Palin Appears To Be Wearing an Earpiece During The Debate, page 11
Pages: <<  8    9    10    11    12    13    14  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 60 times


reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 04:41 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by rocksarerocks



Yeah, but (thanks for that great info, BTW)

Did Biden have one, as well???

Look, I'm just trying to be fair.

I'll have to show my bias, however....FULL DISCLOSURE...

I think McCain/Palin are the worst possible option, in this election.

But, as it pertains to earpieces....well, the Secret Service wear them too.

'Nuf said!!!


reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 04:49 PM by Anonymous ATS




reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 04:57 PM by bugs_n_recovery
reply to post by slywhite



I disagree palin was looking down most the time, and I thought ::she has all the answers in front of her!!!


reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 05:00 PM by centurion1211
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to
post by centurion1211



Nice try, 'centurion'...as to your last sentence....

I think just about EVERY modern correspondant you have ever seen on camera has an eairpiece. They have to hear things there, if they are LIVE on camera, then it might be a Producer telling them something, where to look, etc.


Most people would understand the difference between getting a cue on which way to turn for the camera, etc. like news people get vs. being fed whole answers in a debate as the Palinophobes here seem to be suggesting.

I'm officially coining the term "Palinophobe" for use here on ATS, with an official definition of anyone that doesn't like Sarah Palin for any reason. The model for usage this new term comes from "homophobe" as it is currently used to define anyone that objects to anything about gays.

[edit on 10/3/2008 by centurion1211]


reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 05:16 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by solomons path



That's cool, solomon.....I want one!!

No, to be serious, solomon....if I had one, what would be the power source? AND, where would the recievor (efit...spelling?) be?

We're assuming that this earbud would have a tiny battery???

OK, then there would have to be a transmitter, within range....who had it?
\
Is there a battery that small??? To fit the earpiece?

So many questions....perhaps the Secret Service doesn't wish them to be answered....?

Also edit....sheesh, next time I SCUBA, will I come up dead???)


[edit on 10/3/0808 by weedwhacker]


reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 05:25 PM by Enigma Publius
Originally posted by slywhite
reply to
post by zysin5



I don't think it's been determined yet if help was fair permissible.
Does anyone know?

i saw a news source (don't remember which spin it was) saying that some parties involved w/ the debate were asking for the candidates to be searched and checked for earpieces BEFORE the debate, maybe this is what created the controversy to begin with? anyway, even in that story i never heard 100% confirmation that it would be illegal. still is interesting though, if they still gave her one AFTER that story on national news, it would be political suicide.


reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 05:30 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by solomons path



solomon, what about the obvious T/R on G W Bush's back, during his debate?

It was 'cleverly' hideen under his suit coat.....but the T/R back then obviously nt as sophisticated as today's models????


reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 05:32 PM by Enigma Publius
Originally posted by RealityisanIllusion
reply to
post by Enigma Publius



I don't recall saying she was my candidate. I just tried to explain what the device was. I applauded her for wanting to hear the questions better. How horrible of me to do such a thing. I should be horsewhipped.

it just makes no sense to applaud someone for wanting to hear questions they are sopossed (spelling?) to answer. should i be applauded for looking at the keyboard as i type this instead of closing my eyes and using the force? i cannot type correctly with my chicken pecking method without looking, so it just makes sense, and i should not be applauded for it. Geesh.


reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 05:33 PM by lee anoma
Originally posted by sos37
reply to
post by slywhite



But you know what? If that's all you've got to attack Palin with, then that just reaffirms that she did a stellar job last night and you've got no ammo to shoot bunch a bunch of crap.


She did "okay" but it was stellar by comparison to her interviews, which is saying a lot right there . Although she dodged a few questions she did do a lot better than the air-headed Q&A's she gave up until now. Still don't think she is as qualified as any of the others in the race. She's mediocre if anything.

This whole political show is a joke anyway.

Every time I hear someone exclaim how much they care for the little man it makes me crack up. None of them care about the little man as much as they do keeping themselves and their buddies in power and in the money.

"I'll fight for you."

lol come on...do people believe that stuff?

- Lee


reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 05:49 PM by solomons path
reply to post by weedwhacker




Possibly or just a different model . . . the small of the back is the most common place to put any receiver (mic or monitor) when appearing on camera.

You all should also notice the lav mics that each candidate was wearing, as well as having a podium mic, there would be receivers for them as well. This doubling of mics is so one goes straight to record and the other (podium) is routed to the P.A. for sound in-house.


reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 06:15 PM by rocksarerocks
reply to post by solomons path



Not true. The wearing of two mics is so that there is a backup in case the main mic fails on a live broadcast. It is very common. Why would you need 2 mics for what you suggested LOL. You feed the mics to a mixer board and the mixer feeds the news feeds and the PA seperately.


reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 06:16 PM by rocksarerocks
reply to post by Enigma Publius



It's not suicide to wear an IFB that is connected to a mic for camera and time cues. Not at all.


reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 06:23 PM by Enigma Publius
Originally posted by rocksarerocks
reply to
post by Enigma Publius



It's not suicide to wear an IFB that is connected to a mic for camera and time cues. Not at all.

i wasn't talking about an IFB. i totally agree with what you said. the news source stated that parties involved with the debate (i think it was a wireless company or provider but i don't know for sure, that just seems right) was requesting that Palin AND Biden be searched for transmitters in the ear or on their person that would be used for recieving answers to questions, i thought we were clear that it would be totally acceptable to have an IFB for cues and such, i should have been more specific.


reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 06:25 PM by solomons path
reply to post by rocksarerocks



While I agree with the back up . . . the style and positioning was horible if those lavs went live. Also, it's a standard in American broadcasting to have a separate personal (lav) mic going just to record. Not because you need to, as you pointed out in how things get routed, but more for separate shaping and control (comp, etc).

I see it done every day, so regardless of the necessity . . . it's still done.

EDIT - I will add . . . I haven't disagreed with anything you've said, including the back up.



[edit on 3-10-2008 by solomons path]
Pages: <<  8    9    10    11    12    13    14  >>    ^^TOP^^



DEA is Investigating Montana State Legislators Over State Laws
  Posted 11 days ago with 59 member flags
The CIA in Australia: America\'s Foreign Watergate
  Posted 1 days ago with 18 member flags
Who is really behind the birthers and what is their real motive?
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags
ESF and Black op funding.
  Posted 9 days ago with 11 member flags
There is NO Media Bias in America
  Posted 10 days ago with 10 member flags