So I guess NBC is no longer to be trusted?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/nbc-fires-producer-of-misleading-zimmerman-tape/

So, will people now come up with clever and funny names for NBC like people do for Fox News (The network that supposedly "lies" all the time), and no longer consider it a trusted source of news? Or will they be hypocrites and continue to watch/listen/trust because they agree with their point of view?

Someone was actually fired for pulling that shit.

So I'd say it's very different to Fox News.

Zekksta:
Someone was actually fired for not looking into their sources and just printing bullshit.

So I'd say it's very different to Fox News.

That's not entirely true. News Corp does fire employees from time to time for misdeeds... and then rehired by another division of News Corp at higher salaries that are, in no way, meant to be payoffs to keep their mouths shut (See: the entire staff of News of the World).

The Gentleman:

Zekksta:
Someone was actually fired for not looking into their sources and just printing bullshit.

So I'd say it's very different to Fox News.

That's not entirely true. News Corp does fire employees from time to time for misdeeds... and then rehired by another division of News Corp at higher salaries that are, in no way, meant to be payoffs to keep their mouths shut (See: the entire staff of News of the World).

Is there some sort of law that says the guy who did this can't be named? Or was it the choice of NBC not to name him?

I don't think this is going to go the way you want it to. If anything this builds integrity for NBC. They fired a guy for running a misleading story once.

On one hand you have Fox, they do not even acknowledge factual errors or misleading stories. On the other hand you have NBC who fire a guy for running a misleading story. Can you see the difference. NBC is not actively allowing misleading stories, they take action to prevent them. Fox on the other hand allows it and even encourages it.

It actually kinda strengthens views of them, seeing as they found out he was making misleading stories, and booted him out. You can't stop someone pulling shit like that, your actions after it happens are what defines you. So they come out looking good for removing the person

Zekksta:

The Gentleman:

Zekksta:
Someone was actually fired for not looking into their sources and just printing bullshit.

So I'd say it's very different to Fox News.

That's not entirely true. News Corp does fire employees from time to time for misdeeds... and then rehired by another division of News Corp at higher salaries that are, in no way, meant to be payoffs to keep their mouths shut (See: the entire staff of News of the World).

Is there some sort of law that says the guy who did this can't be named? Or was it the choice of NBC not to name him?

Generally, there's laws against blacklisting and retaliatory actions against employees by employers, but that's usually only if they report unlawful activity (i.e. whistle-blower protections). That said, there's nothing legally, to my knowledge, preventing NBC from releasing his name if they wanted to. I imagine they're not out of consideration of the fact that only senior producers are known outside the company (and even then, it's only a few) and that he/she probably has a family that doesn't want the attention. Media companies are relatively small and there's a lot of interconnections between people (not dissimilar to the games industry), so sensitivity when they have to publicly fire someone is within a corporation's better interest unless the reason for firing is particularly severe (such as a racist tirade as Pat Buchanan occasionally finds himself doing).

While Fox News is not exactly a paragon of Journalism either I would point out that it was the likes of Sean Hannity that called NBC out on the 911 tape editing.

Also I didnt see the story where NBC actually fired someone over this, does anyone have a link?

It's literally the first post.

Well, this is sort of different from the Fox News kind of wrong like "Ahmygawd they eat babies in the Netherlands!". If you edit out the dispatcher only (which makes sense if you want to show what the murderer Zimmerman said) you already almost arrive at exactly that edit.

If you listen to that it sounds like the murderer has a strong connection between black people in his neighbourhood and them being suspicious, dangerous, on drugs, any weird qualification, so why not cut out the drugs as well to better show the connection.

It's not very handy, but I can see how such a mistake can be made.

"Can NBC no longer be trusted?"

No; they shouldn't have been trusted as is. Here's the rundown:

Fox news:
Here is some objective news: "facts and statistics, ext." Now here is some subjective news commentary: "arguments from one side", "arguments from the other side".

NBC, ABC and everyone else:
Here is objective news: "arguments from one side."

UltraHammer:
"Can NBC no longer be trusted?"

No; they shouldn't have been trusted as is. Here's the rundown:

Fox news:
Here is some objective news: "facts and statistics, ext." Now here is some subjective news commentary: "arguments from one side", "arguments from the other side".

NBC, ABC and everyone else:
Here is objective news: "arguments from one side."

