And Now, the Animated News 114
theodp writes "'You have a lot of missing images, in the TV, in the news reporting,' explains billionaire Jimmy Lai. It's a gap that Lai's Next Media intends to fill with its animated news service. Artists lift details from news photos while actors in motion sensor suits re-create action sequences of stories making headlines. Animators graft cartoon avatars to the live-motion action, and the stories hit the Web. When news agencies didn't have footage of scenes from the Tiger Woods car crash, Lai's team raced to put together animation dramatizing the incident that became a YouTube sensation. Thus far, Lai has been denied a television license, but with or without his own station, he thinks his animations are headed for televisions worldwide. His company is currently in talks with media organizations to churn out news animations on demand using Next Media's graphic artists and software tools."
Re: (Score:1)
I'll second that we have enough news service lies without fabricating Lai's news service.
This only invites the bullshit to pile deeper than nose high.
It's bad enough to watch hokey recreations of crime scenes on t.v.
Can you imagine the spin the newsclowns will then be able to put on anything?
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine the spin the newsclowns will then be able to put on anything?
More than they already do? Is that even possible? At least the animation factor would remind you that it's not real.
And now that you made me think about it, maybe it's a proper punishment for a show's bullshit rating going too high -- turn them into animations until people stop taking them seriously.
Re: (Score:1)
The popularity and sales of The National Enquirer and similar publications indicate that a large number of people don't have a grip on reality, are easily fooled and do take them seriously.
Be afraid.
Tiger woods played by Kermit the frog (Score:5, Funny)
Can't you just see Elin as Miss Piggy? Haaaaayyyyaaaahhhh!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's like geocities all over again!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And Miss Piggy isn't!? Haaaaayyyyaaaahhhh!
Re:I like it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just what modern news needs (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I for one welcome the new CNN Hologram Cartoon Avatars of remote field reporters that are beamed in next to Larry King....
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology. My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.
Yeah, mine too.
My second thought is "Fox news won't get it"
I picture Rupert Murdoch yelling: "Someone hire that camera man for me! He's phenomenal! He gets everything! Stupid CNN doesn't know what they've got, look at the lousy equipment they give him, everything looks like cartoons."
and Glenn Beck shouting: "See! See! They're making this up. How do we known their 'Obama' really exists?"
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, mine too. My second thought is "Fox news won't get it"
I picture Rupert Murdoch yelling: "Someone hire that camera man for me! He's phenomenal! He gets everything! Stupid CNN doesn't know what they've got, look at the lousy equipment they give him, everything looks like cartoons."
and Glenn Beck shouting: "See! See! They're making this up. How do we known their 'Obama' really exists?"
{ Pardon the double-post, browsing past the first one just looks like I'm saying "dur-hur me too!". I prefer to be seen a
Re: (Score:2)
If you use <quote> instead of italics, then the /. blurb will skip the quoted part and go straight for your new content.
Re:Just what modern news needs (Score:5, Funny)
Are you kidding? Fox will jump on this like an ugly centipede.
Sean Hannity: Some people are saying that Mr. Obama makes obeisance to Mecca every night and kisses a picture of bin Laden. We are not saying that we agree with that, but here is a vivid recreation of what that would look like if it were true.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
...and kisses a picture of bin Laden
Why would he be hanging out with George Bush's business partners?
Oh yeah, bipartisanship.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly my though when I read this.
As if they would need even more possibilities to plain out lie to the people.
Re: (Score:1)
This only opens the door for The National Enquirer Evening News.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This only opens the door for The National Enquirer Evening News.
That door was opened wide on October 7, 1996.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, for Gods sake, shut the door. The wind is foul and blows in off the cesspit.
Re: (Score:2)
My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology. My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.
A vapid and useless implementation of technology that is to information what a cheeto is to nutrition. I don't see how this could possibly go right.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid that "cheetos" are exactly what the people who turn to cable television as their main source of news want.
Re: (Score:2)
My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.
Which brings up the question, "is showing anthropomorphic animals bleeding more or less child-friendly than showing real humans being shot?"
Re:Just what modern news needs (Score:5, Funny)
My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology. My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.
"Today on CNN, teabaggers are alleging that the president is actually from Narnia, and that he killed the Lion, had sex with the Witch, and hid in the wardrobe. Here is a cgi rendering of that event, with a bad-ass dragon added in, and for some reason, Rush. Who the hell listens to Rush? Our CNN instapoll says that 15% of you listen to Rush, 80% do not, and 5% of you were just pressing buttons. Next, we're going to spend thirty minutes reading twitter"
Re: (Score:2)
"Rule Number One: In my van, it's Rush. All Rush. All the time. NO exceptions!"
