"Why does Biden look and sound fine when his campaign is shooting him on film the day after and didn't when it was the news hand of David Zaslav's company?" has its own answer if you just think about it a little bit
a simple explanation would be that they chose to keep both candidates’ mics at the same level, which would be absolutely insane in literally any other context but somehow seen as fairness in this one
Sure. I don't know, but like, it sure seems like the difference between the debate and those other two is so clearly the sound, I wasn't listening to the debate, I watched it and read it in CC, and after the first like fifteen, Biden was doing fine visually and in the text
also the extremely bright lights made trump's highly bronzered skin look almost normal while it made biden look like a fucking ghost. some of this is on CNN, but some of it's also on Biden's team who should have negotiated the lighting and sound.
I would actually buy this one. "We can't artificially boost a candidate by raising their microphone level."
I mean that simply ignores obvious differences in how people speak, but it's CNN so who knows.
They can be, but that is about as controlled an audio environment you can have. Studio, candidate stationary at a podium, no crosstalk.
Not saying there's malice, but it was weird they didn't boost his level, especially considering there was likely a soundcheck.
wasn’t lost on me that CNN also gave Trump that townhall earlier this year that was more like a campaign rally than anything else - Biden’s performance was still pretty abysmal but it felt like some thumbs were on some scales nonetheless
I think that BlueSky is creating a greenhouse effect of people trying to convince people (and each other) that everything is fine, when the reaction to this debate is nothing like we’ve ever seen from a political party. Whether this guy decides to say “fuck off” to me is irrelevant to that.
