Slashdot Mirror
NBC Upset About CBS's Digital Ethics
naughtius_maximus writes "NBC is peeved that CBS used the live-digital-editing technique mentioned in a previous /. article to cover up NBC's logo with one of CBS's creepy eye logos during the new year's bash. The full story is at Yahoo! News." How much of this is faux righteous indignation on the part of NBC? On the other hand, they did pay for the Astrovision screen that CBS imaged over. Maybe they're still mad about Letterman.
NBC did not have a contract with CBS to display that advertisement, and since CBS owned the transmission medium, they have every legal right to do what they did. Is it ethical? I don't know. I do feel that NBC has no right to ask for reparations.
Was CBS right to do this? I don't think so, but they weren't wrong either. It was just a bad decision and one that undermines their integrity.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
The biggest problem here is that it's NEWS organizations which seem to be loving this technology. Is it right for journalists to fake out their viewers (in this case) even when it only involves slighting the competition? I don't think so. I think it's journalistist fraud.
Normally when you're watching news coverage, there's a trust that the audience puts into the news that they're getting the real deal. It's an implied agreement that the news will present us with facts (both stated and visual), and that we viewers come to expect that. This is one of the things that separates news from sitcoms and drama series. This is why we don't raise a flap if we get computer special effects in the movies. This is why we get pissed if the news gives us doctored footage.
That's like replacing Boris Yeltsin's head with Brad Pitt's and reporting it as news. Their version of actual events was inaccurate to say the least. I wonder if all ugly people could be replaced with good-looking people with this same technique. That way the mother of the septuplets wouldn't have to worry about her bad teeth. Her face could just be replaced with Pam Dauber's.
The New York Times Circuts section carried an article on this very matter as well. It would surprise some people what length advertisers go to in order to make sure their message is being heard. There was once a man interviewed on ABC News whose job is to count up every single ad visible in every second of NASCAR televised racing, along with the duration of visible time. He then punches this in a spreadsheet and uses calculations to both valuate and evaluate the money worth of each ad spot.
Now advertisers will be pissed because there is no more garuntee that they will be seen on television. Technically the networks have a right to broadcast what they want, but it perturbs me to realize that networks will go to lenghts to block competitor's advertisements, but still interrupt broadcasts with sensational journalism, like the OJ "getaway" and planes landing on freeways.
"In individuals, insanity is rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." -Nietzsche
As for the Journalist ethics, Journalists conviently forgot those years ago and do now care who they walk on in the quest for the almighty scoop. If they think they can get away with using this technology, they will use it.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Nothing bothers me less than to see two giant media corporations go sue each other. I hope they bankrupt themselves.
Look, what if at hockey games, they start putting up blue screen ads, so that the TV networks can project their own ads onto them? Is this really any different than the way ads are sold now? No, not really. That kind of thing is already going on. Does CBS advertise its competitors for free? No. Big deal. So what if they start editing out outdoor advertising. Would anyone object if it was a cigarette ad they'd edited out?
The issue of honesty in reporting, which seems to be one of the major concerns here, is a total non sequitor as far as I'm concerned. Raise your hand if you didn't know that what you see on TV isn't always real. No hands? I thought so.
Jim Naureckas of FAIR seems concerned that this will undermine the credibility of TV news. As far as I can see, TV news already has no credibility, and print and Internet news isn't much more credible. The news is already a part of the entertainment, and is only done so long as it attracts ad revenue.
What a total non-issue.
viewers that it was doing this? If not, they're setting a dangerous precedent.
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
40 years from now I'll lean over to my grandson and tell him how I remember so vividly my evening at time Square, "It was so much fun, everyone was screaming and laughing. The ball was getting ready to drop, and the Astrovision had Dan Rathers talking about the event live. Oh Jonny, you should have seen it live - it's just not the same on tv, you know."
Joseph Elwell.
Jakob Neilsen claims that web users have been observed to develop defensive techniques against banner ads. These techniques include scrolling the banner out of view, or staring at the cursor while the rest of the page loads. Advertising effectiveness is falling on the WWW, hopefully it will start falling everywhere. It would be the first step to ending the disgusting consumer culture in the USA.
-jwb
Okay guys, read the article. It sounds like this was an actual physical logo, like a billboard. Not the stupid thing in the bottom-left-hand corner of the screen!
