Day By Day

Comments

  • kadaka

    Well it’s only CNN, not like there’ll be enough people watching to make it matter.

    • Bill

      She “sampled”Jake Tapper? Ugh.

  • WayneM

    Given the amount of work being done to create “deep fake” videos, we’re reaching the point where the vast majority of people wouldn’t be able to tell a real Jake Tapper vs a generated one… or any other public figure…

    • kadaka

      Won’t that be a hoot someday when they show your recorded confession to the tribunal of your treasonous acts against the freely-elected politburo?

      • eon

        If Shrillary were Queen as the left still demands, that would already be a standard feature of the show trials.

        clear ether

        eon

    • Henry

      I’m not sure there is a real Jake Tapper.

      Man started his career shilling for Sarah Brady.

  • interventor

    Is anyone certain that Jake Tapper exists? Quite likely, he’s just a digital entity.

    • Paul

      Like Maxx Headroom ??

      • Ed Brault

        Max was more believable!

        Zar Belk!

  • Too Tall

    What’s a CNN?

    What’s a Jake Tapper?

    If a pre-programmed moronic shill spews propaganda and no one listens, did it make a sound?

    Jake makes the “bubble-headed bleached blond who comes on at five” sound like a genius.

  • Ian

    I see an infinite range of possibilities here….. AOC, Mad Max, Bernie……. all those libtards speaking the truth over the networks courtesy of Jo. Camel-hair campaigning for the wall………

    • Toxic Deplorable B Woodman

      I like it.

      And when it comes to the DeMSM and telling the truthful news (vs Libtard propaganda), what’s unethical?

  • Bill G

    Fake, but true could come to life!

  • Steve S

    So is ‘BLORP’ now becoming Jo’s action word? Will it morph into an adverb/verb for executing a ‘transformation’?! Can we ‘blorp’ the deep state denizens into appropriate orange gear?

  • PaulS

    Please! Make it go away!
    Much prefer the Nekkid Jo. 😉

    • azscram

      I second that motion

  • Punta Gorda

    For any readers thinking this is all just fiction. A recent news story was written lauding AI advancement that allowed a mo-cap actor to provide the input to make a convincing mona lisa based image come to life as a person you could sit and interview.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P2uZF-5F1wI

    • Delilah T.

      But would you interview her in modern Italian, in Medieval Italian, or Latin? (I’d go for Latin, myself.)

  • JTC

    Careful what we wish for…

    Ask ourselves, who/what is it that owns/runs/controls virtually all of the digital production and dissemination in the world? They have a yuge lead in fake news already and one can only assume that infrastructure will increase it.

    The thought of some tit for tat is fun to ponder but the truth is probably that there is no double-edged sword here, only a one-sided whetting of their main tool against us.

    Myself, I fully believe it will come down to us taking up our main tools against them, and they are not virtual but very real…and very effective.

  • cz93x62

    JTC–I hope we are both incorrect, but I believe your prediction is quite correct.

    • Qoheleth

      It’s decidedly possible to produce an easily mistakable false image of someone who has been on camera frequently. There are three things that prevent this from being widespread: 1) It’s still expensive and time consuming. 2) A close examination can discover the ruse, just as “photoshopped” pictures can be found out. 3) A wide cross-section of the public are so cynical that they wouldn’t believe it even if they believed it.
      The anarchist part of me thinks it would be fun to do just enough to make everything that comes out of CNN suspect by even those whose ideology coincides with theirs, forcing them to constantly provide sources and corraboration. (Nothing like having the 4th Estate break the 4th Wall.)

      • eon

        There’s a reason I tell people not to put much stock in any “UFO” still photo taken much after 1980, or film footage of same taken after about 1990. Even “live action” film footage can be faked today, as was “graphically” demonstrated in 1997 by a hoaxster in Mexico City;

        https://www.metabunk.org/mexico-city-ufo-footage-cgi-in-1997.t8849/

        As one of the commenters there points out, this came out the same year as James Cameron’s Titanic, with a CGI 883-foot-long ocean liner.

        ’97 was also the year Paramount stopped using actual model starships to film the various Star Trek TV shows and movies and went completely to CGI for everything. Compared to what they were doing in a computer, this sort of thing is pretty much high-school science project stuff.

        So no, you really can’t believe much of what you see, unless the only sensor involved is the old Mark One Eyeball, and it happens to be yours.

        clear ether

        eon

        • JTC

          The mention of Cameron in this context pretty much illustrates what I said above about the left’s grip on much of that advanced CG ability…could there be a more leftist purveyor of same?

          So it’s not just that the technology exists but that so much of it is promulgated by those whose avowed agendas match the ones of old Jake here, and most especially of The Beast and her ilk…no need to computer-generate the evil presence of that one.

          Most importantly, in addition to a more advanced and experienced technical army in Silicon Valley, Hollywood, DC, and NY, there is the proven proclivity for prevarication to suit their ends regardless of any collateral damage.

          Lastly, this consortium in its entirety has demonstrated for many years -but doubled and tripled down in the last three as they sense the threat to their existence presented by those who see right through their script- that they have no moral compass to be guided by, let alone the trite (to them) “ethics” mentioned in the ‘toon.

      • Too Tall

        I like the way the anarchist part of you thinks.

        Regarding a “close examination can discover the ruse,” a major issue is that computer generated, virtual, or digital, anything leaves a mountain of evidence that rapidly approaches infinity, and an audit trail that is all but eternal.

        Long after the original RMS Titanic has completely decomposed into its constituent elements, multiple copies of James Cameron’s Titanic will “go on and on….”

  • Pamela

    *Tapper to Sam* Does Jo make my butt look big?

  • Delilah T.

    I have a better idea: a CGI virtual candidate with an authentic-seeming dossier, who out-Kennedys Jack Kennedy and is as “convincing” as Woodrow Wilson.

    And the debates? Always on TV now, so a CGI virtual can access immediately every debate ever recorded (radio and TV) and come up with answers that would make the libs swoon. And ad the end, when the votes are coming in and he’s still short of the majority, he suddenly goes POOF! right in front of everyone!!!

    His final speech before POOF?; My fellow Americans: I lost. The American people wanted someone they could rely on and i just didn’t fill that pair of shoes. I’m going away now. Good-bye.

    And POOF!!!! He’s gone with the wind….

  • I’ll go out on the limb of “If there were absolutely NO way to see any difference, A big ass truth bomb such as Jo’s CNN performance might just help their ratings. At least plant a good seed .” As for the channel itself? No. DILLIGAF? But there are still those who watch. Who believe. As BS as it is, they believe. Plant the seed.

  • interventor

    CNN offices in DC, NYC, Atlanta and London are cutting employees.

Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.