So Where was the Teleprompter?

[Postvieww]

She's looking good as a candidate, too. Trump pales by comparison. Don't you agree?

Taped, short, I’ll bet she had the questions in advance. What? 39 days with no live interviews no real questions. Afraid of any reporters not on her team. No she does not look good as a candidate. She is an empty suit with no substance on the issues. Where is her platform on her web site? Many in her own party wanted her off the ticket before for Joe was booted. Now she is MARKETED as a great candidate???? The debate will tell all, no way she can hold her own with Trump. Tulsi Gabbard ate her lunch in debate.

 

[Hammster]

Taped, short, I’ll bet she had the questions in advance. What? 39 days with no live interviews no real questions. Afraid of any reporters not on her team. No she does not look good as a candidate. She is an empty suit with no substance on the issues. Where is her platform on her web site? Many in her own party wanted her off the ticket before for Joe was booted. Now she is MARKETED as a great candidate???? The debate will tell all, no way she can hold her own with Trump. Tulsi Gabbard ate her lunch in debate.

Apparently the transcript will not be released, either.

 

[Fantine]

Any campaign strategist can easily guess the possible questions a candidate will be asked.
Harris and Walz obviously prepared answers to 'probable' questions, as most candidates in most elections would.

 

[Postvieww]

Apparently the transcript will not be released, either.

Bash asked a question then gave Kamala multiple choice answers within the question. This is just more gaslighting.

 

[ozso]

No, there’s no Teleprompter. In a conversation when someone is asked a question and they look down to the right and then stop for just a moment they are picturing their answer. There is a distinct possibility. She had the questions ahead of time and has practiced the replies.

Right. Mentally picturing the script that wasn't on the table any longer.

 

[Hammster]

Bash asked a question then gave Kamala multiple choice answers within the question. This is just more gaslighting.

I noticed that.

 

[Hammster]

Any campaign strategist can easily guess the possible questions a candidate will be asked.
Harris and Walz obviously prepared answers to 'probable' questions, as most candidates in most elections would.

That’s a possibility. They knew they were in a friendly environment so they knew nothing would be asked that would shed a bad light.

 

[Fantine]

To the contrary. There were numerous questions about flip flops, Walz' military record, etc.

 

[Hammster]

To the contrary. There were numerous questions about flip flops, Walz' military record, etc.

And they knew they were coming. And they knew their supporters wouldn’t care. It was safe.

 

[Arcangl86]

You know, this thread is a perfect illustration of why Harris put off having an interview for so long. It's a lose-lose situation.

 

[Whyayeman]

More malarkey.

No, you have just done what shampoo ads do - you have overstated your case. The 'science' you quoted used the word 'could'.

So, eyes looking up and to the left could suggest imaginative thinking and looking down could indicate nervousness. Or not. It is right up there with 'gives the appearance of youth'.

If there is malarkey it is in your very dodgy proposition that Harris had a teleprompter under the desk.

 

[ozso]

No, you have just done what shampoo ads do - you have overstated your case. The 'science' you quoted used the word 'could'.

So, eyes looking up and to the left could suggest imaginative thinking and looking down could indicate nervousness. Or not. It is right up there with 'gives the appearance of youth'.

Do you know why the eyes look to the right or left? If not then you have no business making such an assessment. I'll give you a hint the key word starts with H.

If there is malarkey it is in your very dodgy proposition that Harris had a teleprompter under the desk.

The question in the OP was: "Where do you suppose the teleprompter was hidden from camera view?"

To which I answered: "Somewhere between the camera and the table" - Not "under the desk" as you falsely stated.

See you didn't even get that much right. You're just being rude and making inaccurate assessments and spurious accusations.

 

[Whyayeman]

Do you know why the eyes look to the right or left? If not then you have no business making such an assessment. I'll give you a hint the key word starts with H.

The question in the OP was: "Where do you suppose the teleprompter was hidden from camera view?"

To which I answered: "Somewhere between the camera and the table" - Not "under the desk" as you falsely stated.

See you didn't even get that much right. You're just being rude and making inaccurate assessments and spurious accusations.

And all that is so much better than a discussion about the interview itself.

For myself, I do not think there was a teleprompter anywhere, but if there was - so what? A teleprompter is just a means of allowing speakers to use their notes. I have spoken in public many times and have always used notes. I always recommend having some kind of prompts when people have asked my advice on speaking.

But, I agree that what I said was rude. Your own tone invited rudeness, so no apology.

 

[ozso]

And all that is so much better than a discussion about the interview itself.

For myself, I do not think there was a teleprompter anywhere, but if there was - so what? A teleprompter is just a means of allowing speakers to use their notes. I have spoken in public many times and have always used notes. I always recommend having some kind of prompts when people have asked my advice on speaking.

The reason why the eyes autonomically move to the left or right is because of which side of the hippocampus someone is accessing to either remember something or to make something up. That's neurology and neurology is science.

But, I agree that what I said was rude. Your own tone invited rudeness, so no apology.

You started out with the snarky remark "you sound like a shampoo advert". You were out to put me down from the get-go. Do better next time.

