Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Thanks for the support, SPP. Some people just can't be reasonable no matter how easy you make it for them." Boy howdy.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Fox, an organization known for their propaganda tactics, displays "wrong" video TWICE in favor of making the fringe element look more impressive than they really are and you call it a "goof" (twice, I suppose).< Yup, I do. Although I was a bit suspicious of the first one with the outdoor shots from different times of the year. But this one simply has no reason to be other than as just a mistake. There was footage, there were many many people waiting in line for hours, and Palin in front of a podium at a political rally in no way resembles a book signing at a mall. It couldn't possibly fool anybody, so there couldn't be any intent. It was just an error. >What's reasonable about whitewashing propaganda?< Your words, not mine. I'll hold Fox's feet to the fire when it's warranted. This time, it was not. Now, how bout another resounding "whatever" before going to bed?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << But this one simply has no reason to be other than as just a mistake. >> So, you're saying that they just grabbed the stock "Sarah Palin" footage collected at random over the past year. Out of all these months of overexposure, and all that stock footage, they just happened to accidentally pick up the footage of Palin with large cheering crowds behind her that coincidentally aligned with a story about large cheering crowds at a book signing? Why didn't they accidentally pick up the stock footage of Palin making a speech with a turkey slaughtered behind her? Why didn't they accidentally run the footage of Palin at the VP debate? Or any of the other thousands of hours of Sarah Palin stock on the reels? It was deliberate. As I said before, the actual footage of the Palin book signings exposes the crowds there to be the narrow-minded rubes that Fox doesn't necessarily want to promote as part of their right-wing movement.
Originally Posted By DAR I'm glad to know that all of the really important stuff has been taken care and we're now focusing on the hard hitting news stories.
Originally Posted By danyoung Well, I think we're approaching agree to disagree status here. But let me try this just one for time for Sport Goofy's sake - >Out of all these months of overexposure, and all that stock footage, they just happened to accidentally pick up the footage of Palin with large cheering crowds behind her that coincidentally aligned with a story about large cheering crowds at a book signing?< Picture a segment producer at Fox. He has a comment scheduled from the anchor about Palin's book signing. He knows he has that footage, so he yells over at his file footage guys "Get me the footage of Palin with the crowd". The guys, not being in on the story being aired, knowing nothing more than what the producer just asked for, gives him exactly what he asked for - footage of Palin with a crowd. It was obvious from watching the clip that the anchor knew that the footage wasn't right, and was doing the dance to try to cover for the error. Better to cover an error than to blurt out "Hey, that's not right - who screwed up with this footage?" It seemed like it was a snap judgement on his part, and very likely the famous Fox bias came into play there. But as I keep saying, there was just no advantage, no spin of benefit to Palin or Fox or anybody, for them to deliberately substitute footage that would make no sense, that doesn't begin to look like Palin at a book signing in a mall. It was a mistake, and that's my opinion as a professional video engineer. And I'd like to say that with the obvious exception of Mr X, it's been delightful debating with other articulate members of the LP family!
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Picture a segment producer at Fox. He has a comment scheduled from the anchor about Palin's book signing. He knows he has that footage, so he yells over at his file footage guys "Get me the footage of Palin with the crowd". >> I don't know how long its been since you have been in the news business, but I recently got to tour some news production facilities and there were no "file footage guys" taking orders from the producers. There were hardly any support personnel at all. The news business has dramatically reduced the number of people it employs and automated systems are eliminating jobs like "file footage guys." Most news organizations have the producers doing all of the work that normally would have required dozens of people only a few years ago. Most newsrooms employ automated camera systems, editing stations, and the whole show is run by only a handful of people. I'd say that the producer was very much aware of what was going on here and directly involved in the footage selection. I value your experience, but it doesn't align with an experience I had just a month ago in witnessing how these newsrooms operate in the year 2009.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I am quite sure that file footage, even at Fox, is labeled with keywords and such that make it quite clear what the footage contains, with a date and the subject matter and the whole nine yards. I can see the mistake happening if they were doing a few segments on Palin, which is more than likely at Fox especially, and they planned to run the other archive footage as part of a later segment. Maybe that's what took place. Still, it would be interesting to know if they ever acknowledged the error in any way.
