Nightline Editing Bias - The Supporting Data
Offline
After watching the Nightline debate, I had this feeling that Brian and Kelly (atheists) weren't given as much talk time as Kirk and Ray (christians). So I decided to take a stopwatch to the debate and time how the editor decided to divide the talk time.
I should say, I tried to cut out the moderator and any time spent not talking. Just the time period given for them to talk was counted. Below are those times and the order of the debate.
DEBATE ONLY
Bashir (moderator) - welcome and start
Kirk - 41 secs
Bashir - voice over
Ray - 25 secs
Bashir- voice over
Brian - 25 secs
Bashir - voice over
Bashir - question to Ray
Ray - 18 secs
Commercial break
Bashir - question and Kelly
Kelly - 22 secs
Bashir - moderated and allowed Ray to respond
Ray - 10 secs
Bashir - voice over
Kirk - 52 secs
Bashir voice over - now to audience questions
Audience - question to Ray
Ray - 24 secs
Bashir voice over - now closing remarks
Brian - 10 secs
Kirk - 21 secs
Kelly - 9 secs
Ray - 10 secs
Brian - 2 secs
Kirk - 4 secs
Brian - 1 sec
Kirk - 2 secs
Brian - 5 secs
Kirk - 16 secs
Bashir - "Thank you"
Bashir - voice over
Bashir - conclusion of debate
Sum of talk times during only the debate period:
Kirk - total talk time 136 secs
Kirk - average talk time 22.666 secs
Ray - total talk time 87 secs
Ray - average talk time 17.4 secs
Kirk and Ray got a total of 223 secs or 3 mins and 43 secs of talk time
They averaged 20.27 secs per chance to talk
Brian - total talk time 43 secs
Brian - average talk time 8.6 secs
Kelly - total talk time 31 secs
Kelly - average talk time 15.5 secs
Brian and Kelly got a total of 74 secs or 1 min and 14 secs of talk time
They averaged 10.57 secs per chance to talk
Christians - total talk time 3 mins 43 secs
Atheists - total talk time 1 min 14 secs
Moderator Bashir - total talk time 1 min 53 ses
Bashir's talk time includes the intro, voice overs, questions, and closing remarks.
Post debate interviews:
Kirk and Ray got 52 secs of post debate interview time with an average of 26 secs per chance to talk
Brian and Kelly got 23 secs of post debate interview time with an average of 11.5 secs per chance to talk
Intro pieces:
Kirk and Ray's (Way of the Master) intro piece was around 2 mins long.
Brian and Kelly's (Rational Response Squad/ Blasphemy Challenge) intro piece was around 1 min 23 sec long.
TOTAL TIME – includes the intro piece (Way of the Master and Rational Response Squad/ Blasphemy Challenge), debate talk time, and the interviews
Total TV time for Kirk and Ray (or WOTM related) was 395 secs or 6 mins and 35 secs
Total TV time for Brian and Kelly (or RRS related) was 181 secs or 3 mins and 1 sec
Editing points of interest:
You'll note that atheists were given a grand total of 25 secs before commercial time. While the christians got 1 min and 24 secs before the commercial break (more than the atheists were given the whole debate time).
Also, there was no rebuttal time given to Brian or Kelly when Bashir asked a question to Ray. However, when Brian and Kelly were asked a question by Bashir rebuttal time was given to Ray.
There was a crowd question given to Kirk and Ray. However, Brian and Kelly were not given one. Even worse, Brian and Kelly were not given time to voice their opinion on the crowd question to Ray.
Kirk was given 52 secs to voice his junk about evolution. Kelly and Brian were not given any time to refute the claims. All they got was the "Oh my god, what a numb nut" comment. We'll never probably know for sure, but it sounds like they increased the volume on Brian’s mic to make the line audible.
There are other editing issues. I implore everyone to touch on all the others in this thread.
Note: the video I used was from youtube. I'm not positive that the video was not edited. It did however feel like the content and length was correct.