 

[Whyayeman]

The reason why the eyes autonomically move to the left or right is because of which side of the hippocampus someone is accessing to either remember something or to make something up. That's neurology and neurology is science.

I do not argue with the science. Like soap adverts you draw unwarranted inferences. Looking in a direction is not usually autonomous. You have pointed out correctly that Harris's eyes sometimes look down during the interview. The inference is at first that she was looking at a teleprompter. Maybe she was, and why not?

Then the second claim was that looking down showed nervousness. Well, maybe she was. So what? She was on national television doing an important interview.

Perhaps you invited my sarcasm with your own dodgy interpretation of Harris's body language. A lot easier than addressing policy, eh?

 

[ozso]

I do not argue with the science. Like soap adverts you draw unwarranted inferences. Looking in a direction is not usually autonomous.

It is in the instance I gave. I already explained why.

You have pointed out correctly that Harris's eyes sometimes look down during the interview. The inference is at first that she was looking at a teleprompter. Maybe she was, and why not?

I also showed that during a remote interview she had with Anderson Cooper she virtually never looked down but rather looked straight forward. That begs the question of why she doesn't look down during remote interviews, but does quite a lot during a face to face interview.

Then the second claim was that looking down showed nervousness. Well, maybe she was. So what? She was on national television doing an important interview.

I explained the various reasons why a person looks downwards a lot when talking face to face with someone. I did not make any claims that any of those reasons definitely applied to her. The theme of this thread is supposition ie "why do you suppose".

Perhaps you invited my sarcasm with your own dodgy interpretation of Harris's body language. A lot easier than addressing policy, eh?

Addressing policy is not the topic of this thread. But supposing why she was looking down so much is.

 

[FreeinChrist]

To the contrary. There were numerous questions about flip flops, Walz' military record, etc.

It was an interesting interview. There was no teleprompter, and Harris chose her words which was wise. There are those who would jump on the least thing to criticize her. She was articulate and did not engage in whiny complaints about the interviewer and did not focus on Trump,

 

[iluvatar5150]

I noticed throughout Harris' interview with CNN, that she kept looking down; as she was answering the scripted questions; as if she herself was reading a script.

Where do you suppose the teleprompter was hidden from camera view?

lol, you guys do like regurgitating your talking points, don't you?

So why does she seem to have difficulty looking the American people straight in the eye as she tells her story? Drugs?

You know there's no audience there, right? The "American people" in the room are Harris, Walz, Bash, and the production crew. What you perceive to be looking people "straight in the eye" is actually looking into a camera lens.

Amusingly, right in front of the camera lens is where teleprompters are often located in a tv studio. That's how news anchors can read the news while looking straight into the camera. So, you're wondering where the teleprompter is located, while simultaneously complaining about her not looking at the one place it's most likely to be.

No, she's looking around the room, at the table, and she also spends a lot of time looking right at Bash, the "American person" who's actually asking her the questions. In a setup like this that's pre-recorded, I doubt they'd have an indicator as to which camera was active at any given moment, so she couldn't even look people "straight in the eye" if she wanted to.

Before she answered a question, she looked off to one side...as if reading a teleprompter.
Before she answered a question, she looked down...as if reading a script.
Before she answered a question, she paused...as if she was listening to someone giving her the answer.
Before she answered a question, she answered immediately...as if she knew what the question was going to be.
Before she answered a question, she didn't look at the camera...as if she was responding to the person asking the question.
Before she answered a question, she put her hand to her mouth...as if she was slipping in another tablet of some sort.
Before she answered a question, Walz stroked his chin...as if it was a signal to give a particular scripted answer.

Maybe we could take a vote on which is more likely.

She knew all the questions and had time to rehearse.

AFAIK, it's customary to send over at least the subjects that will be addressed. Her answers were certainly canned. They didn't have to be read from a teleprompter.

More broadly, this thread shows how shallow the criticisms from a lot of you guys on the right really are. There's plenty to critique about how her answers were canned and unspecific, but instead, we're talking about where her teleprompter was hidden. It's like you guys have forgotten what it's like to listen to somebody who can speak in complete paragraphs and like you've lost any ability to parse sentences. Her ability to do speak is throwing you off more than the actual content of her words.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Maybe you should pay closer attention. Notice that the interviewer pauses and looks down three times asking the first question.

Because she has an outline in front of her, which is clearly visible in the wide shots. As is common practice for people doing interviews…

Kamala begins to speak, then pauses, she looks down, then begins to speak again. The she pauses until she looks down again.

It looks perfectly natural for someone who is reading a script.

It’s perfectly natural tic for somebody who is in a discussion where they are the focus… Staring at the person you’re talking to in one, long, unbroken gaze is not how most people talk because it’s off-putting, confrontational, and not a natural way of speaking.

I look up and away. My husband looks to the side. My kids look at their feet. Trump looks to the right and kind of down. Literally, we all do it.

 

[loveofourlord]

People usually look up when cogitating. Even to the point of tilting their head back.

Yeah....no, looking online thats just pseudoscience and no longer used. Not everyone does the same things the same way, just as not everyone thinks the same way, or even think at all.