Andrew Yang is showing that he’ll put pandering over good policy,” said Mr. Stringer, who has pledged to be the “bus mayor.”Mr. Yang’s aides returned fire, posting a photo of Mr. Yang riding the bus and asking: “Which of these candidates actually takes the bus?” (A few hours later, Mr. Stringer posted a photo of himself riding a bus.)The end of the Zoom campaignThe seemingly endless parade of online mayoral forums may actually be nearing an end.As more New Yorkers get vaccinated and the weather warms, it is increasingly clear that the final phase of the campaign will be waged in person, rather than from behind a screen. A number of the candidates, especially Mr. Yang and Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, have maintained intense in-person schedules for some time.Others are plainly now seeking to catch up.Candidates including Shaun Donovan, a former federal housing secretary; Kathryn Garcia, the former sanitation commissioner; and Raymond J. McGuire, a former Wall Street executive, spread out across the city for outdoor walking tours, policy rollouts and meet-and-greets. On Saturday, Ms. Wiley and Mr. Yang traversed the same stretch of Prospect Heights in Brooklyn, greeting voters who were picnicking and drinking outdoors on a sunny afternoon as the popular Open Streets program reopened on Vanderbilt Avenue. On Sunday, Mr. Stringer rolled out “Bangladeshis for Stringer” at Diversity Plaza in Queens.Conversations with nearly 20 voters across that Prospect Heights scene underscored the opportunities and the challenges facing the candidates as they get out more: Many New Yorkers are undecided and are just beginning to tune in, making the in-person appearances and efforts to stand out all the more important in the sprint to June.Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, went a step further than other candidates, declaring that she was done with the online forums.“This race will not be won on Zoom,” she wrote on Medium. “We will meet New Yorkers ‘where they are at,’ prioritizing community-centered, on-the-ground organizing strategies to connect with those who have been underserved by this city.”Curtis Sliwa has won the support of the Staten Island and Brooklyn Republican parties in his bid to capture that party’s mayoral nomination. Michael M. Santiago/Getty ImagesRepublican candidates trade vicious attacksThey describe themselves as law-and-order politicians, but two Republican candidates for mayor on Wednesday engaged in an often disorderly debate rife with personal insults and pointed barbs.“I have enough dirt to cover your body 18 feet over,” Fernando Mateo, a restaurateur, told Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, insinuating that he held damaging information about his rival.Mr. Sliwa, who was wearing his trademark red beret, told Mr. Mateo to “calm down,” only to launch several attacks on Mr. Mateo during the course of the debate.The event was hosted by WABC, the conservative radio station owned by John Catsimatidis, who funds the Manhattan Republican Party chaired by his daughter. The Manhattan party has endorsed Mr. Mateo for mayor. So have the Queens and Bronx parties. Mr. Sliwa has won the backing of the Staten Island and Brooklyn parties.Though Mr. Mateo said he had once been “very good friends” with Mr. Sliwa, even carpeting Mr. Sliwa’s old apartment on the Lower East Side, they spent much of the debate attacking each other. Time and again, Mr. Sliwa called Mr. Mateo a “de Blasio Republican” for raising money for the mayor. Mr. Mateo said Mr. Sliwa, whose messy divorce involved issues surrounding child support, stole money from his own son.The debate did include some discussion of policy.Both candidates said they would pour money into the New York Police Department and revive a police force they said Mayor Bill de Blasio weakened. Both said Staten Island, the city’s most Republican borough, deserves more mayoral attention.But they did differ on several issues, including former President Donald J. Trump: Mr. Sliwa did not vote for him in 2020; Mr. Mateo did.They also differed on the recent legalization of recreational marijuana. Mr. Sliwa attested to the role that medical marijuana played in easing his discomfort from chronic Crohn’s disease, and said legalizing the drug was inevitable. But he also argued that the new legislation overtaxed the product and will lead to a flourishing illegal market for more affordable marijuana.Mr. Mateo said he believes in decriminalizing the drug but not legalizing it.“I don’t believe in it,” Mr. Mateo said. “I don’t like the smell of it. I just don’t like it. Have I tried it? Yes, I have. When I was a kid. And it got me very sick.”Andrew Yang’s rap videoMr. McGuire won notice when his campaign launch video featured Spike Lee narrating over Wynton Marsalis’s jazz compositions. Andrew Yang took a decidedly different tack.Mr. Yang’s campaign released a rap song and video called “Yang for New York,” and the response was varied. Ebro Darden of Hot 97 gave the song four fire emojis, while Wilfred Chan, a journalist, called it the latest in a line of “cheesy social-media content” that has helped Mr. Yang’s campaign gain “massive reach.”But for MC Jin, the rapper featured in the video, it was an honest expression of his support for Mr. Yang’s candidacy for mayor.