- Login to post comments
Wow, thanks for compiling this. It is interesting to look at the stats this way.
Just goes to show you... once again..
What you say is more important that how much you say.
Quality debate > Quantity debate.
I don't really think it is a problem that the side that got he majority of time was the side that had taken on the burden of proof. The problem is that they utterly failed, yet the program was portrayed as a debate that ended in a virtual draw.
Welcome to the forum, Know1Self. You can go to the General Conversation, Introductions, and Humor forum and introduce yourself!
Atheist Books
I thought that Brian said something in his opening remarks about yeilding the floor to Ray and Kurt as much as possible so that they could present their "scientifc proof". I know that never happened but I believe that is was Brian and Kelly's intention to yeild more time to the WotM team and respond only with quick concice rebuttles.
You also have to remember that Ray and Kurt pad everything they say with emotional words, and other fluff. So it just takes them longer to say things. I think Bashir was fair and put Kurt and Ray in the host seat more than once. Which could also be the reason they got more time. Bashir asked them over and over to explain something when they were not clear, or were just avoiding the question..
This actually refers specifically to the opening statements in which we were to both get equal time. About 5 minutes a piece was to be doled out but Ray said he needed more time to prove gods existence. ABC stated that the opening shouldn't be longer than 25 minutes to keep the show moving, so I offered to give Ray 15 and we would take 8. At the last minute I told ABC we might need an extra minute or two in our opening, and to please allow us to go over up to 2 extra minutes. I never counted, but I believe we did in fact use the extra 2 minutes. Had I known that Ray would preach rather than prove Gods existence for 8 of his 13 minutes I would've never yielded the time to him.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
In any event you and kelly raped Christianity, and proved that the foundation for religious belief is nothing but ignorance.
"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave."
--William Drummond
If you had seen the debate in it's entirety, you would have seen that the rational response squad willingly gave up additional time to respond and present claiming that they did not need as much time to disprove the exsistance of God as Kirk and Ray would need to prove His exsistance.
Because the team yielded that time, it cannot be claimed that there was any editing bias. There was simply less to air from the RRS. It is important to lay all of the facts on the table when making a claim.
God Bless...
Actually that refers only to opening arguments of which they got an extra 6 minutes than us. The other 98 minutes were basically evenly distributed.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
wow great stats. Obviously the "debate" gave wotm more air time, editing wise. That just shows it in concrete proof.
her cleavage undermines the atheist point of view in the same way a gay guy in a g string at the pride parade ruins it for the normal gays. her red hair and overall goth/suicide girl look is not helping things. i don't care if that's who she is, if that's who she is, then pick someone else to be the face of atheism.
and the atheist guy seems creepy. there is something kind of joe francis about him. and he dates the goth chick, right?
i resent these two. no one was willing to step up and be THE atheist, so we are left with these two zeros. kind of like how blacks are stuck with jackson and sharpton. (it was funny when goth/cleavage chick got tongue tied in the debate and tried to work her way out of it and ended up stammering something about "....you know, history."
maybe ricky gervais, christopher hitchens, bill maher or david cross will decide to put you guys out of business one day and make a better website. one that doesn't ask people to donate money to it, which by the way is one of the more unattractive aspects of religion.
you guys are creepy.
First, to comment on the donation. Thats how things like this work. To keep a site (actually we have several), to be able to make TV spots and attend events and what not is not free. People who donate on this site, such as myself, do so because either we do not have the means or the gumption to go out and be the one debating and responding to irrational claims. Im a horrible public speaker, I have a hard time saying things coherently the first time because my brain generally thinks quicker than my mouth (which no doubt has gotten me in trouble in the past) and I generally do not have the time with a full time job. So donating is not a big issue for me, and if you wish to support another group that better follows your ideals, feel free.
