NBC Upset About CBS's Digital Ethics 285
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.
CBS had every right (Score:5)
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.
Fake News (Score:5)
I say it's wrong too (Score:5)
Substitutions (Score:2)
Commentary (Score:4)
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.
Like it or not... (Score:2)
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.
So what? (Score:4)
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.
Did CBS Inform... (Score:2)
Memories. (Score:5)
Joseph Elwell.
The big corporations should get used to it (Score:4)
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
This is a Big Deal! (Score:5)
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 [152.7.41.11].
You know what? (Score:3)
Stealing (Score:3)
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.
NBC - ABC (Score:1)
Matt
i say it's not. (Score:1)
Re:So what? (Score:1)
"Live, from Madison Square Gardens! The New York Rangers versus the Redmond Blue Screens of Death!"
Hey, baby, it's got promise...real promise.
Maybe problem will solve itself (Score:3)
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.
Teevee (Score:1)
Seriously, anybody here honestly believe TV is a valid indicator of reality? Unbiased reporting doesn't exist (columbine and the hellmouth anyone? How about DeCSS?), and in many cases isn't even well-researched. I regard most of what I see on TV as gossip. The notable exceptions are: the weather (atleast they admit they lie!), Star Trek (which I believe is Divine Truth), and Monty Python re-runs.
The conservative elements in our society take TV far too seriously. Warping children's minds? Sure, flip on Barney and Friends or that Pokemon show. Violence and sex on TV, evil? Well, sex on TV doesn't hurt unless you fall off. As for the violent part... well, watching Roseanne.. *shudder*. Yeah, well.. I guess maybe they were right. Scratch this post. =)
A realization. . . (Score:2)
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".
The Big Picture (Score:1)
Just think of the things this could lead to. What are we going to let the media get away with? A stance needs to be taken on issues like this otherwise before we know it all our media is fiction and we are living in "1984".
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember
Re:i say it's not. (Score:1)
I love this kind of sophist viewpoint. Does the constitution specifically say that it's wrong to abort babies? No, but rational people can agree that it is a tragedy, irrespective of your opinion on whether it should be restricted.
CBS is clearly playing in a gray area that may come back to haunt them.
Ethical Dilemma. (Score:3)
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
Re:The big corporations should get used to it (Score:1)
Advertisements are more pervasive than ever, and will continue to be. They are really succeeding when you don't notice it (like placement in TV and movies).
Unfortunately, the more ads there are, the less we will pay attention to them, but the more the marketing leeches will convince companies they need more advertising.
You people upset about CBS? This is nothing compared to what you will see (or won't see, or think you are seeing) in the future.
The Ultimate in Mass-Dillusion (Score:1)
Soon appearing on a TV screen near you:
ROOTERS (BS) -- "Rooters reported that at the inaguration(sp?) of President Donald Trump this past week, CBS used their new "eMass eDillusion" technology to superimpose an image of the president "gettin' jiggy with it" during his inagural speech. CBS authorities claim that it was "some hacker punk that broke into our system", but millions were not spared from the horrible image many believed was a new style in clothing"
Please, as if the thought of doctored images in newspapers wasn't bad enough, now I can't even trust the news on tv!
------------
Re:Fake News (Score:1)
I agree. A journalist is a person doing a job, true, but in Western civilisation at least they're the people we rely on to get the information others don't want us to have.
I admit that I can be an apologist for journalists on occasion, and I like to think that the majority are honest and good people trying to show us the world in an unbiased fashion, but if the networks will stoop to planting their own logo over someone elses just for the sake of looking like they have better coverage, well...
Who watches the watchers?
All the best,
base2_celtic
Re:You know what? (Score:2)
NBC's Digital Ethics Should Be Questioned (Score:1)
Re:Ethical Dilemma. (Score:2)
It's their signal and they have no more responsability to show the Real World than the Weekly World News.
It sucks, but it's true. Who knows, it might even be a good thing - it could be the end of 2.5 minutes of commercials every 15 minutes by replacing them with more subtle in-the-picture ads.
Dan Rather's comment on all of this - (Score:2)
----
Re:You know what? (Score:1)
If anything, I'd hope something happens that would make content providers in any medium openly state that images or sounds they are hearing are not necessarily reality.
Blue screen ads won't happen (Score:2)
What I CAN see happening is CBS putting an ad over a billboard during their broadcast.
no different from banning tiny image flashes (Score:1)
They made a law saying that you can't have a minute flash of an image in a video stream in order to make you crave hamburgers at the movie theatre. This will be no different. A few people will abuse the current lack of standards, people will get pissed and a law to this effect will be passed:
Any video stream marked as "live" may not contain any image manipulation except the addition of visual borders around the side of the image to convey the live status or other information about the feed. The border may cover part of the live feed, but may not at any time appear to be a part of the live stream of images.