Hello Mr. Bizarro world! How are you doing today? I'm sorry, I think you missed the door; this is the real world, where you're quite simply wrong. And yeah, do your own research; I'm not going to spoon-feed you the basics on why Fox News is a fucking horrific place to get unbiased news. (Hint: this is a good place to start, but the mountain of shit is several miles high.) I'm sorry, I just get irritated by people who buy into this crap. Fox News is not simply biase,d they fail to differentiate well between commentary and news, and then proceed to lie their asses off on the news. We've seen their political bend not just in their actions, but also in fucking leaked memos from the channel itself.

But what really gets me about this is how you bought into this retarded "Everyone else is biased, Fox news isn't" meme. Come on, help me out here. When do they not offer both sides of issues that are genuinely controversial?

OT: Nope, if anything this strengthens NBC's credibility. See, when people get caught perpetrating major lies at certain other networks we will not name, they rarely get reprimanded; in fact, often, the message seems to be network-wide, as if some higher-up pushed it upon them. But NBC caught the guy and fired him. That's a sign of integrity. It shows that they, unlike certain other networks, care about whether or not it's true. So yeah, not a big deal.

Stagnant:

OT: Nope, if anything this strengthens NBC's credibility. See, when people get caught perpetrating major lies at certain other networks we will not name, they rarely get reprimanded; in fact, often, the message seems to be network-wide, as if some higher-up pushed it upon them. But NBC caught the guy and fired him. That's a sign of integrity. It shows that they, unlike certain other networks, care about whether or not it's true. So yeah, not a big deal.

Not necessarily. It could just mean that the poor guy was a convenient scapegoat when they found themselves in a bit of a pickle. Deliberately presenting "proof" that criminal evidence doesn't exist is after all a bit more serious than the usual lies and distortions all news networks get caught with on a regular basis. NBC for example was also responsible for digitally altering one of Trayvon Martin's more recent photos to look much more... I suppose babyfaced is the term. Not nearly as serious as the issue in the OP, but no less a matter of changing things to suit one's agenda rather than the truth.

It is entirely plausible that the upper management knew about the editing and/or forced this fellow to do it, then metaphorically stabbed him in the back when it failed to play out as expected. Whatever you may think about their honesty, just remember that they are businessmen first and foremost, not trustworthy paragons, and hiding their deceit at the expense of some poor sucker is unfortunately indeed good business.

UltraHammer:
"Can NBC no longer be trusted?"

No; they shouldn't have been trusted as is. Here's the rundown:

Fox news:
Here is some objective news: "facts and statistics, ext." Now here is some subjective news commentary: "arguments from one side", "arguments from the other side".

NBC, ABC and everyone else:
Here is objective news: "arguments from one side."

Hahahahahahahahahhahaha-NO. Fox News is so ass backwards, I'm surprised they are still on the air.

UltraHammer:
Fox news:
Here is some objective news: "made up 'facts' and bold faced lies" Now here is some subjective and hatefull news commentary: "arguments from one side", calling the other side satanists/pedophiles/whatever

I fixed your quote because I'm such a nice guy.

Not to mention that fox news takes a series of political talking points for the day and then repeats those same points on every single show on the channel, both news and opinion shows. It's a pretty textbook propaganda technique, and it's applied consistantly over the whole channel. Often those talking points come straight from memos sent out by the Republican party.

Anyway, none of the television news stations are great, but Fox News is the only one that's actually committed to political propaganda as a whole. It was created for that reason, and it's been very effective at tilting political discussion in this country by creating a constant stream of untrue "facts" and exaggerations that have peculated into the popular consciousness.

Heronblade:

Stagnant:

OT: Nope, if anything this strengthens NBC's credibility. See, when people get caught perpetrating major lies at certain other networks we will not name, they rarely get reprimanded; in fact, often, the message seems to be network-wide, as if some higher-up pushed it upon them. But NBC caught the guy and fired him. That's a sign of integrity. It shows that they, unlike certain other networks, care about whether or not it's true. So yeah, not a big deal.

Not necessarily. It could just mean that the poor guy was a convenient scapegoat when they found themselves in a bit of a pickle. Deliberately presenting "proof" that criminal evidence doesn't exist is after all a bit more serious than the usual lies and distortions all news networks get caught with on a regular basis. NBC for example was also responsible for digitally altering one of Trayvon Martin's more recent photos to look much more... I suppose babyfaced is the term. Not nearly as serious as the issue in the OP, but no less a matter of changing things to suit one's agenda rather than the truth.

