Sergei Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 That explains why the rebels can't find Gadhafi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 That's what you get when you hire media journalism staff based upon an entertainment-based profit ethic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 23, 2011 Author Share Posted August 23, 2011 To be fair, the journos themselves probably don't participate in things like these other than telling the graphic designer to draw a map showing the location of Tripoli (with no mention of country), and it's possible that the graphic designer got confused due to bad communications. But if you're working for a news company, you kind of should know what the news are about. Like if you are asked for the IMF logo, you just know that it's not the Impossible Mission Force that is being requested. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 Most likely this graphic got delegated to some low pay person that didn't know the difference, wasn't supervised and was left to guess which Tripoli was meant, and then either the system ran out of time to vet the graphic. Heaven knows I've griped about CNN before but television is a perfect environment for a goof like this, no time, high pressure, and you have to keep plenty of inexperienced staff on board because about 99 per cent of the time they can do the job just fine. Almost certainly the journo lady had next to nothing to do with the graphic, there is a very high chance she never even saw it before it went on air and there is a still solid chance she didn't even know there was a graphic planned. The thing to remember about TV reporters is that the important person is not the reporter but the producer; he/she calls the shots and decides how the piece is put together, out of what tape. Sometimes the producer tells the broadcast central "How about you guys do a map graphic at this point?" But far more often the broadcast central communicates with the producer, finds out there is say 30 seconds of interesting footage, and if there is 45 second of voice-over an editor says "Let's get a map graphic on this." Technically there is a tiny chance that every one in that chain of command at CNN really thought the Tripoli in question was the Lebanese one. But odds are much higher that the editorial people farmed out the graphic to the graphics department or even just a subcontractor, and somewhere in there a person with little knowledge of the news even got told "Make a map showing where Tripoli is" The further you get from the editors the better the odds of an editorial error, and the less time you give the editors to check, the harder you make their job. Kind of strange the chain of command didn't catch the goof of course, but again, TV forces errors, it's a really unforgiving medium that way. If you want to be cynical, consider this - Is it possible they DID catch it but decided their viewers were too ignorant to know the difference? Or maybe the graphics people thought the same thing? Fun to think about. But my money is on the "Time crunch plus unsupervised subcontractor." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 And to top it all off, the pictured journalist's name is actually Sara Snider. /joke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boeman Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 It's fairly safe to say that this is a case of "subconscious" human error rather the result of a geographically challenged graphics department. It can be said that all of the visual aids we see, especially on news networks, are pre-baked graphical elements that have been made well in advance - or more likely culled from stock resources. These are often prepared for special program segments or kept at the ready in anticipation of possible angles for news coverage. Very little other than simple bumpers and text is actually generated on the fly. Creating a complex overlay such as a vector map from scratch on the spot just doesn’t happen. A possible scenario as to how this mistake was made could be traced back to something as minor as improper file naming conventions. The graphic designer who was called upon to bring up a map of Tripoli had a series of files containing the name “Tripoli” but lacked metadata detailing which Tripoli it was and consequently, he/she hedged the wrong bet. Proper naming conventions will call for using file name types such as Tripoli_Lebanon.tga and Tripoli_Lybia.tga. to avoid such mishaps. One other possibility is that the maps used by CNN are generated procedurally with specialized geo-mapping software sourced from Google or elsewhere. The graphic designer may have input Tripoli in the software’s search engine but failed to key in additional data (i.e. not specifying Lybia as the country of origin). Software programs filter results in alphabetical order by default and since Lebanon comes before Lybia, that was the selection that went through. Mistakes of this nature are very common in all forms of digital production. Ultimately though, the buck stops with the producer. As Bigduke6 suggested, pressure and lack of time probably impeded a second check before it aired. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 CNN makes goofs all the time. Also the old Obama Lord God Savior routine just makes me sick. Real journalism died long ago anyway. Pressure and lack of time are no excuse for glaring errors, especially SPELLING AND GRAMMAR errors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Proper naming conventions will call for using file name types such as Tripoli_Lebanon.tga and Tripoli_Lybia.tga. to avoid such mishaps. Proper spelling of Libya might help some too. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boeman Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Proper spelling of Libya might help some too. Michael Hmm, I wonder if I can deflect the blame for that on my current attempts to quit caffeine cold turkey (second day so far). Sixxkiller: I don't know what the Obama reference is about. Data entry and file management errors are a science in itself under which the shipping and medical industries have spent small fortunes on studying in an attempt to mitigate their effects. The fact of the matter is that it happens to everyone regardless of occupation. Most of us have the luxury to double-check documents prior to final approval. Personnel working in the live television business have to get it right on the first try - every time. Under such time sensitive and high pressure conditions, I don't envy anyone working in the field of live broadcasting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Does "live television" as in a rolling news program actually provide any light or is it just pandering to those humans who gawp at crashes? Surely news to be useful has to be presented with context. TV news to me seems now to be a montage of pictures with weaselly words telling you what you can see. Surely, like sex, instant gratification is not actually that good : ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Sixxkiller: I don't know what the Obama reference is about. . Well whenever I go by CNN or MSNBC, its all about how great Our Lord and Savior is doing. The love affair these two stations in particular have for him is disturbing. Only reason I dont watch only Fox is they absolutely suck covering the rest of the world. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 That's why I have almost completely given up watching/listening/reading the news. I am not well informed, but then you see I reached the conclusion that even when I was an avid news hound I wasn't truly all that well informed. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Does "live television" as in a rolling news program actually provide any light or is it just pandering to those humans who gawp at crashes? There aren't many humans that don't. Mostly super-cool guys in movies. And you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noxnoctum Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Well whenever I go by CNN or MSNBC, its all about how great Our Lord and Savior is doing. The love affair these two stations in particular have for him is disturbing. Only reason I dont watch only Fox is they absolutely suck covering the rest of the world. They all suck. NPR is better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 I would say Al Jazeera is very good. And of course BBC. Neither is perfect and there is a bit of slant in both, but that said I consider them solid news sources. Also, the major wire services are fairly competent at getting the basic information, they are pretty much always the fastest, and generally speaking they HAVE to try hard to get the story right as their customers by and large are other media. The thing to avoid - as Mr. Emrys has tacitly done - is the very biggest media who by the very nature of their customers must dumb down their product to such an extent, and kiss up to shareholders and political allies to such an extent, that if a person is actually interested in some aspect of the news what the majors give him is practically useless. If it's a huge news event of course the majors can do good work as they have huge resources. But the more you are interested in detail, the more you have to seek it yourself. I find my time often is almost always better spent hunting information on the web than watching a major. I also find that experience in academic research, particularly history but also whatever other topic you might be interested in, can really help. As can a passing knowledge of how foreign languages work, it is possible to access the media of entire countries with the help of Google Translate. At the end of the day if you want to find out about something it's a matter of using your own judgement and comparing varying and usually conflicting bits of information. There is a ton of information out there and to my mind if you are poorly-informed you are either trusting a few major news sources and hoping they get the story right, which is ludicrous when you stop and think about it; or you have just bailed on following the news, you have other things you want to do with your life. Which is of course the right of a free citizen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 I avoid television news at all times. BBC Radio 4 is excellent for its newsy programmes. The brief news on the hour is bearably concise. However for serious information you have to read. And of course as you can read at leat ten times faster than someone speaks it is a far better use of your time. Also yoou can check back for comprehension and possible bloopers which cannot easily be done with radio or TV. I may well give up my magazine subscriptions as things like Physorg provide even more than my weekly science mag. But then maybe the overview articles, letters , and adverts Do make it worth keeping ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 But the more you are interested in detail, the more you have to seek it yourself. I'd say this is a very important point. I have a neighbor who watches/listens to the news avidly, yet is remarkably naïve about background and context, and therefore is unable to make critical judgements about what she is hearing. But she gets quite worked up about it all the same. This behavior strikes me as typical of a significant portion of the population. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak_43 Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 Mitchell and Webb nailed it... "Tell us your reckons"... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 About the only news I watch any more is NPR/PBS or Al-Jazeera. The latter especially surprised me with the quality and depth of their reporting. Heavy on Muslim issues world-wide, but still a view into affairs that we never see on regular US networks or cable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Does "live television" as in a rolling news program actually provide any light or is it just pandering to those humans who gawp at crashes? Surely news to be useful has to be presented with context. TV news to me seems now to be a montage of pictures with weaselly words telling you what you can see. Surely, like sex, instant gratification is not actually that good : ) Of course not. Most people don't watch the news to be informed or to receive information upon which they can form an opinion. Look at the time of day that news is broadcast, 6 to 7 pm. Just the time when people are getting home, preparing dinner and relaxing a bit before the real programs they want to watch like ..... (insert you country here) Idol . Evening television news presents some footage and a well dressed authoritative person to tell you what your opinion should be. Generally if you don't like a particular news broadcast it is because it tells you things you don't agree with or don't want to hear. The dwindling print media is for sure a more reliable source as they have to print 1000 words for every picture the TV does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 The dwindling print media is for sure a more reliable source as they have to print 1000 words for every picture the TV does. Sorry, but your logic(?) here escapes me. Would you care to go over the steps? The more words you print the more reliable you become? Then surely I must be the most reliable person on this forum, a fact I cannot deny, but again, I can't see the connection between the premise and the conclusion. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave H Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Sorry, but your logic(?) here escapes me. Would you care to go over the steps? The more words you print the more reliable you become? Then surely I must be the most reliable person on this forum, a fact I cannot deny, but again, I can't see the connection between the premise and the conclusion. Michael Michael, a picture is worth how many words? You're applying logic to a truism which has none. :eek: :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.