Re:Just what modern news needs (Score:5, Insightful)
Eh, can't be any worse than the Colbert Report.
The Colbert report is 50% news and 50% bullshit, and is billed as entertainment. CNN is also 50% news and and 50% bullshit, but it's billed as news. You don't really see the problem with this?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fox is 100% bull (opinion pieces by neo-fascist extremists) and 0% news, and it's also billed news. Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report give better news in an hour than CNN does in a day.
Re:Just what modern news needs (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to disagree with this outlandish statement.
In what way are they "neo"-fascist as opposed to the old-fashioned, standard variety?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, they lack cool uniforms and shiny boots.
C|N>K (Those are a pipe and a redirect. I'll let you guess what C, N and K stand for)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fox is 100% bull (opinion pieces by neo-fascist extremists) and 0% news, and it's also billed news. Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report give better news in an hour than CNN does in a day.
The real problem is Fox News [like many other networks] also host commentary and news programs on the same network.
Their commentators are more extreme (and entertaining, this is a business after all) than the other networks.
I honestly don't think the bias on their *news* programs are any worse than the other networks.
That is not to say anything about the quality of the programmes, on any network.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that the FOX News through its commentators ends up creating news.
Glenn Beck, Shaun Hannity go on the the program and says "President Obama, Liberals Etc Etc, Should do X" Then the "NEWS" portion of Fox comes on and says "Some critics suggest that President Obama, Liberals Etc Etc, Should do X."
A news company should REPORT the news and not create it through their commentators.
Re: (Score:3)
I honestly don't think the bias on their *news* programs are any worse than the other networks.
That is not to say anything about the quality of the programmes, on any network.
I used to think it was just O'Reilly, Hannity, and their other talking heads that were biased, but when I watched more closely I noticed that almost every time I watched over an hour of their "news" there was an obvious dig at a Democrat. For instance, I remember a seemingly apolitical story about the dangers of Ephedra and they just had to throw in something about it being legalized by the Clinton administration. (Like he oversaw every drug approval at the FDA!) Then there's the litany of so-called mist
Re:Just what modern news needs (Score:4, Insightful)
Their commentators are "extreme?" Have you seen how they are kicking everyone else's asses in the ratings. Not by a little bit, but Fox News programming regularly destroys competing shows in the ratings. Perhaps it is you who are the extreme one.
Perhaps stupid people like to be spoonfed news from a source that caters to their prejudices? Perhaps smarter people are more eclectic and much more likely to get their news from many different sources?
All you need to do is look at a few polls, you will see that Fox news caters to a minority. The majority of Americans are not small minded, hate-filled, racist trash who believe 'gummint should keep its hands off medicare,' but enough are to make for a lucrative market.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Their commentators are "extreme?" Have you seen how they are kicking everyone else's asses in the ratings. Not by a little bit, but Fox News programming regularly destroys competing shows in the ratings. Perhaps it is you who are the extreme one.
Perhaps stupid people like to be spoonfed news from a source that caters to their prejudices? Perhaps smarter people are more eclectic and much more likely to get their news from many different sources?
All you need to do is look at a few polls, you will see that Fox news caters to a minority. The majority of Americans are not small minded, hate-filled, racist trash who believe 'gummint should keep its hands off medicare,' but enough are to make for a lucrative market.
You, sir, are not helping your case at all. You just called a large portion of Americans "small minded trash".
The obvious problem with your statement is that you, in calling anyone whose views obviously differ from yours (they must if they dare to watch Fox News) "small minded trash", make it obvious that you are not open to other ideas (close minded), and also you spoke hatefully those who disagree with you. This is also ironic because of your earlier remark that hateful people are small minded.
Your post c
Re: (Score:1)
Not directed at me, but...
Not at all. Rejecting ideas does not make one close minded provided that one does so after analyzing them. Having an open mind is necessary, but so is sorting through the trash that people will throw into it. Calling a racist or a homophobe "small minded" doesn't mean I'm small mi
Re:Just what modern news viewers need (Score:1)
Jon Stewart is not physically capable of doing the Daily News 24x7.
Even the fine ladies at Naked News (NSFW, indeed) can only manage a few hours per week.
You need something else to laugh at.
Thank you, Fox.
