
The Era Of Satellite News Gathering 243
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 announces: no war in Iraq (Score:4, Funny)
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)."
Re:President bush announces: no war in Iraq (Score:5, Funny)
Re:President bush announces: no war in Iraq (Score:2)
If the laws of the country, elected by the people, stipulated that people be put to death for speaking out about the government, then that would be a different thing (what nation would do that?). But Saddam pushes these rules on the people against their will.
robi
Re:President bush announces: no war in Iraq (Score:2)
Happen to be a reference to this [geocities.com]. I do not share its view of the situation, but, it's still friggin hilarious...
Re:President bush announces: no war in Iraq (Score:2, Insightful)
Seeing as how George has already stated he wants the international community to help rebuild Iraq, I'd say the US will just go in, secure "their" oil, and then leave the mess for others to clean up.
Re:The GWB relection strategy: (Score:2)
Re:The GWB relection strategy: (Score:1)
Re:The GWB relection strategy: (Score:2)
Re:The GWB relection strategy: (Score:2)
Um, he didn't say war was a dumb idea, but he did express reservations. Here [timesonline.co.uk]. I'm not too surprised this wasn't widely reported in American media, even though the address took place at a US University.
STFRe: (Score:1)
Re:President bush announces: no war in Iraq (Score:2)
Re:President bush announces: no war in Iraq (Score:2)
That's because it was a U.N.-backed war and all U.N.-backed wars are perpetual, because the diplomats seem to operate under the delusion that you can trust a totalitarian dictator to keep his word on a ceasefire that he signs. North Korea.
Re:President bush announces: no war in Iraq (Score:2)
I've got mixed feelings. (Score:2)
On the other hand, I don't think that it should be done at the cost of pissing off the entire fucking planet in the process, while ignoring the fact that our economy is in a hole, and the uncertainty about Iraq (Both in general paranoia and in oil prices) is killing what's left of our economy.
Screw Iraq. Bomb Florida, this is all th
Re:I've got mixed feelings. (Score:2)
cant we do both?
Re:I've got mixed feelings. (Score:2)
Re:President bush announces: no war in Iraq (Score:4, Insightful)
A man tried to escape to Northern Iraq a few days ago. Bathe Party folks captured him. They tied him to a pole, cut out his tounge and let him bleed to death in public. Guess they were too busy to find an acid vat.
Let's roll.
Re:President bush announces: no war in Iraq (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you bet that when the new "inspectors" are done they will uncover paper trails of lots of dirty deals that were underway with the 'coalition of the unwilling': France, Germany, Russia, and China.
Re:President bush announces: no war in Iraq (Score:2)
Besides the dirty deals done by the US and the UK?
Saddam gassed his own people. Who sold him the gas? WE DID...
Re:President bush announces: no war in Iraq (Score:2)
And I was just getting used to... (Score:3, Funny)
Bandwidth Issues (Score:4, Funny)
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!"
Re:Bandwidth Issues (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
The Logic of War? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:The Logic of War? (Score:2)
I'm surprised! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm surprised! (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is, this isn't the same form of SNG -- conventional SNG involves a video feed (along with an audio channel or two and maybe a cell phone call) going out via convent
Radio too! (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Radio too! (Score:3, Funny)
Don't you mean exploding/detonating/impacting/killing/maiming/et
Maybe you could fill us in about video of bullets "touching" enemy soldiers as well.
I'm glad you aren't in the broadcasting department
Re:Radio too! (Score:2)
Re:Radio too! (Score:2)
Re:Radio too! (Score:2)
Re:Radio too! (Score:2)
I'm ripping off David Brin's "Transparent Society" and Electric Sheep's fascinating Spiders [e-sheep.com] series here, but I think it woul
Re:Radio too! (Score:2)
On 9/11 when every US media outlet's web portal was jammed the BBCs was still fully functional and had just as up to date news as the rest (more so since you didn't have to wait for the DL).
And I live in the Western USA.
robi
waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:waste of money (Score:2)
:)
Now, would the 99.9999% of the rest of the population that actually likes getting their information from multiple sources kindly disregard my above paragraph? Thank you.
-T
Media Sources (Score:2)
Nice to see (Score:2)
Re:waste of money (Score:3, Funny)
You mean like that NPR reporter above you refering to the war as "Gulf War II: Die Harder".
Re:waste of money (Score:2)
Re:waste of money (Score:2)
Re:waste of money (Score:2)
Really, now? Let's look at your "opinion, not in anyway derogotory [sic] to me" that I took personally:
(from your previous post):
No but funny you have the same lame attitude and smart ass mouth t
Re:waste of money (Score:2)
And as to my lonely response, try again, there are several in that string, and a link to a Wired article which touches on the SAME line of thought I expressed. Some people must live in a vacuum.
