Episode 3 - The Look of Modern Policing, and How to Film a Trump Rally

Facts and Accuracy  

by JJ Hunt

When describing an image for an art gallery, or a movie for a broadcaster, being 100% accurate is an important part of the job. If a character is reading a book and I call it a magazine - that’s a flub and it needs to be corrected. But can that standard be maintained when having intentionally descriptive conversations? In theory, sure. But it requires exhaustive research, a narrow and predetermined conversation, and no generalizations - only specifics. And boy, does that take the fun out of a good conversation!

When re-listening to our first few episodes, I noticed a fairly obvious pattern; when our conversations veered into territory I hadn’t fully prepared for, or required descriptions of images or videos that I hadn’t seen for days or even weeks, my descriptions were more vague and included some minor inaccuracies. That’s inevitable, I suppose, but I’m not entirely comfortable with it. When Chris and I are recording I have notes and my laptop available so that I can call up images and visual reminders. But to constantly pause and check every source before speaking is simply unmanageable. And to cut out every minor inaccuracy means loosing some natural, and often important, conversation.

Of course, if an off-the-cuff description is so flawed that it’s substantively inaccurate or lacks basic truth, it will absolutely be cut or re-recorded! But if I misremember that a character in a viral video is reading a book, not a magazine… in this context I might hold back my obsessive inner fact checker and let it pass. My goal is improve the accuracy of my descriptions with every episode, and hopefully I’ll settle into even better recording habits as we move forward with this format. In the meantime, your feedback is always welcome!

And if you want to test my accuracy with some images from Trump's Tulsa rally, you'll find an online gallery with photos from inside and outside the stadium on the CNN website.