Thank you CNN. Double thanks for no "Naked Wolf News".
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, now, I sure wasn't laughing when Sanjay Gupta was the only damn doctor in Haiti, operating on some poor infant, outside, with no equipment.
But yeah, most of the time CNN is kinda funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Good one! Say, what's the reason for the Earthquake in Haiti again? Plate tectonics, or... A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL!!! Maybe we should ask Pat Robertson. [cbsnews.com]
So, I have presented one example of the small minded hate filled racist trash that Fox News viewers love so much. Here's another recent example: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6100434.shtml [cbsnews.com]
Maybe you could give some example to illustrate YOUR point? Yeah, thought not.
Re: (Score:2)
You're going to have to support that statement with at least a little bit of data or a citation or something.
You can throw out a statement like that and get modded "Insightful" but let's see if you can back it up with anything like reality.
If not, then it's flamebait.
Sorry, pal.
Re: (Score:2)
You can throw out a statement like that and get modded "Insightful" but let's see if you can back it up with anything like reality.
Citation: Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions [people-press.org]. Scroll down to the table "Knowledge Levels by News Source". It pretty clearly shows that CNN viewers are less informed than those of the Daily Show and Colbert Report.
P.S. We discussed this issue previously on slashdot [slashdot.org]. Oh, snap!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
CNN and Fox don't incite their audiences to vandalize Wikipedia as a joke, either.
(Okay, it was a sorta-funny joke.... the first time. maybe.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Matt's First Law of Television: Everything on TV is entertainment, even programs billed as "news."
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed. "I heard it on the Internet" is the only source I'll accept!
Finally! Just what we need! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Finally! Just what we need! (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently, making porn [slashdot.org] is the likely answer. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Probably something like Ink Pen [gocomics.com].
Sequel to Max Headroom? (Score:4, Interesting)
interesting, but dangerous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Although from a technological point of view it is very interesting, a lot of details missing from the regular videos need to be 'made up' for the reconstruction. I think that's a dangerous move, as the viewer may base its opinion on video footage.
Re:interesting, but dangerous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you seen one of their reconstructions? It offers no credibility that is not already carried by a (misleading?) verbal description.
Re: (Score:2)
People tune into what they want to see, fake or real, and if you tell them it's "news" then not only does it entertain but it satisfies what little intellectual desire they manifest. "Editorialized" video is just the next step on the march to edutainews channels that are completely wrong in everything they report, but are watched and believed thanks to the complete suppression of the will to seek out unbiased, factual sources. Why not? It sure is easier to be told what to believe than to put the effort i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a big difference between a misleading verbal description and a misleading reconstruction. The human mind is more likely to accept and believe something it's seen over something it's heard.
A lot of it depends on the quality of the "reconstruction" or "enhancement". An adjustment of just a few pixels in certain news shots could turn a story completely around. "Is that a plasma cannon from Unreal Tournament that Ghandi is holding up? I always thought that was a spinning wheel."
Adding a few special
Re: (Score:1)
Have you actually seen their work, or are you just explaining how compelling you think it is?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't have to be particularly compelling. I could make a static pie chart and "explode" some small minority of the pie chart to make it look bigger, and mention specifically how small a percentage it represents, and I'll have a room full of audience members with a significant percentage who think the number is much bigger than it really is.
If anything, cartoony reconstructions are (for a while) going to be more compelling because they are a novelty. And many people won't believe them at a conscious l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did it now? Really? Where is your rendered news video footage of the incident (represented by a humble looking man in jeans and a t-shirt) begging at the knees of Jimmy Lei (in a heroic suit of white, shining armor)? Until then, I won't believe you.
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, if this gets a bit more realistic we could totally buy that we landed in Pandora just to preserve their ecology taking out some dirty metal b
Re:interesting, but dangerous? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that's a dangerous move, as the viewer may base its opinion on video footage.
As opposed to now, where viewers are only to happy to base their opinions on nothing whatsoever.
It's six of one, really. It's disappointing how easily viewers are manipulated. You could stick a flashing RECONSTRUCTION over the footage, and they're still going to come out convinced that they were right there when it happened.
And worse... they'll hold the same opinion, almost as strongly, if you just tell it to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Although from a technological point of view it is very interesting, a lot of details missing from the regular videos need to be 'made up' for the reconstruction. I think that's a dangerous move, as the viewer may base its opinion on video footage.
If Barry Hussein Obama isn't a secret muslim, then why come I have this computer animation of him praying on a carpet in the oval office?!?!!?!? The facts make up themselves!
