Slashdot Mirror
The Era Of Satellite News Gathering
swimgeek writes "The TV Technology for covering news as it happens is changing. This article specifically talks about the transition from ENG (Electronic News Gathering) to SNG (Satellite News Gathering). The American TV networks are close to spending $100 million for this transition, anticipating a possible war in Iraq."
PRESIDENT BUSH AGREES TO MORE INSPECTORS (AP) Washington DC 4:00 PM (EST),
President George Bush has made an announcement that we will not attack Iraq.
The President has announced that as of today, he is agreeing to additional inspectors to be deployed throughout the country of Iraq. We will be sending 250,000 additional inspectors into Iraq. The additional inspectors will include:
- 24,000 members of the 1st Infantry Division
- 15,000 members of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)
- 15,000 members of the 82d Airborne Division
- More than 5,000 members of the 4th armored division with their "M1-A1 all-terrain vehicles"
- Additional U.S. Army personnel, as needed for inspections
- A variety of U.S. Air Force personnel for aerial recon missions and other "surveillance" activities.
- A significant number of United States Marines to aid with inspections
- United States Coast Guard personnel to inspect coastlines
- An undisclosed number of Rangers, Green Berets, Navy Seals, Recon Marines, Delta Force, and other:
- Special Operations personnel to inspect Iraqi "hide-aways"
- MOAB and Daisy-Cutter bunker access devices
- Special air deliveries to aid the inspections will be made by aircraft from the USS Constellation, USS George Washington, USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Enterprise.
_The President stated: "With these additional resources, the inspections should be completed in a few weeks (not months -- not years)."
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
This is the modern equivalent of the old 1940s movies where twenty reporters would see a man shot, then all rush out to the same three telephone booths and all try to pile into the same one, closing the door on each other in the process while they were screaming "Operator, get me the Times!"
ENG has definitely changed in the past decade - Gulf War I was the first to really have on-site video showing missiles launching and landing, and in Gulf War II: Die Harder, it'll be a necessity for any station that wants viewers - and we'll have several reporters in the gulf with satellite ISDN and satellite phones for on-location sound bites.
In terms of cost, we're not that big - not a national network, just 6 stations (with a few nationally syndicated programs) - but we anticipate spending upwards of $15k on equipment and at least $5k for phone/satellite bills.
Thing is, if you see CNN showing missiles launching and landing and your local news station with just a still photograph of Baghdad, which one will you watch?
-T
If You're Happy and You Know It, Bomb Iraq
by John Robbins
(to the tune of "If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands")
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.
If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think somebody dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.
It's "pre-emptive non-aggression," bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's proof enough for me,
If they're not there, they must be,
Bomb Iraq.
If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad
With the weapons that he had,
And he tried to kill your dad,
Bomb Iraq.
Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.
I've consulted on a few systems like this before. This article conflates a few different flavors of real-time broadcasting via bird.
The traditional mode uses bidirectional communciation, where the anchor can ask questions of the on-location talent. This has the advantage of being immediate (mostly). However, due to the latency of the encode and transmission, there is always a noticeable delay. These systems tend to use standards-based videoconferencing codecs like H.263. Bang for the bit isn't very good, so the quality is poor over most connections.
The next is real-time unidirectional, like a standard internet live broadcast. The video is transmitted in real-time, but the encoder uses a buffer in order to control data rate better. There can be a 15-20 second delay between something happening at it being seen on television. More modern or even proprietary formats/codecs like MPEG-4, QuickTime, and Windows Media 9 can be used. Thus, quality will be better than the bidirectional mode.
The next is "fast" where a file is compressed locally, and uploaded as a file. Most of the examples from the article of this type, encoding with tools like Movie Maker or Cleaner. The plus of this is that you can use as many bits as you want, so quality can be great, if you can afford the increased upload time. Also, since it uses TCP/IP, there isn't a risk of data corruption from dropped packets. This is fine for anything that isn't breaking news - expect at least an hour or so delay.
For video broadcast, ideally interlaced encoding would be used, but it doesn't sound like it is in these examples. Squeeze certainly can't handle interlaced output for QuickTime, although it can for MPEG-4. Getting the optimum settings for encoding is my area of specialty.
