Lawmakers Worry About Rise of Fake Video Technology (thehill.com) 194
Lawmakers are concerned that advances in video manipulation technology could set off a new era of fake news. Now legislators say they want to start working on fixes to the problem before it's too late. From a report: Technology experts have begun to sound the alarm on the new software, which lets users take existing videos and make high-quality altered video and audio that appears real. The emergence of the technology opens up a new world of hoaxes driven by doctored audio or video, and threatens to shake faith in the media even further. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), one of the most vocal members of Congress on tech issues, painted a grim picture about what the advances could mean for the future of discerning truth in media. "Since we can't rely on the responsibility of individual actors or the platforms they use, I fully expect there will be a proliferation of these sorts of fictions to a degree that nearly drowns out actual facts," Wyden told The Hill. "For those who value real information, there will still be some reliable publications and news outlets, and their credibility will need to be guarded all the more intently by professional journalists," he added.
Threatened (Score:4, Insightful)
The media desperately want to keep a lock on being the only ones who can manipulate video for propaganda use.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be stupid, the media want to make money and sell their news. Besides, even if the media manipulated video for propaganda use, then having tens of thousands of additional lunatics manipulate videos in their mom's basement won't do any good either.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't be stupid, the media want to make money and sell their news. Besides, even if the media manipulated video for propaganda use, then having tens of thousands of additional lunatics manipulate videos in their mom's basement won't do any good either.
Making it common turns people's filter defaults into "It's probably fake" unlike before. The Falcon Heavy launch was an example for this. Lots of people thought it was fake until friends or friends of friends in florida confirmed it was real.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The point is that if it's in a reputable medium (as opposed to Fox news or CNN), then it's probably not fake.
Re: (Score:2)
CNN is reputable....Alex Jones and Rush are NOT reputable.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't report it until it broke because the mom wanted a pay day and the Enquirer is the only news source that didn't have scruples and paid....but sure...cholk it up to media integrity because that fits you narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OMFG. Are you telling me that our society is crumbling around us and all we can do is distrust our media, law enforcement, and politicians and overthrow our government?
Yeah, we see you there Troll.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that you are not a native english speaker. You need to dial down your trolling. It's too obvious.
Better luck next time.
Re: (Score:2)
Oooh what a cutting remark! Now you've really triggered me!
On second though, actually, nah, I'm good.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like the Wolves guarding the sheep.
Probably the only thing you can do is to develop and mandate some kind of technology to embed encryption of some kind into video. So maybe laws mandating that all video that is edited be so noted and how it was edited...not unlike the message you see on TV movies that has, "been modified to fit on our screen"
I have no idea how, but we have already seen the "professional journalist" manipulate videos. Techn
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Because people editing video with the intent to commit fraud are going to use such software. Are you this much of an idiot in real life, or is it a slashdot persona?
Re: (Score:3)
Fair point. However, at least for video distributed by net, signatures should be a possibility, so it can at least be determined whether that video really was put out by CNN or whether someone altered something to look like it. Broadcast may (for a while at least) have to stick with "nobody else has a transmitter on that frequency" but digital channels can probably fit signatures in too, with some protocol tweaking.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't really need any special skills to take a snip-it out of context altering the video or audio is not required.
Re: (Score:2)
oh, no disagreement. But with signatures I can now prove that your clip is not the whole thing, and therefore that there is likely missing context. Yeah, that should be obvious in the context of a clip, but it does have an effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Digital signatures won't help most people though. Telling them to apt-get install gpg, download CNN's public key and verify the stream will be less effective than a troll account claiming to have already done it and "confirmed" that it's real.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
At least if lies are pointed out you can find the source.
However we are in a world were nearly all information cannot be trusted anymore. The validity of the information is up to our own sense, which is faulty, because our own bias true or not will be in affect.
I welcome news that challenges my world view, However if I cannot trust it (because other then truth they are pandering to other world views), I need to default back to my world view. I do not work in journalism, I don't have the time or resources
Re:Threatened (Score:4, Insightful)
"I use NPR as my primary news source, as I find it the most trustworthy, "
In my case it' TheOnion, because albeit 'fake' at least it's funny.
