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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.