I don't care who owns the transmission, if it's live, I want to see what's there! It's New York, for cris'sake. If they had a partnership with Lipton and digitally changed the big Cup-a-Noodle display or something, I'd be pissed!
(Why? Because I was at Times Square for New Years last year, I stared at that thing for three hours, and I kinda like it. I trust my news for some reality now and then, and if I found out that they lied to me like that, I'd be annoyed.)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Sure.. they own the broadcast.. but if the general, fair assumption that it is 'live' then it should not be edited. Period. One could launch a class action suit saying that they deliberately did *NOT* give you fair, live coverage of the event, as they claimed to have done, and, in that respect, wasted your evening.
If I framed up a news page with other's content and covered up their articles, I'd be in hot water. So, what grounds does CBS have taking footage of other people's buildings and plastering other ads on them?
Imagine you own a 100 million dollar building in Times Square and arranged some advertising on New Year's Eve. No one sees it.
I hate advertising and don't know why I'm defending NBC, but I think CBS pulled a boner.
Scenario A: Networks airbrushing over each other's billboards, buildings, etc. with different sponsors
This will solve itself, because the networks are on a level playing field -- they will most likely come to an out of court agreement, unless they are all as ill-mannered and belligerent as the CBS president.
Scenario B: Networks inserting advertising onto the billboards/signs of smaller businesses.
I almost HOPE they do this. After all, they could argue that the local businesses are getting free advertising merely by being shown in the background of a TV show, and thus the network is merely reclaiming ad space previously given away for free. I'm pretty sure this would backfire though, so I'm not too worried.
The networks inserting advertising onto anything and everything that moves. And stuff that doesn't.
This is the real problem. Most advertising is obviously advertising, but there is a subset that masquerades as truth. Fake websites, fake movie advertisements, some infomercials, and so on. Most of that stuff is easier to pick out because it falls into an advertising "context" -- a 30 second spot, or whatever. But what if ad agencies realize that there is an opportunity to truly blur the line between advertising and reality? Insert an ad masquerading as truth into a show professing to report the truth? How much would that be worth? I know that fake websites are harder to distinguish from fake movie trailers simply because there are no contextual clues ("Rated 'Y' for Yummy").
Just food for thought.
----------
"If children weren't copyrighted, no one would have babies." -- Alex Eulenberg
When i read the article about Dan Rather's objection to CBS's use of the technology, there was a genuine flavor of: "no, we really do think that this use was over the line, and that the previous use in whimsey on the morning show was okay".
Well, that's fine and dandy. In my book, even counts as a retraction of the previous stance of "this use does not go counter to our guidelines against digital modification of images".
Hmmph.
Then they go on to mention that the CBS morning show is in trouble, ratings-wise. And that they had spent $30 Million trying to fix it up. Then things became clear. This was all a publicity stunt.
Sure, they probably genuinely were playing around with covering up NBC logos with CBS logos, etc. But the hubub that resulted, the news articles, the allegations, the unethical stance, the retraction, righteous indignation. All sounds like a carefully orchestrated publicity stunt to me. Otherwise, this wouldn't have gotten nearly the media coverage it had.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
For those that didn't read the article, this was a gigantic bulletin board in Times Square on New Year's Eve.
On the one hand, CBS does have the ability and the right to adjust its broadcasts. Censoring-squares or blurs are done all the time, for reasons from 'decency' rules to protection of innocents in crime footage.
OTOH, they made it look as if their logo was really there on New Years Eve, misrepresenting the broadcast as live and unedited coverage, at least implicitly.
I think the ethical way through this dilemma is actually pretty simple. CBS should have covered the NBC logo with something that was clearly artificial. Maybe a blur, or a black square, or even their own logo - but done 'flat', maybe in a brick-layout, so that it was obviously a computer mask over something being covered. Then CBS edits the offending content while at the same time not creating a misrepresentation problem.