Re: (Score:2)
The Weekly World News [brandchannel.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The Onion used to be reliable, you could be sure their stories were satire. In recent years reality has started mirroring The Onion's satire so closely that it's fake news isn't even fake any more.
Re:Threatened (Score:5, Insightful)
I welcome news that challenges my world view, However if I cannot trust it (because other then truth they are pandering to other world views), I need to default back to my world view.
Trust isn't binary, it's a scale. I tend to trust the BBC quite a lot, for example, because although I don't always agree with their characterisation of events the factual stuff is usually right, and they post corrections.
There has been a push by those who benefit from fake news to make people think that one mistake makes a source completely untrustworthy to the point where you can safely ignore anything it says that contradicts your preferred reality. The BBC make an error once, CNN made some misleading statements, therefore they are fake news and no better than Brietbart or Infowars. And hay, at least Infowars isn't part of the dreaded MSM, at least they give you the real news that others dare not speak... And you are a smart guy, you can tell fake from true, so why not watch a bit of Fox and decide for yourself?
In reality prolonged exposure to Fox et. al causes brain damage that reduces a person's ability to smell bullshit.
who knows perhaps Fox News is actually a real source of truth
It definitely isn't. Stick to NPR.
Re: (Score:2)
I completely trust foxnews to give me news with a spin.
Re:Threatened (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. And the fact that the CIA has been using this technology for well over a decade now. There is a company who specializes in this technology and their primary customer is the CIA. This is why many believe (right or wrong) that Assange was taken during the embassy blackout. Since then he has only been seen in video form.
The simple fact is, it's the government who wants to maintain exclusive control of this technology. The media is simply reporting based on their marching orders.
Re: (Score:2)
sorry, cutting something so it looks like someone said something in a different light than what they did isn't the same thing as what is happening in technology.
Someone could generate an entire scene that looks like the person was actually doing an event and make it sound like they said words that were never said just by using stock video footage and sound of the person.
I could put Trump at a KKK rally and have him say that he thinks "Blacks and Mexicans should be sent to their home countries" and it will l
Threatens to shake faith in the media even further (Score:3)
I trust the media but I do not trust the people working in it nor the people they interview.
"To summarize [...]: people are a problem." — Douglas Adams
Re: (Score:2)
I was not aware that Canada had been annexed by Russia. We do share similar seasons (cold, less cold and colder) but other than that...
It gets even better.... (Score:4, Insightful)
...there is absolutely Fuck-All they can do about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely true. There are already techniques that can detect most of the fakes, like electric network frequency analysis. [wikipedia.org]. There are ways around it, but they require more planning an organization that the average Cheetos stained loser in Mommy's basement can manage.
Try to strike him down... (Score:1)
This is the biggest threat to the Donald Trump presidency... that people will uncover the facts and display them on the internet
Yeah that's what Trump Haters keep saying but every time truth comes out he just gets more popular.
I especially enjoyed the most recent escapade of the media where they thought revealing he had sex with porn stars and Playboy models would make him LESS popular. Hilarious, and at the same time destroyed the old meme they had been trying to spread that he was fat and ugly.
Re: (Score:1)
This is the biggest threat to the Donald Trump presidency... that people will uncover the facts and display them on the internet via Fake News or otherwise.
I loathe Donald Trump, but I think you are deluding yourself. There were plenty of indications of what type of person he was before the last election & many people still voted for him. It takes integrity and strength of character to admit that you were wrong about something, and whilst some of the folks who voted for him might have this, many do not. It's like those Nigerian prince scams - the emails are so implausible that anyone who goes along with them are by definition suckers. The Republican pa
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
And THAT is your fatal flaw, and the reason that You Don't Get It.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunningâ"Kruger_effect
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like one of those deliberately instigating troll posts to me...
Re: (Score:1)
The biggest threat to Trump is the gullibility of morons like you. The dems have been FAR FAR FAR more creative with the truth than Trump could ever be.