Once that goes in to law no one will be concerned about this any more.
Drake42
defensive techniques against banner ads (Score:1)
What next? (Score:3)
Re:Maybe problem will solve itself (Score:2)
This already happens. PR Firms regularly put together news-like segments and distribute them to news agencies. The news agencies then air those segments (they look professianally done) in their evening news broadcasts. Pharmaceutical companies really take advantage of this sort of thing. Often, on the nightly news, there will be a segment about some new drug breakthrough. That segment will have been put together by the PR Firm that the pharmaceutical company has hired.
There was a really good program on NPR a few months ago about PR firms that discussed this stuff. I tried searching the archives but couldn't find it.
CBS was wrong. (Score:4)
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.
Re:So what? (Score:1)
This is why there will probably be no legal issue as far as blocking an advertisement on New Years eve at Times Square goes. After all, it's public property, and they didn't sign a contract (at least not with NBC) to be there.
I do think there may be some legal recourse if CBS advertised their coverage as live (which they obviously did). I think it's entirely likely a judge would rule that live means unedited footage of something currently happening (and since there was no actual CBS logo out there...). Of course one could argue that if a company can be sued for not accurately representing the truth at one point in time, couldn't you sue a company that undergoes transmission problems? After all, if you were standing where the camera was, it's incredibly unlikely your vision would distort to static for a few frames.
Ahhh the joys of modern legality.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
We have two options here:
1. You're karma whoring. Great, just what I love, moderator fishing. Perhaps you'll catch the big one, and get a five.
2. did i say there were two options? umm, well, nevermind then.
Well, i hope everyone's happy looking at the thirty "what's the point of this?" comments...Perhaps some posters here can grow up and learn to move on. If you spent as much time saying "this is pointless" as you did finding something that isn't pointless, I wouldn't have to see your typing on my computer screen.
Angry? no, not really. I just like watching the slashdot evolution. Survival of the fittest, even if the fittest are only suckering the moderators. you slowly learn there's a certain window to go in here, or else you're gonna be moderated down. The moderated down stay down, while the up go up. You either become a karma whore, or you never get heard. Period.
A little long, and a little bit of rambling, but i think i said something here.
Never trust the media (Score:4)
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.
Re:no different from banning tiny image flashes (Score:1)
Similar Event, diferent media (Score:1)
They claimed they did it only to make the picture fit in the frame and promised to never do it again.
To bad I can't remeber the details.
-
Re:So what? (Score:1)
Only traditional news agencies have the manpower to get to stories fast. Yeah, they hype it, they sell it and they try to prolong the story to the detriment of others. But they're all we've got.
The alternative is clear; just look at china, or (to a lesser degree) Australia (if we're not careful).
all the best,
base2_celtic
Put on your ice cleats, boys! (Score:1)
This made me laugh. TV news credibility? News flash kids - that deafening howl in your ears is normal when you reach terminal velocity.
They won't be doing it for long (Score:1)
--
This is why AOL/TW sucks ass (Score:3)
``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
Digital Ads Obsolote Physical Ads: Film at 11 (Score:2)
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.
Re:Ethical Dilemma. (Score:2)
The dilemma comes in that there is a perception by the public that television broadcasts that are reported as 'news' or 'event coverage' are going to be -factual-. To deliberately make them non-factual is the same as telling a deliberate, plausible lie for your own purposes.
You're resolving this dilemma with a flippant answer. They own the airspace, sure, so? Does that mean that because the New York Times owns the printing presses they can publish an issue about the (non-existent) presidential assassination?
I don't know all the legal issues, but, I've been told that the Weekly World News situation is that a) they interview lunatics and crackpots, so they really are reporting what 'witnesses' said so the news is 'true'. b) Their crazy photos and drawings are marked as 'artists depiction.' and c) They -do- get sued (sometimes) by people irritated with them and their representing nonsense as news, they just fight it in court so that even though they lose (eventually) and have to print a (tiny, on page 7) retraction, the plaintiffs have spent far more money than it was worth. This is expensive for WWN (or any other tabloid with the same practices) in the short run, but discourages vigorous enforcement of their responsibility to be truthful.
Being -able- to evade responsibility, however, is not the same as not having responsibility.
--Parity
Re:Teevee (Score:1)
Until now, most news has been reported truthfully, if often out of context. But at least you could be sure that what you saw through the lens of a reporter's camera was an actual, unaltered image of what was going on, and you could make your own judgement about its meaning and significance. We have now entered a world in which it is no longer possible to trust the images you see that are reported as news. This is bad news indeed.
Spammer Frenzy (Score:3)
I suppose I should be grateful about advertising though... How would I know what I want without it?