(The question of why they didn't move Dan Rather -is- a good one though... )
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
The Yahoo article doesn't make this clear, but Dan Rather is upset because there's a bit of a journalistic-integrity-type issue (spelling?) at hand with this digital editing. This issue was also touched on by a few people in the previous /. article. Basically CBS displayed an image, promoting it as live and implying it as being unedited, but altered the image without telling anyone that it was altered.Many people are forgetting (and most people don't even realize) how easy it is to skew or alter an image or it's perception without using CGI effects; and let's not mention editing techniques. Television is a difficult medium for fair, evenhanded journalism. It's nice to see people on the inside complaining, but it's going to be a hard struggle that gets worse before it gets better.On another note, the surest way to fix things is with an eduacted audience. And be just as wary of counter-news and underground- and alternative-reporitng as you would normal reporting.
----
What I CAN see happening is CBS putting an ad over a billboard during their broadcast.
I'm happy to see NBC going after CBS for faking what we see on TV. If CBS isn't stopped now, the next thing you know, they'll be showing fake exploding trucks.
This is an interesting issue...
On one hand, I don't like advertising -- and it was pretty creative to block out NBC's logo. But on the other hand, I think CBS was wrong to do this. Why? The main reason is that you are no longer reporting what is *actually* happening -- not only are you "slanting" it (as is what usually happens) but you are decieving viewers into thinking that the something is there which is not there. Done well, sure, it's hard to notice, (unless you're NBC) -- but I think it's unethical. Furthermore, I think it's unethical to plaster your logo in other places where it actually isn't, like the buildings and carriages that the story was talking about.
It's great to have the technology to do this. Pretty darn nifty, I would say -- but I think it is unethical to use the technology in a deceiving way.
The bottom line? They can do whatever they want with their broadcast. But I think it makes them look bad when they deceive people -- but hey, what am I complaining about -- I don't watch TV anyway. Yet another reason not to watch CBS.
Some will see this as a sign that the media cannot be trusted. Man, you guys are late. They've been doctoring magazine and newspaper photos for years. I reached my last straw with the flap over setting explosive charges in trucks and then reporting their lack of safety. The media has always been manipulating your news. They didn't need new technology to do it. W. R. Hearst certainly didn't need digital technology for his yellow journalism.
There are good people and there are bad people. It's a law of nature. It should surprise no one that there are bad people in the media.
If you only get your news from one source, or worse, from only one television source, you're a dupe. The only way they can fool you is if you let them.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Rather himself weighed into the controversy Thursday in an interview with the New York Times, in which he said he regretted the TV trickery, saying it was ``a mistake.''
``At the very least we should have pointed out to viewers we were doing it,'' he said. ``I did not grasp the possible ethical implications of this and that was wrong on my part.'
So, Dan actually thinks its kinda "wrong" to lie to people? Wow, journalistic integrity at it's top.
CBS News President Andrew Heyward defended the use of such new technology
Meet Dan's boss.
Asked whether he believed it was deliberate deception on CBS's part, Heyward said: ``The answer is no, I don't think it was. This is part of the evolution of graphics. They get more and more sophisticated...it does raise new issues.''
What? You mean like ethical issues? Like, "Maybe we should tell people what they're seeing is fake" kind of issues?
and
And ABC News apologized a few years ago for a segment in which reporter Cokie Roberts was said to be reporting from Capitol Hill, when she was in fact in the network's Washington bureau in front of a photograph of the Capitol building.
Let's rephrase this, ABC apologized a few years ago when they lied to save a few bucks, after they got caught. Remember...
CBS is owned by CBS Corp. (NYSE:CBS - news) NBC is owned by General Electric Co. (NYSE:GE - news) and ABC by Walt Disney Co. (NYSE:DIS - news).
And all of these are responsible to their shareholders to maximize profits. Nothin' like saving millions with new technology!
This technology is real cute, until it's used to show some Chinese/Iraqi/Evil Empire of the Week troops killing 30 Americans in cold blood to ramp up public opinion to grab new resources for the starving childrn in this country.
/end wild knee jerk reaction
+&x
CBS uses this same method to shoot their logo all over NY landmarks during their morning "news" shows. again, i say "so what".
The thing that actually sickened me was watching the ball drop in times square (on TV) right onto a huge Discover(tm) ad. Nowhere else in the world (that i saw) was advertising space so blatantly exploited.
We're seeing more and more outside ad space (in the USA) being purchased not only for the impressions it will make in real life, but for those captured on tv and in movies, tv shows, etc. By starting to block them in this way, maybe we'll see a decline (however slight) in the selling of every square inch of public property to advertisers.