Are you SUR
Been a great (Score:2)
BTW I've ensured that your comments don't get reparented so there will be no more confusion. There are numerous other ways to view
what was it you said ?? (Score:2)
Try thinking on your own and seeking other sources for input. You might be suprised, that thing that is holding your ears apart actually has other uses. I seek news from several sources hopefully to allow me to process a more complete view. To depend on the US news sources is foolish and naive in the extreme. That is like depending on Israel to tell the WHOLE story about the middle east conflict...IMPOSSIBLE.
Re:Radio too! (Score:2)
Re:Radio too! (Score:2)
robi
Re:Radio too! (Score:2)
So many "pop culture" people are largly ignorant when it comes to foreign affairs that they abuse their platform and show that lack of knowledge to all. Too bad the viewing public is (on average) also as ignorant.
(Not that I am k
Re:Radio too! (Score:2)
Public speeches either for or against by celebrities not in the political areana are not, IMHO, any more or less valid than mine (or yours). That said, I don't believe they deserve any more or less scrutiny. I do not believe that the record company should have
Yes.... you are absolutely correct (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes.... you are absolutely correct (Score:2)
There's even a strong group of people who encourage others to turn off the news. Sort of the "psychological peace by way of the ostrich."
Having said that though I think that by and large both
Re:Yes.... you are absolutely correct (Score:2)
The issue was regarding lies it told about some hormone they put in US milk, and The Murdoch Evil Empire, claimed it had free speech protection to deliberately distort the facts it reported to it's viewers.
That's not my definition of an admirable job, and I doubt it's yours either.
Here's the story:
Hidden Danger in Your Milk?
JURY VERDICT OVERTURNED ON L
Re:Yes.... you are absolutely correct (Score:5, Informative)
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
copyrights and fictional news (Score:2, Funny)
just goes to prove.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Think of all of those fancy moon rockets, which were produced on top of all the reasearch German Military engineers did. Even the safety glass in your car was invented for gas masks long before it was in a car.
When the next great leap in technology takes forward, it will be related either to (a)people killing each other or (b) people looking at each other naked.
Re:just goes to prove.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:just goes to prove.... (Score:2)
Compression schemes?
Re:just goes to prove.... (Score:2)
Re:just goes to prove.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:just goes to prove.... (Score:2)
Soldiers usually get plenty of the real thing. Why would they bother with porn?
Of course, this is Iraq... Not like we're liberating Paris. Again.
But, on the other hand, the military is unisex now. Pregnancy was a significant "issue" during GW1.
Re:just goes to prove.... (Score:2)
And with Playboy's Girls of the Armed Services pictorial, you get to combine the two!
Why satellites? (Score:2, Interesting)
Just my 10 cents though.
Re:Why satellites? (Score:1)
Re:Why satellites? (Score:2)
Iraq can't even shoot down a U2, let a lone a satellite. I think we're safe.
Re:Why satellites? (OT) (Score:2)
But the reason nobody wants to do that is that expending a nuclear device of the size and power that would fry a single satellite (about 50,000 volts) would not be very cost effective. You can't expect enemy satellites to line up and wait for an EMP blast. Space - even around commercial and military orbits - is largely empty most of the time.
EMP weapons are meant to be used against population/industrial centers and they are detonated in the atmosphere. Killing
Re:Why satellites? (OT) (Score:2)
Mulder? Is that you?
Re:Why satellites? (Score:2)
Re:Why satellites? (Score:2)
It ain't that easy to monkey with someone else's satellites. If you radiate, you die. This, of course, precludes jamming. If you're third world, you have no means to put stuff in orbit, or if you do, no means to aim it. GPS satellites and geosync transponders are as far out of Iraq's reach as the Saturn. Forgetaboutit. Even if you're first world, your enemy can move, hide, defend and replace anyt
How is this NEW? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Your sig (Score:2)
So, I kind of find the whole "French Fries" vs. "Freedom Fries" thing humorous since the Fren
Re:Your sig (Score:2)
And as for boycotting french restaurants and such like, non-french US citizens work there. By not going they are making the US economy even worse than it presently is as workers are laid off.
Re:Your sig (Score:2)
Re:How is this NEW? (Score:2)
media coverage (Score:2, Insightful)
All I can say about this is (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Differences between bidirectional, live, and fast (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Differences between bidirectional, live, and fa (Score:2)
And actually quite possible with current technology. You can start uploading the movie as soon as it is acquired, in parallel with the editing. Once the editing is done, you send up what is basically an Edit Decision List, telling how the final movie should be put together.