Re: (Score:2)
viewer may base its opinion on video footage.
"May" ... it seems that almost everyone DOES. In fact, it seems many people base their opinions on movies in theaters. I have no doubt they base opinions on video footage (animated or not) when they see news, far more than any actual facts that may (or may not) be recited by the newscaster...
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, you're right.. However, when people SEE something happen in a video they're probably more likely to believe it than when a newscaster says it. The brain processes this information in a different way.
On the other hand, the FOX/CNN have commercial interest as well, so exciting news will generate more revenue. So maybe the speculation just shifts from the news channels to this commercial company
Re: (Score:2)
However, when people SEE something happen in a video they're probably more likely to believe it than when a newscaster says it. The brain processes this information in a different way.
Agreed. Most people seem to "observe" things that visually far more than aurally.
And yes, Fox, CNN, and pretty much all news groups have a commercial interest in garnering viewers, so exciting news definitely generates more revenue...
Which is why celebrity news, I suppose, seems so popular, too.
Re: (Score:1)
interpreting the news (Score:1)
It's not news, it's news branded entertainment! ...not that we are aren't knee deep already... but, seriously?!
(or is that entertainment branded news?)
The March of Time (Score:1, Offtopic)
The basic idea isn't new.
The Evening Graphic's tabloid reality [stepno.com] of the twenties was "staged, faked and mostly naked."
Radio's The March of Time [radiohof.org] used its resident company of actors to vividly recreate events that couldn't be broadcast live.
Re: (Score:1)
"Staged, faked and mostly naked."
Isn't that the corporate slogan for Faux News?
Re: (Score:2)
I know precisely how it's pronounced. And that is, in fact, how I pronounce it when I speak it out loud. Among those I know who have a simliar opinion of Fox News, they all prounounce it Faux News, too.
Family guy... (Score:2, Funny)
...Using state of the art technology... [youtube.com]
This is what it would have looked like if the plane had crashed into a school building full of bunny rabbit!
Dick Cheney hunting accident looked EXACTLY like (Score:3, Funny)
I'm surprised this never made it on the news.
Naked News (Score:2)
If, for whatever reason, it will ever begins to matter to me, who delivers the news, rather than what the news is, I'll pick the Naked News [nakednews.com] over anything "animated", thank you very much.
Could be awesome (Score:1)
I agree, I really liked that video too (Score:2)
There's a slightly better translation here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yrj35SHhZM&feature=related [youtube.com]
But you really should watch them both since the 2nd one which is easier to listen to since it flows better and has less bad grammar and typos leaves out things like Leno being sad and Conan being happy about the shift (the original shift, not the shift back).
I think this video really works well. I think there's a market for this stuff.
And cue the pyramid in 3...2...1... (Score:2)
Remember "A Current Affair?" Tabloid TV at its nadir. Apparently, this guy is trying to sink even lower. He didn't get the memo that this sort of thing was so "been there, done that" two decades ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Current_Affair_(U.S._TV_series) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh god, that "wa-CHUNG!!" sound of the pyramid flying onto the screen is FOREVER seared into my brain. Heaven help us.
I'm Inner Party Member (Score:3, Funny)
No thank you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds good to me. Maybe someday they'll try it.
Fox (Score:1)
Fabricated news (Score:1)
This should make fabricated news more believable!
Win/win? /facepalm
Re-enactment Top 10 Wishlist: Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Number 9. Woz sex with Kathy Griffin
Number 8. A series of tubes, not a big truck
Number 7. Wesley Crusher sucked into a warp drive
Number 6. Ballmer doing Dancing with the Stars to the 'Developers Developers Developers Developers' remix
Number 5. Darl McBride being force fed into a wood chipper by the guys from Fargo
Number 4. Stallman and Schneier as banjo dueling Santas
Number 3. Cowboy Neal
Number 2. 10,000 Anonymous Cowards hacked to bits by the 300 Spartans yelling "This is Slashdot!"
And the Number one re-enactment wish for Slashdot: Duke Nukem Forever
Re: (Score:2)
It's hilarious but is it really needed? (Score:2)
The tiger woods thing was funny as hell, saw it a couple days after the "reports" were in, this will be great for trash tv and tabloid journalisim I suppose but I really think that the new legitimate news sources out there should really step away from this. It looks more like a way to really get into hot water as they seem to be created based on their interpretation of events rather than actual factual information. Initial opinion and actual findings tend to vary greatly.