I have no idea if it was "right" or not but if enough ppl get pissed at CBS they'll stop doing it. I find it hilarious that NBC is outraged at this, as if when they purchased Jumbotron advertising it said in the contract "CBS will not mess with your ads during their broadcasts". Heck, the Real World on MTV blurs logos of companies all the time. Outrage! It is supposed to be "Real". says so right there in the title.
Presentation of news on televsion has been altered since tv began - beginning with what execs choose to show and exclude, including editing of soundbytes and videoclips, and now some digital jiggery-pokery. wake up, people. news is not nor never has been "pure" and this digital imagery trickiness is just another tool in a large arsenal. in these days of advanced digital imaging, i take anyting i don't see with my own eyes with a grain of salt.
i for one applaud CBS' move to use this technology to subvert advertising. let's see more of it! let's destroy an advertising culture infrastructure that is dominating our lives.
Isn't this sort of similar to spammer A whining that spammer B used a cancelbot to kill his "Get rich Quick" messages in usenet?
I suppose I should be grateful about advertising though... How would I know what I want without it?
The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
I'm curious to see if the FCC will have anything to say about this. Isn't there something in the terms of agreement that networks must comply with that says something about public service? This may not apply to cable since it's a private medium, but the radio spectrum is public property and I'm almost certain that to get broadcast bandwidth the networks have to agree to certain conditions. Can't remember where I read this.
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
Artistic license happens in fictional works... you know, stuff that's "art" uses "artistic license." This does not fall into the same category as news coverage. If they're going to alter video footage and try to pass it off as news, then yes, that is unethical. If they don't like NBC's logo, they had the option to blur or mosaic it out in a way that lets the viewer know that it was altered.
If they'll live edit a logo... and do this kind of editing without telling the viewer he's watching an edited recording... then why should I believe anything they say or show? News reporting has to be raw and uncensored or it's just not credible. This is why I support ACs on Slashdot. They are the Great Equalizer that keeps Slashdot legit. There may be loons, flamers, zealots, and baldfaced liars among them, but as long as they can speak uncensored, I can rest assured that the unedited Truth is being spoken in there too, without fear of reprisal from the ACs employer, etc. Any tainted news or slanted reporting will be quickly debunked by the masses. Slashdot without ACs would be just another biased news media outlet.
"The conservative elements in our society take TV far too seriously."
So do the liberal/progressive elements. And since TV is largely produced by liberals and progressives, it's a wonderful symbiotry.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Having said that, it seems that re-composing the shot would have been a much more reasonable solution, either moving Dan "What's the Frequency" Rather in front of the sign, or simply changing the angles. This would have avoided the tinge of impropriety altogether.
In reading the related Yahoo articles, I find NBC's (as well as the FAIR representative's) inflammatory declarations quite amusing -- as if Dan and his crew were neo-Stalinists erasing party members from old photographs. "CBS has always been at war with Oceania. We have never been at war with ABC." C'mon, newsy folks, your producers would have done exactly the same thing, and for the same reasons.
I think what's more at stake here (and what's more saddening) is not some "threat" to journalistic integrity due to the digital revolution, but more how much corporate folks love to whine for the microphones. It's like a preschool playground, and Dan wouldn't play fair.
Unfortunately, the likelihood of corporate America "growing up" any time soon is ... well, about as probable as Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw singing "Auld Lang Syne" together on the next Dick Clark's Rockin' New Years Eve.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
You already shouldn't be trusting photographs, video clips, etc. since this technology has been out there for years, and this recent incarnation is only special because it works in real-time. Moreover, you fail to realize that in the future, people won't be interacting with images as objects in an otherwise objective and external universe. In the future, with implants and such headed where they're headed, people will be interacting with a modified (improved or depreciated, depending on your philosophy) view of the world. With technology like this, it won't be simply a matter of covering one logo with another. It'll be masking one's entire perception of the world.
Oooogy, oooogy, booogy. I came up with my conspiracy theory for the day; now it's your turn.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Steve Mann, one of the original Media Lab borg units, was motivated partly by a desire to have more control over his personal visual place.
IOW, he wanted his visor to block out bilboards.
Check him out:
http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~mann/
And
in this page:
Discuss.