I'd like to see what your big smoking #1 yuuuge terrific example is. As far as creativity & truth goes in the USoF, the rightwing has been better at it than the left for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see what your big smoking #1 yuuuge terrific example is.
The US has seen 18 school shootings this year.
Re: (Score:2)
False. [snopes.com]
It's the usual sort of lie - twist definitions to include accidental shots in a firing range near a school, or unassociated suicides in the parking lot, and you can really rack up those numbers.
I'm surprised Everytown didn't include paintgun and pellet guns in their list, like they did back in 2015.
Unbunch your panties. One is too many and there have been about 11 that I would count from the link you provided.
Re: (Score:2)
The dems have been FAR FAR FAR more creative with the truth than Trump could ever be.
I'd like to see what your big smoking #1 yuuuge terrific example is.
In my opinion, the HUGE #1 is that the election wasn't Trump vs. Sanders.
As for gullibility, how about that no one seems to care that it wasn't Trump vs. Sanders.
The primary was "hacked". If I were a Dem, I'd still be rioting in front of the DNC.
If the rightwingnuts hadn't elected the retarded pussygrabber, perhaps there would be.
Bigger fish to fry & all that.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, the #1 lie isn't a lie? It's that a private organization you aren't involved with didn't act as you thought they should?
And, of course, there never was "the primary". There has been no credible suggestion that the vote totals were hacked. Sanders did better in caucus states, where it would be easier to rig the delegate selection process.
Re: (Score:2)
"We came. We saw. He died!" *maniacally laughs*
Was that ever on CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC? Mentioned in a debate?
CBS News reported it, with video, on October 20th, 2011, the very day that Qaddafi Duck died with a spike up his ass
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/c... [cbsnews.com]
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/... [cbsnews.com]
In any case, what's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Hell of a claim...
Got any examples?
Re: (Score:2)
Russians hacked the election. Trump has business ties to Russia, which I don't believe he's divested himself of. Trump asked the Russians to release hacked emails. Trump's associates have had innocent-looking dealings with Russians, then lied about them. That's evidence, and Mueller's investigation is still proceeding. Those are facts. Given them, it's reasonable to conclude that there may have been collusion.
Not long ago, people like you were deriding people who thought the Russians had interfered
Re: (Score:2)
Bwahaha! You obviously have no idea what the indictments were for.
Here's a hint: The indictments were not for colluding with Russia.
Now. Go investigate what constitutes those 18 school shootings in the US this year.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. The indictments were not about collusion.
So far.
"media" back to reporters? (Score:2, Insightful)
So, what they're saying is the media has to hire real journalists now and actually do their job correctly instead of bumming off reddit and twitter posts?
Remember when they tried to control crypto? (Score:1)
That worked out well, didn't it?
AI (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
A story that mentions digital image manipulation that doesn't contain the word "AI".
. . . they also failed to mention that the videos' integrity will be verified using Blockchain technology.
. . . and that no humans will be involved since it will use Automation technology.
Re: (Score:2)
" journalistic integrity" how else to profit from all the "good news" about cloud blockchain AI.
Remember the Amiga (Score:3)
The said that with the Amiga's Video Toaster. Yes kiddies, that was a thing. What we need is for the media to get out of our lives and people to turn of their devices and see what reality really is. I feel like we live in a Videodrome more and more each day.
The Amiga is roughly equivalent (Score:3)
A ton of work has been done on real time "photoshop". Like a lot of things the vanguard here was Adult movies and advertisements (I'm reminded of another old movie [wikipedia.org]). Folks have been thinking about this and working on it for decades.
What we need is more education (and clean, lead free water and air). We probably also need to lessen deep seated religious devotion (since it tends to foster unquestioned obedience to authorities).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know what I'm sayin?
Blame the technology (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's gotten so bad even people of like mind are starting to get wise and tune out.
Perhaps with time, your anger will subside, and you won't feel the need to rant about it online in a thinly veiled effort to defend your President.
You know he's great. What does it matter that others disagree?
Re: (Score:2)
"The loss of faith in MSM is entirely self inflicted. "
Not at all, Methylsulfonylmethane (MSM) works great for me.