Still, only a few decades ago, the nightly news was produced by guys with film cameras shooting on actual film, and then rushing to get the film developed in time for broadcast. It's amazing how quickly things change.
Ten years from now, upload will probably be built into the cameras - no laptop needed, unless editing locally.
My video compression blog
"It was a military network, set up so that we could maintain communications, even in the event of a nuclear attack"
no it was not, never was, absolutly can not handle an actual nuclear attack. The fact that you moderate as informative on a 'geek' site goes to show how powerfull an urban ledgend can be. sheesh.
The military has its own nation wide telcom infrastructre that was designed with ' All possible military needs' in mind.
porn may have utilized the net, but they never did anything that could be considered an innovation.
So which was it that lead Linus to begin Linux; porn, or war?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Will read it on the net from a foreign news source just like I would anyways, anything else is so slanted and pre-digested as to be worthless for news anyways.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
IMO, this is a point worth talking about. One side effect of technology has often been the erosion of jobs. In some cases, it's been as simple as machines reducing the need for laborers. This is a different case. The technology ("desktop video," for instance) seems to offer more options and flexibility to each reporter. The indirect effect, however, is that the overall product suffers. A reporter puts together his own piece of video. This is cheaper than paying a video producer, but the work is likely of lower quality. Untrained, the reporter cannot equally utilize the software; and more importantly, he lacks the seasoned wisdom of the experienced professional in making judgments -- which angle to use, which clips to cut, which order to sequence, etc. (Not being a professional myself, I don't know precisely how many variables there are. Anyone else want to weigh in?)
Ask any elder newspaperman, and he'll likely tell you his first complaint about today's journalists: "They can't fucking write." Last Wednesday, the New York Times website's front-page photo was captioned, "Ana Palacio, Spain's foreign minister, told reporters today that a draft resolution on Iraq that it supports along with the U.S. may not be put to a vote to avoid a French veto." No, it's not incomprehensible (contrasted with some examples), but how the hell did that dreck get onto the front page?
Spell-check software has replaced practicing editors, in many newsrooms. A month or so ago, MSNBC ran an article about Cardinal Law's decision to step down, and it mentioned some Boston politicians who had visited Rome to offer their support. One of the names in the article? FBI "Ten Most Wanted" fugitive Whitey Bulger. Obviously, the writer meant to name brother Billy Bulger, a former president of the Massachusetts Senate. That mistake never would have made it past an experienced, practicing editor. But a spell-checker is indifferent to glaring factual errors, and text entry into HTML is a simple task. So writers end up looking like buffoons.
"Specialization" was one of the first trends in industrial society. When technology becomes more accessible, "specialists" are no longer needed. And more often than not, this results in (1) more people able to produce the work, and (2) far fewer people able to produce the work at an expert level.
Pros vs. Cons: Is it better to have more voices in the mix, or for the expert voices not to be drowned out? Is it better to practice reporting and video-editing and HTML now, to be competent at all three later...or is it better to be the best damn reporter, later, who admittedly can't tell RealPlayer from Napster? I'd tell my reporters to leave the video to the engineers, and to concentrate on reporting. When you get untrained amateurs trying to compete with professionals, you end up with Ain't It Cool News.
crib
Please don't read my journal
Here's a possibly more coherent version of the story:
Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy
Published 02. 28. 03 at 19:31 Sierra Time
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.
Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. [emphasis mine]
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.
Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.
© 2003 SierraTimes.com
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
"All right, let me see if I understand the logic of .
this correctly. We are going to ignore the United
Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that
the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to
wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war
The paramount principle is that the UN's word must be
taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to
guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will. Peace is
too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I
getting this right?
Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is
to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then
we are honor-bound to do that too, because democracy,
as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a
little thing like democracy as they define it. Also,
in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at
home, we cannot afford dissension among ourselves.
We must speak with one voice against Saddam Hussein's
failure to allow opposing voices to be heard. We are
sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make
the point that might does not make right, as Saddam
Hussein seems to think it does. And we are twisting
the arms of the opposition until it agrees to let us
oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition.
We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his
own people. And if our people, and people elsewhere in
the world, fail to understand that, then we have no
choice but to ignore them."-
by PETER FREUNDLICH