It's new years eve 2099 and a new century is less than an hour away. You've saved for this trip for over 2 years, and you're happy to say, you're going to be in times square on new years. New York, the gateway to america, the city that never sleeps, you've seen it all on Letterman, the bright lights, the glamour, the prestige that is times-square New York,NY.
You walk into the square and gaze up around you at what you think is going to be all the adds you've seen so many times, only to see giant green screens. That's right, there is no more bright lights, no more prestige. Just giant green billboard with (little dots in the corner to sync the motion tracking on the real-time digital overlay).
Is this our future?
_________________________
Sure, you can't trust everything you see on the TV, but can you imagine what would happen if someone took the TV images of Ronald Reagan being shot and digitally modified them so that some other major figure was there. Say, a key political or economic figure. You could cause panic in the stock markets, and therefore the entire economy.
In short, TV news stations can carry out acts of economic terrorism. If the courts rule that such acts are legal, for ANY reason, CBS or NBC could quite literally hold the United States to ransom any time they damn well chose, in a way that every court in the land would deem perfectly acceptable. And there wouldn't be a damn thing anyone could do.
Nor would it stop there. Let's say the news chief bet on the wrong team in the Superbowl. No problem! Just edit the scores on the scoreboard, and sue the establishment he placed the bet with for witholding his winnings. As he had video evidence, it's not impossible he'd win.
In short, once you legally allow edited images to be presented as fact, you are opening the doors to activities that would make a politician blush, and all of it would be perfectly 100% above-board.
IMHO, sod the ethics of this one case, look at the potential road this goes down! Be VERY Afraid of that!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It's not that simple.
Calling yourself "The News" implicitly obligates you to try and tell the truth.
The US Constitution gaurantees the freedom of the press. Any reasonable person can see that does not mean "any industry calling themselves the press has the right to print anything they want and not be held liable for slander or misleading the public."
The press is free to tell the truth (unless classified, yada yada). As soon as it knowingly stops telling the truth, the people involved ar no longer "the press", and are liable for libel and slander lawsuits as well as criminal prosecution.
Rule of the universe: Freedom and Responsiblity run in parrallel.
P.S. Don't forget that people without cable may not have any choice but CBS for news.
Okay, whether we like it or not digital manipulation seems to be here and here to stay.
The bare minimum the networks should do is TELL us when they're digitally manipulating and image or a scene. Perhaps a logo at the bottom of the screen for any scene that involves digital manipulation. People should be aware that what they're seeing has been altered in some way.
Now with the advent of the Internet, I think that a more intelligent and ethical approach would be to have a page the viewer can go to and see some sort of streaming video containing the original and modified version. This way the viewer could see what he's missing. Allow the users to watchdog the industry, perhaps then people might have a little more faith in the evening news.
So in other words, it's OK to make it appear that the victim somehow likes or advocates a product? What is the product in question is offensive to the person who has been made to appear to support it?
Taking things a step further, is it also supposed to be OK to put a compeditor's ad on a spokesperson? Should the CEO of CocaCola appear in a Pepsi t-shirt at a sporting event?
It may seem trivial, but it is an act of putting false words into someone's mouth on a news program, and could be financially or socially damaging as well as just plain offensive. How far from that is it to change a witnesses words in an interview. For example, go from: "We were sitting in the park minding our own business when..." to: "We were sitting in the park enjoying a delicious refreshing [beverage here] when...". I know I would be offended.
I think this could be considered misappropriation of the content from the astrovision screen.
After all, replacing the logo denied attribution. I'm sure both of the networks identified the product as copyrighted material and reserved rights of reproduction.
By modifying the image they changed the information from "news" to "content", "reproduced it", and then falsely labeled it as their own.
So maybe this is a copyright violation. It sure doesn't seem like "fair use".
Or maybe they were sampling, yeah, it was a dj track....
They've been mucking around with this technology here in Australia for a while, changing the adverts that you see on televised football games, etc. As a result, the person at the game saw an advert for Telstra but the people on TV saw an advert for Optus.
:)
This is going down a really interesting path as what we're finding is that more & more people are watching sports on TV, rather than attending. The latest stadiums on the drawing boards are actually smaller than the ones we currently have. Thus, TV advertising is all important to the owners of these stadiums.