Re:Blame the technology (Score:5, Insightful)
They've been caught time and again faking on location scenes, reporting entirely unfounded stories which when disproved they are slow to retract, and they bias their stories with a slant to their political ideology.
Don't fall for this. Yes, there are problems, but just because someone publishes a blog "debunking" some story and 8 minutes later it's still up on Reuters even though it's been pointed out that it's FAKE NEWS and an obvious product of Clinton's bought and paid for leftist "journalists" doesn't mean... Well, it doesn't mean shit.
There is fake news, but there is probably even more fake fake news trying to convince you that real news is fake.
Re: (Score:2)
They've been caught time and again faking on location scenes, reporting entirely unfounded stories which when disproved they are slow to retract, and they bias their stories with a slant to their political ideology.
Don't fall for this.
The problem is that it's true. That still doesn't mean some jerkoff in his basement is a more trustworthy source of news, but all of the above statements are true.
The problem with that truth, however, is that the MSM isn't one thing with one goal. That's a good thing! However, it's become closer to being one thing with one goal with more media consolidation. And that media is overwhelmingly being consolidated in conservative hands. And we know that conservatives spread the vast majority of false news. And s
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even know the story about the Florida shooter being part of a white nationalist movement was debunked and retracted?
That's not exactly a fair characterization. The ADL spoke with someone calling himself Jordan Jereb and claiming to be a member of a white supremacist group who said Cruz had participated in training exercises with the Republic of Florida (the white supremacist group).
Florida White Supremacist Group Admits Ties to Alleged Parkland School Shooter Nikolas Cruz [adl.org]
(Note, they have a big Update which includes information indicating it's probably not true)
He also told that to the AP and to the Miami Herald.
Then so
Re: (Score:2)
It's gotten so bad even people of like mind are starting to get wise and tune out. Whenever I see a "breaking news" headline now I look for at least five sources before I even consider it might be real.
Well the person who believes nothing will still believe something, no matter how raggedy the source. Maybe you're the exception but at least 9 out of 10 people I hear making blanket dismissals of MSM has found their own gospel on some sort of alt-news site which is like the real truth MSM isn't telling you. Yeah quality is down the drain with QA thrown out the window to be first with the breaking news and even the real news have turned into click bait headlines and cheap fluff. But with the Internet I'm not
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't new, it's just that the Internet made it easier to spread the word of their sins. Further, polarization of politics has made each other more likely to point out the others' mistakes. News networks used to rarely trash each other, at least not intensely. Corporations are jerks, gov't agency are jerks, users are jerks, etc. We can't make humans stop sucking, but we need to find a p
Citation needed (Score:3)
I suppose you could say that about Fox News. You might even say the same about Politico and Mother Jones. Though those two aren't exactly MSM and Fox News themselves claims to be an entertainment network (that's how they get out of equa
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm pretty sure most if not all of the "news" networks are now calling themselves entertainment networks for precisely the reason you mention. A news story doesn't
It wasn't hard to read between your lines (Score:2)
Also you're moving the goal post. You attacked the media for falsified stories and now your saying the stories don't need to be false.
And now you're just making up stories. I guess the good news is that to anyone on the fence your silly hyperbole will put them off. The bad news is there's lots of folks like yourself who've boug
Re: (Score:2)
Check out this cached story from Time:
Alleged Gunman Nikolas Cruz Was in White Supremacist Group [googleusercontent.com]
Now compare with the current version:
Alleged Gunman Nikolas Cruz Was in White Supremacist Group [time.com]
Apparently, all of this started out as a prank from 4Chan, [dailywire.com] and it was covered by a wide number of news outlets.
The news outlets will often do retractions (as in the case of Time), but those are almost never publicized as widely as the original stories, and the damage is done. I understand that mistakes happen, but
Re: (Score:2)
See, this is why I get my news from Slashdot. If anyone makes a mistake and rushes bad information out the door, two weeks later when I hear about it here, it will have been corrected, dissected, retracted, redacted, and reinterpreted, and trolled by ACs.