And responding to basically the only other argument you brought up which was how Kelly dressed, which of course has nothing to do with the content of the debate as it is. However, I think she looked damn good and I think it makes a better statement of someone who is not afraid to look fucking stunning rather than covering shit up. And Brian and Kelly have said that if others want to step up, more power to them. However, I really don't see too many people doing it (outside of the obvious authors however they generally do not have time to do debates of this type and as Brian Flemming has stated, he is not a fan of that type of format anyways).
One last thing about the talking, Brian and Kelly have already admitted that they could have stated things better. However, theres the fact that they are on national TV which makes some a little nervous (unlike Kirk and Ray who do shit like this a lot more often) and even with the so call stammering aside, their points still beat the shit out of Kirk and Rays.
Anyways, enough of my rant which I usually don't do but I felt like I had to reply in some fashion.
Go here if you would like to donate to help pay for server costs
This is not the first time I've read this exact post (posted here under brettkenny). I noticed the same thing on the nightline forum after the airing of the Face-Off. By the time I went to bed that night there were around 3,000 posts, but the majority of them were repeated at least 3 or 4 times.
If brettkenny has anything to add that is not a cut-and-paste posting, I'd like to know how Kelly's referring to "history" is any less adequate of a response than Cameron passing a chance to give a real answer by saying, "I think they can figure it out . . ."
And by the way, Kelly looked like a perfect little church girl in my opinion. It was girls like her that were the only thing I ever enjoyed about going to church. During the few years when I attended church, Sundays were all about legs and cleavage--and I am sure I was not the only one who noticed.
Now you cant say her cleavage was any distraction twords the opponent Christan's, they were so far in denial of their own homosexuality that jesus himself would of slapped them for lien to thy self. I do say though it was very tasteful, i love a girl with a brain and looks to pull them off, but buy anyone judging these 2 on they way they look you are no better than the fucking bullshitters saying your going to hell. If you judge them according to something that can be measured like the quality of their performance thats something to talk about, and i agree it could of been done Little better but i don't see anyone else having the balls to get up and speak on the behalf of us atheists. If i had the money and connections i would.
I agree with them being unfairly delegated in this TV show. ABC is owned by Disney so of course anything that can be used to disprove their "creator" they would haft to step in and edit things. I don't think this debate was supposed to prove or disprove anything, it was just an entertainment ploy. Next time a debate like this is held there should be a 3rd party scientist there to slap a christain in the face when they try to make a mockery of modern science or at least call a bullshit. We need someone there that is recognized by their own religious society's collages in being a hell of alot smarter than they are, and I'm am not afraid of that one bit because the facts dont lie.
"Freedom of religion, means freedom of religion"
-ME
1.) You're not an atheist. Nice try.
2.) You fail as an intelligent human or you wouldn't use the term "goth/cleavage chick".
3.) They did exceptionally well especially considering that C & C have been doing their schtick for a living for many years.
4.) They both looked great, even next to a supposed teen idol.
5.) It takes $$ to run a website, especially when you allow for any old idiot to post on it.
6.) Paul and Jan Crouch look creepy.
7.) Attach your own genuine picture here or stop being an asshole making pointless asshole comments.
{creepy edits forthcoming}
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
And you're a fucking troll.
of course they won the debate, they are on the winning side. it's easy. it's like arguing a kid about santa claus. "well if it's so easy, then why don't YOU do it?" -- i don't know. wow gizmo. you sure have allot of "flair" on your name thing. do you you wear buttons on your denim jacket too? you are a gold member and a silver member and a bronze member. doesn't gold member assume silver and bronze member? you also have a badge, you are also a high level donor and a couple of other things, i forget. it's silly though. maybe this website can make money from advertising or maybe they can be less tacky about how they ask for money. i like the way her cleavage looks. during the nightline thing i was mesmerized, but i still realized that it was a bad thing. she should dress like she's running for office. it was a televised debate. (are they implants? i went back and forth on this. at first i'm like, "no way, she's too fat, and if she took her shirt and bra off they would hang so low and probably look pretty bad, but then i thought i saw some tell tale signs of implants.) bill maher would probably love to have these two on his show. he has a documentary that makes fun of religion that is coming out pretty soon. but his talent booker is probably like, "no, i just watched the tape, they suck, don't even watch it. they suck on tv, trust me, they totally suck. .....yeah, cleavage, yeah, but totally fat. not your type, not even worth it. i'm talkin, like 5'6" 160, something like that. sooo not your type."