Now, thanks to this technology, the stadium owners cannot guarantee prospective advertisers how many people will see their advert. After all, each channel that carries the event may very well change various adverts to suit their own sponsors, etc.
The stadium owners do have some level of response, however. When coverage of various sporting events is being arranged, only a specific media group will get the contract (they go through a bidding process). Thus, it's possible to either 1) up the cost to cover losses in advertising revenues or 2) put clauses in the contract stating that this technology cannot be used to replace adverts.
I'm fascinated with where this will lead to, simply because it totally changes the playing field. Puts the cat amongst the canaries, so to speak
I left my body to science, but I'm afraid they've turned it down...
Sounds like it is time for a new project: a version of Junkbuster to remove ads in realtime on tv.
Then watch *all* the networks (including CBS) dive into "righteous indignation."
"Viewers have no right to edit out our adverts!" Snicker.
This sig is false.
So CBS has decided that it will digitally edit in these ads. This technology has been available for some time already and has been used in things like hockey games and car races for a while now.
I think the issue is that we can no longer view video, even live video, as fact. This has long been the case with photographs. Why do we still trust newspapers like the New York Times or the Washington Post? We trust them because experience has shown that when they say "this is how it is" they end up being right. This holds for the text they print as well as the images.
CBS has chosen to insert these computer altered videos into their production, so when they tell us "this is how it is" we have experience that tells us "it probably isn't", so we really ough not trust them.
This is the risk that the media faces when they do something like this---CBS has lost a lot of credibility by their actions.
I can say for sure that I will not be getting my news from CBS if I can avoid it. Do I think that we need a full blown boycot of CBS? I don't know, but I would encourage anyone I know who's interested in getting real news to avoid them. I just don't think they can be trusted.
This could be interesting ground for the networks. They actually used "Luma" sampling a couple of years ago and got in trouble. I believe it was Dianne Sawyer, Supposedly at the white house or the capital building.
Once the virtual images are superimposed over the actual live picture, whether of a football game or in a news story, the virtual images appear to viewers at home to be as real as anything at the scene. People who walk in front of landmarks replaced by virtual billboards appear to television viewers to have walked in front of the electronic billboard, making it appear completely real.
Just like the above, she wasn't really there, she was standing in front of a blue screen in a studio in New York. The networks put a spin on the practice and called it " Look Live", It got some attention for a couple of weeks. In one camp they had the ethical journalists stating that it was not right and on the other they had the execs saying that it added flavor the news.
This is not too much different. Placing any kind of "Look Live" or "Look Anything" behind a live news broadcast is misleading. As far as placing the first down marker etc. on sporting or entertainment programming would more than likely be ok.
The question now boils down to is the news entertainment? Was the show produced that night a "News" broadcast in the first place or was it an entertainment program? Or are they the same. I thought the show was just that, a show. Just like Dick Clark and all the others. I didn't expect to see real content unless something bad happened and it turned into a news event.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
Something tells me whoever sells the rights to broadcast sports events to the networks has airtight contracts making sure that the ads around the rink will be seen.
Exactly. When Channel Nine did exactly the same thing during a cricket broadcast in Australia, the Melbourne Cricket Ground, owners of the stadium, were MIGHTY annoyed. They threatened to withdraw Channel Nine's rights to televise anything from the MCG and the issue eventually died.
I believe a similar course of action will play itself out in the US - the stadiums (stadii?) depend on those signs for revenue, and will soon stipulate no "live editing of signs" in contracts.
"In person, WAP'ed up and making your life a misery!" BOFH, 2003
Wow, that's a funky reading of the constitution. At least, I *assume* that your point is loosely based on the constitution. Having just read it again, it sounds kinda funny.
Sure, the newspapers can be liable for libel (pun intended). Libel is slandering someone, but only if what they write is untrue. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that said libel is untrue.
There is no such crime as "misleading the public." Tellya what - why don't you try to sue some major media outlet for "misleading you" into buying lots of food for Y2K. Note how long it takes for you to get laughed out of court. Better yet, try to even find a lawyer who's willing to go along!
"The press" isn't obligated by any law to tell the truth, or not to mislead. They lie and mislead all the time.
No comment at this time
"This show is rated M(ALSV DM). It contains Adult themes, strong Language, Sex scenese, Violence and is Digitally Modified in parts".