This is trivial with either Avid or Final Cut Pro, both of which can export what's called a "Reference Movie" which doesn't duplicate any local data. It basically is a metafile which says which and where from other files
Re:Differences between bidirectional, live, and fa (Score:2)
Still, Bluetooth doesn't have the bandwidth for even DV video. It'd have to be a more compressed bitstream tha
Going once... (Score:3, Funny)
Man, they better hurry.
Different vendors's products under stress: (Score:4, Informative)
- NBC is using Apple G4 w/Final Cut Pro and Discreet Cleaner.
- CBS is using Windows PCs w/Avid (editing centers), Adobe Premiere (producers & photojournalists close to action), or MovieMaker 2 (for dumbkopfs?).
- CNN and Fox aren't talking, and ABC's tech wasn't mentioned.
So lets see who flakes out and compare quality and timeliness. B-)
(Note that we'll probably be able to find out what CNN, Fox, and ABC used after the fact, once the info won't give their competitors an advantage.)
Re:Different vendors's products under stress: (Score:2)
Re:Different vendors's products under stress: (Score:2)
You have to admit it makes about as much sense as his plan to be the one to shoot Bin Laden.
Are We Killing "Specialization"? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Are We Killing "Specialization"? (Score:2)
Well, I think it can be argued that the actual effect is a redistribution of jobs... Old jobs are replaced by machines/automation/whatever but new jobs open up. Of course, the new jobs require more education, flexibility, etc...
The actual effect of technological progress, believe it or not, seems to be democratization. Not just political, though that tags along. Power is, amazingly, put in more and more hands. Th
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
paying for editorial (Score:3, Insightful)
I attended a lecture by R. W. Lucky last week, and one of the points he made was that the only thing left to charge for, after bandwidth and processing become practically free, is content. For example, apropos to this topic, well-edited high-quality reporting. Sure, you can have webcams showing every squa
More good stuff, lower percentage of good stuff (Score:2)
The percentage of good stuff goes down.
With fewer copyeditors, or more people graduating from art school, or whatever, more of the stuff that hits the market is stuff that wouldn't have survived the process before. Think of all the crappy movies that are being shot on DV now. How many of those would have been funded if they had cost as
ObMaxHeadroomRef (Score:3, Funny)
Just so long as we get to see more of Theora, er, Control
big investment in war (Score:3, Funny)
Not potential war anymore (Score:2, Funny)
I know my feelings on this and I am not going to start a flame war about the rights or wrongs of the impending war. Just letting people know.
SNG (Score:2, Informative)
Well, they have about (Score:2)
Whatever you think about George W. you have to admit, he is not fucking around!
Time for an Audit? (Score:3, Funny)
Mr X: Yes, I know some people that don't seem to have thier software licneses.
BSA Hotline: Can you tell us who's software is involved?
Mr X: Microsoft, Adobe and others...
BSA Hotline: They sound like our members. We will arrange for an audit at once. Where are they?
Mr X: They were last seen at large airbase in central Saudi Arabia
BSA Hotline: You mean Dhahran?
Mr X: No, near Riyadh
BSA Hotline: Sorry. [BSA hotline guy downs a shot] [netfunny.com]
[moments latter -- A troop of Marines are pinned down at a very forward position. Their "embedded" photo journalist is trying to get a good shot for the station back home...]
BSA Dude: We are here to audit your software, can you show me the licneses?
PhotoJ: What? Can't you see I'm kind of busy right now?
BSA Dude: We have a warrant.
PhotoJ: How did you get that here?
BSA Dude: Do you have the orignals with you? CD's, software boxes, receipts, licneses?
PhotoJ: They are all back at the office, can't you see theres a war here?
BSA Dude: I can see you don't want to cooperate
[BSA dude walks away for a bit of privacy and pulls out his cell/sat phone]
BSA Dude: Looks like we got one red handed...
[Pan to a pair of F15's at 75,000 ft, 100 miles away]
F15 Jocky: TopDog 7, Roger that, bogie is an unauthorized radio source
AWACS op: Topdog 7 and 8 are authorized to neutralize...
[back where the action is]
BSA Dude: [still on the sat phone] I think we should make an example of this one
[boom]
Case against war (Score:2)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2858957.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Cook systamatically rips apart the pro-war stance, and in particular wipes the floor with Blair's strategy.
Re:Case against war (Score:2)
Is it three counts and you're out? If another minister goes does Blair go?
Laser-guided censorship (Score:2)
Re:Sodamn needs to be killed (Score:3, Insightful)
George W Bush is an evil terrorist and must be killed before he kills others.
Re:CAPITALISM IS A SICK SYSTEM! (Score:2)