Brett, if your going to troll, go elsewhere. We prefer to generally spend time productively instead of dealing with people like you.
And yes, I do have "flair" as you call it because I have all three subscriptions at once (yes, Gold implies the other two however I wanted to give more than the $25 and I thought it would be funny to have all three). And that would be awesome if Bill Maher had them on. Somehow the concept of how they dressed in the debate I don't think would enter into the decision making process.
Anyways, if you dont have anything good to contribute, then go away. Trolling on the boards is not allowed.
Go here if you would like to donate to help pay for server costs
Greetings all. Well, for my first post, let me say Kelly looked fantastically Hot. As George Hrab put it, Brains, Body, Both. Sorry Brian, I did not notice how you looked, but when you share the stage with Kelly, well, I hope you understand. Besides, I do not really notice how guys look. Just sayin'.
I am not sure who has it as their sig, but the quote about how debating Xtians compares to playing chess with pigeons seems dead on in this case. No matter that the RRS team drug the fanatics through the mud, I know for a fact they are crowing how they slammed us godless heathens. Well, let them have their delusions. The truth is out there.
Oh, and Brett, you troll 'tard, go play with your friends. Failing that, go play with yourself.
Thanks for having a great site, I look forward to contributing in as many ways as possible in the future.
I noticed too the ray & kirk were given more time and treated much more respectfully. Also did anyone notice they were given a special interview to view thier points as well as opinion of the atheists after the debate. It was in the back room where kirk said he didn't expect to see so many angry atheists and Bashir said they looked I think it was exhausted. comfort gave credit to kirk for doing the debate & explained something to the effect that kirk was used to having people admire his celebrity status, etc. & thanked was basically thanking & excusing kirs remark about the audience being angry athiests. these two are so used to being treated like little children, no one ever really challenges them and I think that is why they blindside people on the streets, airplanes when least expect them to so they will not be confronted with real logical rational questions. They set people up at inopportune times to make themselves appear to be winning some evangelical confrontation. The mic was turned up on Brian when kirk came out with his stupidity pictures. I'm sure not everyone could hear Brian anyway, I know I still had trouble hearing him then and so much wanted to after seeing Brian & Kelly's reaction. I don't know how you both didn't crack up laughing at the stupidity.
American Idle and others
thank your for your replys I couldn't have said it any better.
Also Kelly is a beautiful woman I wonder if brettkenney is just another jealous woman. Why is it when a woman has cleavage larger than a peanut she is expected to hide it all. But a woman will peanut size cleavage can flaunt all she wants?
Gizmo how you spend your money is really your business as I am sure you know. Asshat here doesn't need any explanations and isn't worth giving any to. You can donate all you want and can afford to, nothing wrong with that. Also there was nothing wrong in any way with the way they dressed, it obviously didn't change their obvious intelligence, getting their point across or ability to think and that is what's really important. Kirk and Ray dressed droopy, drab, not intelligent looking or impressive at all, hmm seemed to go with their brains. I don't like putting them down it's not really what I like doing to people but these two asked for it. Oh & treat history books like gospel?? seriously?? they don't worship their books or pray about the knowledge in their books. they don't treat their books like some imaginary daddy in the sky wrote them. If Brettkenney can't afford an education then at least try for some common sense.
Brett, you are a sad, sad little (man?) You sound very repressed. See a shrink, get some meds, admire a good looking member of whichever or both sexes you choose, and live a little. You are way too much uptight.
atheism and theism is a mental disorder
yeah the debate sucked. sorry to say,
I was terribly disappointed, I felt like it was a big money making scheme by Nightline and ABC. Pretty annoyed..