Originally Posted By mele <a href="http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/fox-apologizes-for-second-incorrect-video-use/" target="_blank">http://mediadecoder.blogs.nyti...deo-use/</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan On MSNBC, whenever they discuss Rush Limbaugh, they run the footage of him at the CPAC convention. Dressed in black, looking bloated and sweaty and buffoonish bouncing up and down leading a chant of "Rush! Rush! Rush!", it's not Limbaugh's finest hour. In the months since, he has lost a considerable amount of weight, and it would not surprise me if that very footage drove him to do it. And yet, MSNBC runs that same footage of bouncing, bloated Rush no matter the topic. And that's because it fits a certain narrative. There's no doubt that a certain narrative exists on FOX as well. They're just a little clumsier about it from time to time.
Originally Posted By danyoung >...but I recently got to tour some news production facilities and there were no "file footage guys" taking orders from the producers.< Sure there are - they're called Associate Producers, or sometimes even Interns. From what you described about your recent tour, it sounds like things are just as I remembered them. And even if automation had streamlined those positions away, it's still entirely possible for a producer to look at a computer log of Palin footage and pull the wrong segment. And from the story that mele linked to above, this is the point I've been trying to make - "The incident this week seemed more obviously inadvertent because the anchor Gregg Jarrett, in describing the crowd, alluded to “lines of people” outside a bookstore, while the pictures on the screen clearly showed Ms. Palin at a campaign event."
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I wouldn't describe it as obviously "inadvertent" so much as obviously "manipulated."
Originally Posted By mele I don't know how anyone could mistake the footage for people lined up for a book signing, though. I mean, the mistake the other day was pretty obvious. I'm less inclined to think that they were trying to fool anyone this time because it was obvious that it was the wrong footage. Who would be fooled by that? <<Insert joke about Fox viewer's intellect here.>> I am irritated that they continue to call Palin "Governor Palin", however.
Originally Posted By mele Ooops, I mean the mistake the other day was NOT obvious as they were talking about crowds at a rally. This one WAS obviously *not* a book signing.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << "The incident this week seemed more obviously inadvertent because the anchor Gregg Jarrett, in describing the crowd, alluded to “lines of people” outside a bookstore, while the pictures on the screen clearly showed Ms. Palin at a campaign event." >> I also have to add that this would only be obvious to people who hear the audio and see the pictures on the screen. How many TVs tuned to Fox have viewers actively listening and watching at the same time? I never watch Fox that way. The only time I even tune into the channel is at work where they keep essentially all of the TVs programmed to that channel 24 hours a day. At work, the volume is turned off. They also play it on some of the TVs at the gym where the volume is turned off. While I don't watch Fox at home, I don't usually turn to a news channel except when I'm doing something else around the house. In that instance, I hear the audio but rarely tune into the video. So, what do most people get when Fox manipulates coverage like this? The people with the TVs on mute see Sarah Palin with cheering crowds behind her in a positive setting without any context except for maybe a digital bumper sticker with the story headline. The people who are only listening to the audio get to hear the copy about how popular the book signings are, evidenced by the Fox news anchor saying that the footage just in is showing a massive crowd. I doubt the folks at Fox are ignorant of the fact that most people watch their channel without the benefit of correlating both audo and video. For the people that do make the correlation, as long as Fox makes their errors so egregious that they are "obvious mistakes," the viewer at home just chuckles that its a glitch. Fox conveniently knows this and can use that fact to their advantage as they continue to serve propaganda disguised as news.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt I bet they won't be showing this video on FOX News: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/20/palin-booed-by-book-tour_n_365883.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...883.html</a>
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Just saw the video on Countdown. Some folks waited nine hours in the rain, just to stand across from this woman for 10 seconds? Geez. The woman couldn't even complete her term as Governor of Alaska. Why should this crowd be surprised that she walked out on them, too? OH! That's right... she's one of 'em! 8^P