For certain definitions of "animated" (Score:1)
When I first saw the headline, I thought to myself, y'know, if what they were doing was doing an animated news program as in making a series of hand-drawn cel animations for the various stories and anchorpeople, as well as reasonably well-drawn though still simplified and stylized backgrounds accurate to the locations in which the news takes place, AND keep it a relatively serious program, THAT would impress the hell out of me. Granted, this would partly be due to the sheer technical infeasibility of the o
Crap. (Score:5, Informative)
I remember when this guy's magazine, Next Magazine, was introduced in Taiwan. It was basically a sensationalist tabloid style rag. The magazine's big thing was shock. They ran stories which graphic photos of dramatic accidents, high-profile murders and sex scandals. Or at least they went as far as they could get away with, which was pretty far. They were also notorious for running stories which turned out to be untrue. If I remember correctly they were one of the originals to run the story of people in China supposedly eating unborn fetuses. It turned out it was all staged as a statement by some artist.
This new concept seems designed to skirt the sensors. However, I'm curious to know if this guy has been inspired by others. A couple of years ago I found Taiwanese magazines publishing illustrations of crimes to depict what had happened. Except that they get comically gratuitous with what they depict. It was so absurd I had to clip a few of these to show some friends in the states. In one case a girl was about to get raped and instead offers to perform fellatio on the rapist instead. When he's done his business and leaves, she takes the "evidence", spits it out in a napkin, and takes it to the police. This was all conveniently illustrated in detail, the girl on her knees with the guy standing in front her, and the girl spitting out the stuff. While this technique has been applied to many kinds of stories, predictably, the majority involve sex crimes of one sort or another.
I think news networks have already been running similar cartoons and the Taiwanese government has gotten involved to deal with this. It's pretty much a blatant violation of broadcast rules, but it's pretty easy to dance around the rules there. I'm sure many will argue free speech, but the think here is that this is not driven by desire to inform the public. It's driven by a desire to shock and titillate to boost ratings. People will definitely complain about how indecent it is, but they're all going to happily tune in anyway. It wont be long, however, until this guy no longer has a monopoly on this sort of thing. Everyone will be quick to copy this, at least until the government puts a final stop to this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This new concept seems designed to skirt the sensors.
That's impossible! No magazine that small has a cloaking device.
Next Magazine was the best magazine I ever read (Score:1)
I start reading them when I was 10 years old in Hong Kong, and that was 1995. Little bit too "colorful", but more or less expose stories that are "hard to discover". Now here in the U.S. I still shell out $8 per issue to buy the Next Magazine (HK version). And don't forget they come out once per WEEK.
That was brilliant! (Score:1)
Prior art (Score:2, Insightful)
How is this philosophically different from courtroom sketch artists?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How long (Score:1)
How long will it take before someone is convicted because of one of these reenactments?
Mr. Burns, you are hereby sentenced to 10 years in prison for selling Homer to the North Koreans.
Re: (Score:2)
xtranormal.com (Score:1)
LOL the xtranormal.com bits on Red Eye are better
This was actually done in 1918 by Winsor McCay (Score:3, Interesting)
After the Cunard ocean liner Lusitania was torpedoed by the German U-Boat U-20 in May, 1915, the great Winsor McCay was asked to animate the disaster. This was not a minor film; McCay was not only the best animator alive, he had invented the medium himself. It was released in 1918 and used as part of the ongoing anti-German propaganda effort.
Curiously, even this 92-year-old pioneering classic demonstrates the dangers of using animation based on incomplete, mistaken or biased reportage and presenting it as fact. The film depicts the liner being hit by two torpedoes, when in fact the second explosion was internal. The Lusitania was described as an innocent passenger liner, but the Germans contend to this day that she was transporting far more munitions than were recorded in her manifest, and was thus a legitimate target. The English have not helped their cause any in the intervening years: they did their best to destroy the wreck with depth charges in the 1950s. More recently, millions of rounds of unrecorded ammunition have been found by divers at the site, lending credence to the German claims.
On a mildly related note, around this time the Hearst papers (and others, but Hearst was notorious for it) routinely used artists and retouched photos to "reenact" extremely lurid depictions of crimes, with helpful arrows and labels presenting their suppositions as fact. This practice was continued for several decades, and Lord knows how many innocent people were sent to prison or executed because of the bias these "reconstructions" introduced into society.
It was bad then. It's bad now. This is a dangerous path to tread.
We've seen this before (Score:2)