They should have more qualified people on each side and actually have a serious debate about this... someone like Dawkins/Hitchens/Price vs. the Big Dog Rev Al/Haggard so they can really have at it.
what is the right thing to do.now? You have to trust me and send me all your money
or be a gold,silver. bronce,member now.or buy me ebay ,amazon staffs now
You can donate all you want and can afford to, nothing wrong with that.
Learn how to type and speak in complete sentences. The rest of your post does not dignify a response other than yes Dawkins vs Haggard (tho we have already seen a mini one) would be entertaining, especially considering Haggards scandal, however I think it would be a better example of a ploy by ABC to get ratings.
Go here if you would like to donate to help pay for server costs
Gizmo, I may be new here, but you seem to draw a lot of love for your unique avatar. Not that there is anything wrong with it, you just seem to draw attention.
Yeah, its because I decided to subscribe to all three at once. Figured it would be funny.
Seems like someone is extremely insecure about their own looks... brettkenney?
This is pure style over substance bullcrap. The way she looked had NOTHING to do with "undermining the athiest point of view" as you put it. If you have a problem with her arguments then please share, otherwise spare us the fashion appraisal.
Again, do you have a valid point or are Ad-Hominem attacks all you got? More to the point, what difference does it make who's dating who?
I, for one, do not resent these two people for doing what they did. Before I saw the debate I had no idea who they were. I had never heard of Rational Responders. Yet these two people who were clearly unaccustomed to being in front of a large audience on nationwide television absolutely DESTROYED their opponents on the first rebuttal. It takes an awful lot of courage to get up on stage and submit yourself to public scrutiny and I think they handled it well. Did they stumble? Yes. Did they have their weak moments? Yes. Could I have done any better? Absolutely NOT! Infact I probably would have done much worse. So thanks to them for taking the heat for me, and doing a wonderful job!
And maybe Mario and Yoshi will take you on a tour through the Mushroom Kingdom. Seriously I'm trying to see a point here. When Evangelist ask you for money it's allegedly to pay to "spread the word" Yet there's no specifics beyond that. I seem to have stumble on a page here at rational responders that detailed what their expenses were. I see nothing wrong with asking for financial help... I also see nothing here that requires that you give it to them.
And you're a troll who presented nothing worthwhile to the discussion.
It was stated at the beginning of the debate that Brian and Kelly agreed to give more talk time to Kirk and Ray.
Kelly can't help that she's smokin' hot. She should shave her head and wear a burlap sack next time ... maybe those 'motivated' to her gender won't stare then.
I doubt it, but we can try.
I recall watching the introduction videos before the debate was to take place. There was an interview of the crazies by the guy that hosted it. He asked gentle questions and was calm and over-all non-biased about the whole thing.
Then I watched the interview done with the RRS crew. It was like watching a hate crime in progress. I'm sure Kelly and Brian probably didn't notice because the guys attempts at stumbling them up were utter failures, but from an outside viewpoint it was very clear. This guy had an unabashed opinion about what they were doing and had NO qualms whatsoever about displaying such.
I thought it was a clear display of whose 'side' the network was on. I also had to chuckle when I realized the debate would take place in a church and the Way of the Dillhole was airing directly after the debate.
Funny stuff.
The more annoying editing is not the time given, but apparently they didn't show the Banana Boys stammering? I found all the parts on YouTube, and its fairly down on the Bananas.
As to being embarrased by another athiest's dress (literally, hah), maybe looking like we're everyday people is better than looking like we're pretending to be running for an office which we'd never get anyway. Hell, even if you think she was a "fat goth harlot" (to paraphrase Brett) at least that kind of person would be INTERESTING. But boobless anorexics who could be young males must be your thing
Welcome, boondocksgeek!
When you get a chance, we'd love it if you'd hop over to General Conversation, Introductions and Humor and introduce yourself.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.