More seriously, obviously there are some issues with balancing reporting breaking news accurately and not reporting it at all. Retractions are important, and anyone who cares about the truth ought to be able to find the real information easily. But mistake
Yeah, seen that one (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are so hyper focused on finding something to rag on the the current presidency they ignore news that Americans are actually interested in.
Or maybe, it's because the current presidency is a freak show. He's up in the middle of the night tweeting threats to other nations. Do you really expect the news not to cover that?
Re: (Score:2)
This was debunked somewhere, I just can't find the related links right now. As I remember it, the press was allowed a very limited amount of physical space by cops such that the camera person accidentally ended up in the shot.
Google and Youtube (Score:2)
> Is there some kind of dedicated site that archives incidents like these?
Youtube for starters. Go to Google and enter
newsman in canoe
in the search field. You get stuff like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The dawn of a new age of empiricism (Score:1)
If you can't trust anything digital you can only believe your own eyes.
ALL NEWS IS FAKE NEWS! (Score:2)
Welcome to the future.
HAHAHAHAHAHA (Score:1)
"there will still be some reliable publications and news outlets, and their credibility will need to be guarded all the more intently by professional journalists,"
He said professional journalists.... hahahahahaha
There are none. Everyone is a hack, working for someone with an agenda. Right, Left... it does not matter which.
Re: (Score:2)
Not disagreeing in principle. But omitting the left's fake news from your list makes you just another liar.
Add NYTimes, McClatchy, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS to your list of useless crap. Still not complete, but sort of representative.
Lets not forget to give 60 minutes a nod. For being the modern original american fake news. They were editing different questions in front of responses from their beginning. Got away with it for DECADES.
that's gonna totally work! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, they are going to ban fake videos! It's gonna work just as well as banning underage drinking, poverty, pot smoking, illegal guns, prostitution, and all the other things Washington has banned! If you don't like something, pass a law against it, and it magically disappears! That's what Ron Wyden believes, and he doesn't let facts get in the way of what he holds dear and true!
Re: (Score:3)
Murder hasn't gone away (Score:2)
Some things _should_ be illegal. And for law to be fair there needs to be specifics about what is and isn't illegal. Right now this tech is so new there isn't much of anything on the books to address it. That makes it possible, even likely, that somebody could do something to ruin your life (stopping just short of framing your for a crime) and get away with it.
Let's say you're applying to Goog
Re: (Score:2)
It's gonna work just as well as banning underage drinking, poverty, pot smoking, illegal guns, prostitution
IKR? They can try banning murder and rape, but it's obviously pointless because there's still murder and rape. Why bother having any laws at all?
Brilliant.
lack of journalists (Score:2)
Back in the usenet days someone posted about TV news saying Dan Rather and Barbara Walters are celebrities not journalists. He went on about as a journalist he walks the walk and talks the talk. He interviewed more politicians and criminals than anyone else would care to do. And he simply would write what he saw and heard.
But simply reporting what happened can be problematic as pointed out in other comments many thought of FH launch as fake. Then you have the other topic about "fake videos" where the simu
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the usenet days someone posted about TV news saying Dan Rather and Barbara Walters are celebrities not journalists. He went on about as a journalist he walks the walk and talks the talk. He interviewed more politicians and criminals than anyone else would care to do. And he simply would write what he saw and heard.
The thing wrong with his analysis is that it doesn't matter what he does, people will still choose their media sources based on their own personal bias. If people want news which claims to not do anything but report facts, they will get the idea that such-and-such reporter is a good person and they will be inclined to believe that what he reports is fact. If people want news which explains the facts to them, then they will get the idea that whoever provides explanations that make sense to them is a good per
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes, blame Fox News - and misspell the name, too! Tell me, do you refer to M$ as well, little boy?
If you weren't both a child and a coward you might know about the long geek history of inserting punctuation into names. Before anyone was saying Micro$oft, they were saying Compu$erve. Now get off my lawn, son, before I beat you off of it with my cane.
Why worry? (Score:3)
Fake news and the people who look at it are a self-perpetuating echo chamber. The rise of new ways to create fake news doesn't change the impact or prevalence as those who believe in that garbage don't need some advanced fake video to cement their beliefs. As it is they aren't swayed by logic or reality so why should these videos make the situation any worse?