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
CBS said it wasn't intentional. BS!
CBS might be misrepresenting its news more often than we think.
I saw the movie "The Informant" lately and it was detailing CBS's coverage of a whisleblower. Apparently it was a true story and it showed how the CBS execs fucked up and caved into the tobacco industry.
Its was a good movie and I'd recommend seeing it if you like watching big companies squishing little people like bugs.
*lengthy shocked silence*
*grin*
Kewl. Well, on to the next subject... ;)
I'll vote for that. There should also be an explicit statement that the tv is produce/owned/manipulated by huge companies that push their own interests and slant everything. So, perhaps a [P]ropaganda tag would be added too?
"Dan, there's something you should know in case you talk to anyone about the Vivmotrinox clip."
"Yes, that was heart-rending. Did you notice as I interviewed that brave man, the patient in the bed next to us died?"
"Er.... no."
"Whudddyuhmean 'no'?"
"Dan, don't talk about that to anyone. We fixed it. When the clip aired that patient did not die. It's not like he was the subject of the interview, you know. The sponsor wanted it more upbeat. You know, it's a story about hope."
"I see. Well, I'm sure his family will be delighted to hear of his miraculous rescue from death."
"Don't carry on like that, nobody will recognize him. We changed his hair color and put a mustache on him! Everything's taken care of."
"Everything?!? Ev... Now, I hope you're not going to lie to me, friend. Have you been 'taking care' of my hair on TV, too?"
"Dan, baby, that's our job! Oh, one other thing?"
"You're going to tell me anyway, so just spit it out like a good fellow. What?"
"Your closing, that 'The benefits of this treatment remain to be seen, but this patient's fight is an inspiration to behold'?"
"What about it?"
"We lost the 'to be seen, but'. Don't worry, it looks very natural, they had to morph to your 'b' mouth position and hold it about ten frames to match the timing with that damned leaf falling past the window. Piece of cake. You looked great."
"AND WHY, MIGHT I... scuse me, and why might I ask was this _belated_ script change made?"
"The sponsor. Wanted it to come off more upbeat, you know?"
The issue of honesty in reporting [...] is a total non sequitor as far as I'm concerned.
Fair enough, but seeing as you've talked about it here what you say is questionable. There is a huge difference between choosing to report only certain facts, selecting from among pictures and reporting limited viewpoints and creating pictures, making up facts and falsely ascribing viewpoints.
I am assuming that it is these categories that you place the unreality of
Raise your hand if you didn't know that what you see on TV isn't always real
If not then I'm afraid my hand is down. I'm aware that I'm subject to propaganda, staged-media events etc., but I don't believe that Dan Rather is a cyberspace construct, I don't believe that the footage of Kosovar Albanians is all made up. I do take these things with a grain of salt - I ask "why are they telling me this?" and try to fit it into a larger picture of the world.
I'm assuming that you feel the same way too, so, and this brings me to the nub of my posting, won't the effect of your posting be to discourage /.ers from listening to any media and trying to make educated guesses? Why bother listening to anything? Why not just hid in our own cynical, solipsistic holes, never coming out to see the light of day?
The fictional view of the world that this portrays reminds me of the worst excesses of po-mo "truth is the outcome of the veridiction operations".
The big news is that this is like altering a photo in a newspaper or faking a source. It's a step further, and just because things are bad now doesn't mean that we give up.
I really think that that is the central issue, not the two giant media corporations go sue each other.
So, since CBS has every right also to show your picture on TV if you are watching the fireworks, do they have every right to put a Microsoft cap on your head, and you have no right to ask for reparation? I can't imagine that you would agree with that, but without inventing an exception it fits within your framework.
...they deleted it and replaced it. A good eye that was watching closely might have seen the difference in a still, but who is paying attention. I'm not saying that it was newsworthy that an NBC logo was in view, but it could have been something.
/. where any jackas* like myself can state their interpretation, point to the facts that they have uncovered and the truth can be gleaned from this overflow of information.
Scenario: Let's say that a drunk and hopped up on amphetamines exec from ABC was flashing his as* on the live broadcast. That's embarassing to them.....would they edit it out? I think they would, particularly if no one was going to notice. This would make them obfuscators of fact, not something that I value in a news agency.