What about the FCC? (Score:3)
Re:i say it's not. (Score:2)
Ask: If they edit logos, what else do they edit? (Score:5)
Re:Ethical Dilemma. (Score:2)
I am pessimistic about the media, I thing they just barely manage to predent it's reality. The fact is, it's ALL edited, not just some little ad. They edit it by chosing what (not) to show, how to present it, in what order, during what times of days, and with what sort of commentary.
They could avoid showing the competitors ad by just not putting it in the camera shots. Now, I personally would prefer my Live programs to be as Real as possible, but I don't think they have any responsability to present it to me.
In the media I can't set my threshold to -1.
Re:What about the FCC? (Score:2)
"As a public trustee, the broadcaster may not engage in intentional and deliberate falsification (distorting, slanting, rigging, staging) of the news. As the Commission stated in its ruling in Hunger in America, "Rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest - indeed, there is no act more harmful to the public's ability to handle its affairs." Therefore, the Commission does act appropriately to protect the public interest in this important respect where we have received extrinsic evidence of such rigging or slanting. For example, this kind of evidence could include testimony, in writing or otherwise, from "insiders" or persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be extrinsic evidence revealing orders to falsify the news by a licensee, its top management or its news management."
Re:Teevee (Score:2)
So do the liberal/progressive elements. And since TV is largely produced by liberals and progressives, it's a wonderful symbiotry.
What's the Frequency, Kenneth? (Score:2)
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.
A little shortsighted (Score:4)
Oooogy, oooogy, booogy. I came up with my conspiracy theory for the day; now it's your turn.
The Cyborg response (care of Steve Mann). (Score:3)
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:
[toronto.edu]
http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~mann/
And [toronto.edu]
in this page:
Discuss.
Brand new high-tech times square adds (Score:3)
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?
_________________________
Re:Memories. (Score:2)
The whole "live vs. TV" thing reminds me of a USENIX keynote in 1994 (the summer conference in Boston). Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller) was the speaker, and the keynote was being sent over the Internet MBONE (multicast networking).
He made a point of saying that the people watching on the Internet were getting "the exact same experience" as those of us physically present.
Of course, they weren't. The actual speech was pre-recorded, and shown on projection screens at the conference as it was being sent over the MBONE. Meanwhile, he was standing on the stage performing magic tricks while his recorded image gave the speech.
With his usual comic timing, the words "exact same experience" were replayed right when he was doing a fire-eating demonstration or something similarly spectacular.
That was one of the best USENIX keynotes I've seen, if not the best.
This raises some very serious issues (Score:3)
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!
Re:Ask: If they edit logos, what else do they edit (Score:3)
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.
We need to know! (Score:4)
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.
Ads on crime victims' shirts? (Score:3)
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.
Re:Ethical Dilemma. (Score:2)
If you take something from somebody, you have a basic obligation to give them something in return. (Postulating the reverse would condone theft and slavery).
On another point, we have a generally responsibility to be truthful. It's also all right to be silent on topics we don't want to discuss, and we can tell untruths in the form of fiction - if we first admit it's fiction. It is not, however, right for someone to go around telling lies for profit. We call such people con-artists.
On that pair of basic principles of human ethics in modern 'western' culture, it follows that telling viewers you're showing them a picture of times square when you're really showing them an edited picture of times square is both wrong on its own merits (as a lie) and wrong because you're cheating the customer. (We'll give you images of an event just as it's happening in exchange for your advertising-reception time).
It seems to me, then, that by the standards of the society that includes all the affected parties (both tv companies, the owner of the edited sign, and the viewers) that the action was wrong.
Never mind the specific ethics of journalism, which any news program should reasonably be expected to abide by.
Besides, what you keep saying is 'Well, they're wrong and bad and evil but they have the -right- to be wrong and bad and evil.'
I'm doubtful that they have that right legally, though I expect we'll find out, and I think that by the standards of belief of the culture they a part of (modern America, modern western civilization) they certainly don't have that right, and given that journalistic ethics are largely concerned with truth and integrity...
So, under just what system do you think they have 'no obligation' to be truthful in what they report as factual, and a 'right' to use their airwaves for any purpose they chose?
--Parity
no one raised the copyright issue (Score:2)
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....
Re:Ethical Dilemma. (Score:2)
Most people here seem to assume that Live means Factual and that if it isn't they should be required to post a disclaimer.
I say, assumptions are dangerous. Unless they say it's factual, don't assume it is.
Another point: Is it ethical for the competitor to hi-jack real-estate on the competitors images?
Re:The big corporations should get used to it (Score:2)
So let's all join hands and thank the public education system of the United States of America (and lazy, stupid people everywhere) for making it easier to filter out the useless and annoying advertisements targetted at the great unwashed!!