Just search for youtube conspiracies that that prove the planes hitting the WTC were digital fakes to see what I mean.
This won't change the status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Even those videos that could be fake but we believe are real are hardly ever useful in general. What is useful is what helps you conduct your day to day life better and I can't remember when was the last time I saw a video -- other than someone giving a presentation or instructions -- where it was useful in that sense.
Inevetible: Total Recall predicted this (Score:4, Insightful)
This was all inevitable. I knew this would happen ever since I saw Total Recall.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go back further.
Running Man.
How do you maintain trust? (Score:3)
Umm, how about digital signatures?
The idea of fake news isn't new. It's been easy to print complete fabrications since Gutenberg. The real problem is uncritical consumption of "information."
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me wonder if it's technologically possible to digi-sign video as it is being filmed with a digital camera so that at least it can be traced back to a device with a degree of certainty. If there is a relatively cheap way to do this, all major camera brands would incorporate one.
How is this new? (Score:2)
Photoshop's a thing.
We all know that pictures can be seamlessly and basically indetectibly edited...so we're skeptical, even of images.
This just extends that to video.
Personally, I believe that the only people who should fear this are the people WHO HAVE ALREADY HAD THAT CAPABILITY, effectively losing (or at least devaluing) their secret monopoly.
So tell me again why I should be sadface that the government and media don't like people generally having this capability?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I claim "that's not me"?
cheating (Score:2)
To my mind out and out presenting faked footage is like doping in sport, it's cheating.
The news is fake in part because we like it that way. Sure we know that the person on screen is lying and misleading but it's part of the entertainment. When it's done well we can admire how people onscreen are able to misrepresent reality better than we could. For example I respect Kelly Conway's skills (especially compared to Sarah Sanders' amateurish attempts) and that would be a lost art if the alternative were to s
when a picture was worth a thousand words (Score:2)
Once upon a time, a picture was worth a thousand words (and few of them required any careful thought). Those days are over.
Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?
Once upon a time, that was a punch line. Those days are over, too.
Somewhere in Africa is the next Wolfgang Beltracchi, and soon he'll be earning his PhD in human–computer collaboration by moonlighting on Amazon Turk.
I hear they're worried (Score:2)
that someone will create fake videos of them acting in the public's interest.
Simple rule (Score:3)
Believe none of what you hear, half of what you see. Verify everything. Most of the third world already knows this (where they don't expect gruberment to "protect them").
Simple answer...... (Score:2)
Never allow audio or video recordings of press conferences to happen.
I think if there is no technological fix for this then we will enter an era where politicians will not speak on camera in a public setting, and maybe not even in a controlled one (depending on the technological solutions that may come to pass)
Re: (Score:2)
i smell a Manchurian actor like usual.
So do I. Don't look now - he's inside your post!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When did 60 minutes lose a libel case? Because they've been openly and notoriously deceptive editing interviews for decades.
Their favorite trick is to change the questions, so the answers come off as incredibly weasley.
They still have credibility, with morons, to this day. It's really amazing...
Re: (Score:2)
Jupiter's Great Red Spot is dying [newsweek.com], and I expect that any islands of sanity in today's world are as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that this is overly practical or ultimately secure. But the problem is that the *original* can now easily be altered by too many evil monkeys (not that this is a surprise).
One counter measure that offers some–if not even nearly perfect–protection would be to go back to analog/analogue. Sure, photographic film has always been retouched and altered for ill reasons (seems all totalitarian regimes are experts in that – hey, Russia ...). But altering movie film is fairly painful, especially on smaller formats (lots of really small pictures like Super 8). And at least right now it would have to be done by hand.
I see where you're going with this, and I like the idea in theory. However, the problem is that the requirement would need to be an end-to-end analog signal. There can be no digital conversion at any point in the chain in order for this solution to be practical...and at this point, that's basically impossible.
Even if it's film + telecine + analog broadcast, good luck finding an all-analog video room in a broadcast studio in 2018 since TV signals have to be digital now. If it's shown on Youtube (or Facebook