I for one will never trust ABC news again, not that I particularly enjoy relying on the mainstream media for my news anyway. I greatly prefer something like
Blah!
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
...they deleted it and replaced it. A good eye that was watching closely might have seen the difference in a still, but who is paying attention. I'm not saying that it was newsworthy that an NBC logo was in view, but it could have been something else.
/. where any jackas* like myself can state their interpretation, point to the facts that they have uncovered and the truth can be gleaned from this overflow of information.
Scenario: Let's say that a drunk and hopped up on amphetamines exec from CBS was flashing his as* on the live broadcast. That's embarassing to them.....would they edit it out? I think they would, particularly if no one was going to notice. This would make them obfuscators of fact, not something that I value in a news agency.
I for one will never trust CBS news again, not that I particularly enjoy relying on the mainstream media for my news anyway. I greatly prefer something like
Blah!
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
The revenues that the placement of the ads in an arena make helps to pay for the existence of that arena. The only reason that the cost of placing one of these ads is so high is that they are seen on national television. Take that away and you devalue the existence of the ad, thereby taking away the revenue to the arena and :. taking away the arena.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
1> Captain Amazing from Mystery Men, the do-everything, save the day superhero with a publicist that makes him look wholesome and gets him all sorts of corporate logos/sponsorship to wear.
2> ONtv in Hamilton, ON, Canada that has gone to a set that is completely CGI for their daily evening news program. ...just make sure none of the news anchors wear blue.
With the first thing, would it not be more of a concern that our heros (more in the realm of sports) are literally owned by corporations? Wouldn't it be more worthy of concern than the introduction digital editing into the newsroom? Kids especially look up to them as mentors and people who they want to grow up to be. What kid other than Alex P. Keaton ever dreams of becoming a Walter Kronkite or Barbera Walters type?
The second thing, the news is always going to be a construct of somebody's mind. Back in the very beginning of the gulf war when CNN was the only broadcast coming out, what was it that we were all glued to the TV and radio listening to? The fact that missile bombardment was happening or the fact that a man on a phone being rebroadcast across the world was taking cover in his hotel room watching missiles fly into buildings around him?
Even after this little logo fiasco, the world will go on, big corporations will find new ways to try to dictate our needs to us and the construction of the news broadcast will evolve as producers get their hands on new digital goodies.
What should hopefully and ultimately keep everything in check is competition.
Cheers
The Income Tax was enacted. Some people thought to limit the tax to 10%, but others carried the day with the argument that this was automatic permission to increase the tax to that outrageous level.
:-).
Others thought we were at the beginning of a very slippery slope. They were laughed at, probably by the same academics you refer to.
I think Slippery Slope is a pretty good argument
D
----
The only cases in which First Amendment isn't applicable is when it's libel/slander- or any other attempt to defame and damage a person. "Misleading" isn't a crime, and does not change who gets to be called the "press." But there certainly ARE other Constitutional concerns. Namely- state action. The airwaves and radiowaves are given to private companies IN TRUST of the public- they're public property (technically, a public good). Granted, this doesn't apply to cable networks or the internet. But there certainly is a rationale that if companies betray the public trust by which they are granted use fo the airwaves, then the public has a right to take them back. Of course, the only method to do so is the FCC and the legislatures, which of course are pretty much owned by the companies its supposed to be regulating. So maybe that's not really a very plausible rationale... Though losing billions of dollars of airtime might just be punishment enough. These little slips of course, aren't anywhere enough to justify this- though I could tell you horror stories that might..
lying isn't something you need geek technology to do.
IMHO, it's an admonition not to be too conceited or egotistical in one's dealings with the rest of the world.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
There's a difference between something which to a casual observer appears to be reality, and something which appears to be fiction. In general we expect that when we are shown something which appears to be reality, but actually is fiction, we will be informed. An example would be the radio broadcast of War of the Worlds. There was nothing wrong with the show, but the station still had the responsibility to make it clear that it was fiction.
The floating logo for the channel is clearly fiction, no one is likely to believe it exists in reality, as you pointed out, and so the station has no responsibility to point this fact out.
Had they made it clear that they footage they were showing of Times Square had been altered no one would have cared - they're entitled to alter it however they choose. The problem is when they pass it off as unaltered.
God does not play dice - Einstein
Not only does God play dice, he sometimes throws them where they