“The only way to bring New York back is to move it forward,” said MC Jin, whose given name is Jin Au-Yeung. “That hit me hard the first time I heard him say that.”MC Jin said Mr. Yang reached out and asked him to produce a theme song. Mr. Yang first sent the video to his volunteers as an anthem for them and his campaign.“Asians are seeing themselves in the news for the most painful of reasons. But with MC Jin, you have an iconic Asian-American hip-hop artist showing optimism, vibrancy and a path to the future,” Mr. Yang wrote.This isn’t MC Jin’s first rap about Mr. Yang; he also created music during Mr. Yang’s bid for the Democratic nomination for president.“Everyone’s just looking at what’s going to happen as these months go by,” MC Jin said. “How’s New York really going to bounce back. I know Andrew is putting emphasis on that matter.”Doulas for first-time mothers?The candidates are all releasing various plans for the city, trying to show they have serious ideas for its recovery from the pandemic.Mr. Adams released a 25-point plan to fight inequality last week, including a proposal to provide all first-time mothers with a doula, a trained professional who supports a mother before, during and after childbirth. He believes they are critical to address the high maternal mortality among Black women.“While early childhood education is critical to development, we don’t pay enough attention to prenatal care,” his plan said.Mr. Adams also called for requiring the New York City Housing Authority to sell air rights over its properties to raise $8 billion for repairs, expanding services for children with disabilities to reach more Black and Latino families and creating an online portal called MyCity to make it easier to apply for public benefits like food stamps in one place.Mr. Donovan, who is trailing in polls, released a plan to reopen arts venues. In fact, Mr. Donovan has so many plans that he put them in a 200-page book — one that he promoted on Twitter in a video showing him excitedly admiring it.Four days later, the post still had only received nine likes, including from campaign staffers. Mr. Yang’s post about his rap video got about 11,000 likes. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Queens Man Wanted ‘Execution’ of Schumer and Ocasio-Cortez, U.S. Says

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutLatest UpdatesInside the SiegeVisual TimelineNotable ArrestsCapitol Police in CrisisAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyQueens Man Wanted ‘Execution’ of Schumer and Ocasio-Cortez, U.S. SaysBrendan Hunt, a fervent supporter of President Trump, is also accused of urging the killing of members of Congress before Inauguration Day.Brendan Hunt in a picture from his BitChute account.Credit…  Jan. 20, 2021Updated 8:53 a.m. ETFor years, Brendan Hunt had posted wild conspiracy theories on social media platforms and his own website, asserting, among other things, that the rock star Kurt Cobain was murdered and that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax.A decade ago, he took part in the Occupy Wall Street protests against income inequality. More recently, he was a fervent supporter of President Trump, posting several videos in support of Mr. Trump’s false claims that the election had been rigged against him through vote fraud.On Tuesday, it became clear that Mr. Hunt’s online statements had gotten the authorities’ attention. He was arrested on federal charges of making death threats against prominent Democratic politicians, including Senator Chuck Schumer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.Not only did Mr. Hunt, 37, an assistant analyst for New York’s court system, call last month for the “public execution” of Democratic leaders, he also urged Mr. Trump’s supporters to massacre members of Congress before Inauguration Day, according to a criminal complaint.He was arrested at his home in Ridgewood, Queens, early Tuesday. He faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted.Since the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, many people with histories of posting vitriolic threats against public figures with relative impunity have come under greater scrutiny from the federal authorities.Although Mr. Hunt did not participate in the attack on the Capitol, his arrest underscored the scope of the federal government’s crackdown on social media comments that incite violence. Several people who posted on social media during the Jan. 6 riot are among the dozens who have been charged by federal authorities with taking part in the violent rampage.Last week, the authorities arrested another Queens man, Eduard Florea, who was not in Washington on Jan. 6 but who posted threatening messages on the social network Parler. Among the messages that caused concern was one in which he suggested that the Rev. Raphael Warnock of Georgia, who was recently elected to the U.S. Senate, should be killed.Mr. Florea, who had a previous weapons conviction, was charged with illegally possessing ammunition after the authorities found thousands of rounds of rifle ammunition and a stockpile of knives at this home in Middle Village, Queens.Mr. Hunt’s threats included one posted on Facebook on Dec. 6 in which he said that Mr. Trump’s supporters “want actual revenge on democrats” and urged the president to execute Mr. Schumer, Ms. Pelosi and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, according to the complaint.