---
On Billboards At Games (Score:3)
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
Re:Never trust the media (Score:2)
Weirdly enough, for a good part of the 20th century the media has generally been pretty unbiased but has, unfortunately propogated the myth that they're unbiased - have always been unbiased - will always be unbiased - and that therefore the news requires no critical examination or analysis by the people who recieve it.
I don't trust the media, and I like to get as many different confirmations for it as possible.
IMHO the most unbiased major news source is the BBC - unfortunately though it's not always convenient for me to get.
Re:This is a Big Deal! (Score:2)
--GnrcMan--
Re:Commentary (Score:2)
Jesus, I think this guy classifies for the potentital worst job on earth; Second perhaps only to Rosie O'Donalds Dietitian.
Re:CBS had every right (Score:2)
Do they have every right to edit their broadcasts, then mark them as "live"? Absolutely not.
To the majority of viewers live doesn't just mean "in real time"...live means "in real time and unedited". In fact, taking shows like "Saturday Night Live" as example, Live is more about unedited than about real-time. SNL is delayed by three hours on the west coast.
To put it bluntly, what they did is called lying. It is unethical and if it isn't illegal, it should be.
--GnrcMan--
Realtime TV Junkbuster? (Score:2)
Then watch *all* the networks (including CBS) dive into "righteous indignation."
"Viewers have no right to edit out our adverts!" Snicker.
Just another step in the loss of credibility... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Ask: If they edit logos, what else do they edit (Score:2)
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.
Re:So what? - This exact problem is already solved (Score:2)
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.
Re:Commentary (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that, if I get one of these gadgets for myself, I can digitally remove all the billboards, ads, and other such crap I see on televised sporting events? The race cars will actually look like cars and not a cacophany of stickers and decals? The football players won't be sporting oversized Nike logos anymore?
Does Fry's stock these gadgets? I am so there...
(Author's Message: In the hands of only CBS, NBC, et al, such a device has vast potential for abuse. In the hands of an individual viewer, though, it's an unbelievable tool of empowerment.)
Schwab
Re:Ask: If they edit logos, what else do they edit (Score:2)
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.
Re:Dan Rather's comment on all of this - (Score:2)
Re:Digital image editing.. (Score:2)
[DM] (Score:2)
"This show is rated M(ALSV DM). It contains Adult themes, strong Language, Sex scenese, Violence and is Digitally Modified in parts".
Re:Not a full screen (Score:2)
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. [detnews.com]
Its was a good movie and I'd recommend seeing it if you like watching big companies squishing little people like bugs.
In MTV Boardroom: (Score:2)
*lengthy shocked silence*
*grin*
Kewl. Well, on to the next subject... ;)
Tagged (Score:2)
That's an elegant point (Score:3)
"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?"
So what? - selecting vs creating (Score:2)
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.
CBS had every right to put Microsoft on your cap? (Score:2)
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.
But they didn't blur or obscure..... (Score:2)
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!
But they didn't blur or obscure..... (Score:2)
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!
Re:Commentary (Score:2)
Let's say that Coke has an ad on the boards of a hockey game and Fox is carrying the game as well as other broadcasters. Would it be illegal for Pepsi to pay Fox to either remove the advert or replace it with their own?
I think that this could boil down to something that will have to be considered in the contracts of the sales of broadcasting rights of events. But what happens when an event isn't sold, but is a free event? Where is the control there?
But alas.... (Score:2)
Re:We need to know! (Score:2)
You're missing the point. The logo would be put in by the company doing the manipulation. What would be the point to remove it? This system would require either some sort of regulation of voulntary participation.
Constructing the news and our culture (Score:2)
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 [www.ontv.ca] 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
Slippery Slope (Score:2)
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
----
Re:Ethical Dilemma. (Score:2)
Most people here seem to assume that Live means Factual and that if it isn't they should be required to
post a disclaimer.
I say, assumptions are dangerous. Unless they say it's factual, don't assume it is.
Well, I suppose that's a valid point in trying to resolve the dilemma in favor of CBS's actual actions, though I don't think it makes the dilemma non-existent. I might argue that coverage of a real event and coverage of a fictional event are not the same thing but I'm not really interested in carrying the debate to that point.
Another point: Is it ethical for the competitor to hi-jack real-estate on the competitors images?
Probably not. If NBC chose their ad positioning deliberately to gain air-time on CBS, that was pretty sleazy, but still, to be cliche, two wrongs don't make a right. CBS could have eliminated the 'hijacking' with a censoring-square or by using camera-angles that didn't show the NBC logo without being misrepresentative.
--Parity
Re:Ask: If they edit logos, what else do they edit (Score:2)
Re:Ask: If they edit logos, what else do they edit (Score:2)
It's an admonition (Score:2)
Re:i say it's not. (Score:2)
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.