“And if you dont do it, the citizenry will,” Mr. Hunt wrote, the complaint says. “We’re not voting in another rigged election. Start up the firing squads, mow down these commies, and lets take america back!”In a second post, he said the three Democrats were the sort of “high value targets” that Mr. Trump’s supporters should attack. “They really need to be put down,” he wrote, according to the complaint. “These commies will see death before they see us surrender!”Mr. Hunt made his first appearance in Federal District Court in Brooklyn on Tuesday at a hearing conducted remotely.“These threats would be grave under any circumstances, but they’re even more so in the volatile environment we find ourselves in today leading up to the inauguration,” David Kessler, a federal prosecutor, said at the hearing.Arguing for Mr. Hunt to be released on bail, Mr. Hunt’s lawyer, Leticia Olivera, said he did not have a criminal record, was not a member of a militia or paramilitary group and did not plan on harming federal officials in Washington.“The allegations in the complaint do not suggest anything other than a plan to make outlandish posts online from inside his home,” Ms. Olivera said.The federal magistrate judge hearing the matter, Ramon Reyes Jr., ordered that Mr. Hunt be held without bail until trial..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-c7gg1r{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:0.875rem;margin-bottom:15px;color:#121212 !important;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-c7gg1r{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1cs27wo{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1cs27wo{padding:20px;}}.css-1cs27wo:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-k9atqk{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-k9atqk strong{font-weight:700;}.css-k9atqk em{font-style:italic;}.css-k9atqk a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-k9atqk a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-k9atqk a:hover{border-bottom:none;}Capitol Riot FalloutFrom Riot to ImpeachmentThe riot inside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, followed a rally at which President Trump made an inflammatory speech to his supporters, questioning the results of the election. Here’s a look at what happened and the ongoing fallout:As this video shows, poor planning and a restive crowd encouraged by President Trump set the stage for the riot.A two hour period was crucial to turning the rally into the riot.Several Trump administration officials, including cabinet members Betsy DeVos and Elaine Chao, announced that they were stepping down as a result of the riot.Federal prosecutors have charged more than 70 people, including some who appeared in viral photos and videos of the riot. Officials expect to eventually charge hundreds of others.The House voted to impeach the president on charges of “inciting an insurrection” that led to the rampage by his supporters.Lucian Chalfen, a spokesman for the state court system, said Mr. Hunt had been suspended without pay from his $57,800-a-year position as an assistant court analyst in the Attorney Registration Unit.Before retiring, Mr. Hunt’s father was a family court judge in Queens, Mr. Chalfen said. Mr. Hunt is the second person with ties to the state judiciary to be arrested this month. Aaron Mostofsky, whose father is a judge in Brooklyn, was charged this month with taking part in the Capitol riot.Mr. Hunt has dabbled in acting and filmmaking and has often used the alias X-ray Ultra on social media, the authorities said. A website for “X-ray Ultra Studios” includes photographs of Mr. Hunt and links to his many social media accounts.Two days after the Washington riot, Mr. Hunt posted an 88-second video titled “KILL YOUR SENATORS” on BitChute, a video-sharing platform, the complaint says. In the video, he spoke directly to the camera.“We need to go back to the U.S. Capitol when all of the Senators and a lot of the Representatives are back there,” he said, according to the complaint. “And this time we have to show up with our guns. And we need to slaughter these” people, using an expletive for emphasis.“If anybody has a gun, give me it, I’ll go there myself and shoot them and kill them,” he said, according to the complaint.The video was not available on X-ray Ultra’s BitChute channel on Tuesday, but several other videos about the Capitol riot and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories were.Mr. Hunt also posted threats on Parler, which gained popularity among right-wing users and which went dark after Amazon shut off its service because of violent content, the complaint says.A Parler account with Mr. Hunt’s name and the user name “@xrayultra” included the message “lets go, jan 20, bring your guns #millionmilitiamarch,” the complaint says.Mr. Hunt’s YouTube channel lists several videos with the title “STOP THE STEAL = ELECTION 2020.” The videos have thumbnail illustrations that depict Mr. Trump as a king, as the Marvel Comics villain Thanos and as the movie character Rambo.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More