It is entirely plausible that the upper management knew about the editing and/or forced this fellow to do it, then metaphorically stabbed him in the back when it failed to play out as expected. Whatever you may think about their honesty, just remember that they are businessmen first and foremost, not trustworthy paragons, and hiding their deceit at the expense of some poor sucker is unfortunately indeed good business.

Point taken. I think we can all agree that this isn't a death blow for the channel, though, even if it is suspicious.

For whatever my opinion is worth, I would not surprised really that NBC would railroad one of the "little people" at the company when the bigwigs got caught in a lie. Also, the Today show sucks and stopped being anything but a show to see the latest shoe fashions a long time ago.

That said, all news networks in US are bias. You have the vitriolic Fox News and its liberal cousin MSNBC, to the harmless like CNN. If you have to go with one, go with CNN, although they love their spinning intros and holograph table thingys like no other.

Stagnant:

Heronblade:
snip

Point taken. I think we can all agree that this isn't a death blow for the channel, though, even if it is suspicious.

Agreed, particularly considering how often this sort of thing seems to happen without any kind of repercussion for the news networks. I've almost entirely switched to BBC news at this point. They have their own biases of course, but at least they don't have much of a direct vested interest in pandering to either of our political parties.

Blablahb:
Snip

TheDarkEricDraven:
Snip

Stagnant:
Snip

If this conversation is anything like 90% the last ten threads I've participated in here at The Escapist, it'll end with people ceasing to respond to my posts. So I'll just leave alone the accusation of them being hugely biased, and just provide the traditional three quick, simple points of consideration that doesn't get mentioned in the 'Faux News' discussion, to show that people, at very least, are exaggerating the accusation beyond whatever it really is.

1: There are numerous liberal commentators on the network. Alan Colmes, Geraldo, Juan Williams, and Bob Beckel to name the ones I see the most. If the network is about conservative propaganda, I don't know why they'd ever let these guys on.

2: Like I said, the commentators are at least open about their bias, even if the reporters supposedly aren't.

3: Even the commentators bring on guests with opposing viewpoints all the time. And I mean all the time. Two of their biggest shows are Hannity and O'Reilly, right? You're guaranteed to get at least three segments talking to a liberal per show, every night. Even if Fox tries with all of its might to trick people into agreeing with them, can't anyone watching hear the other guy talk? Does the other guy influence them in any way at all?

Even TheEscapist has been guilty of this fallacy before.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e80_1305997846

Two guys say X, then another guy says Y, and then the Esacapist posts an article saying "Fox News Says X". The article then gets 668 posts in less than ten days. Here's a sampling exclusively from the first page:

"This is almost enough to make me want to rage quit life "

"Dear Fox News. I think I speak for all people of rational thinking and common sense when I say: (video titled 'go fuck yourself')"

"Dear other countries in the world, if you get made and decide to attack and invade the United States, please strike Fox News HQ first, then I promise we will try to work out a compromise afterwards..."

"Get a drink, watch Fox News, and take a sip every time they lie, blow something out of proportion, or use strawman attacks. My record was 20 minutes conscious."

"Anyone fancy helping me blow up the Fox News building? *Grabs Shotgun and C4 charges*"

"Oh no, it's not accidental or due to a lack of knowledge that Fox does these things. They are fully aware of the facts and often disregard them to use shock and scare tactics to stir up controversy where there is none and push their own political agenda."

"*sigh*"

"My sentiments exactly. FOX News, go fuck yourselves."

"Fox didn't do anything wrong, they had a debate. Your ire should be directed at the dude who was arguing against video games as art, not FNC itself." Oh nice. One.

Actually I lied; it's not all from the first page. It's from the first half of the first page.

Now let's remember; this is in response to a news corporation--at very worst--calling all video games as violent as Call of Duty, or lying that CoD is getting federal money.

But now, there's a thread bringing up how a news corporation deliberately altered an audio file to make someone look more guilty of murder than he really was. Well, this thread certainly doesn't have 668 posts, but this is largely a gaming/tech website, plus the thread wasn't a major article posted on the front page. So let's be more fair and take a look at what the people who have posted said about this incident.

"I don't think this is going to go the way you want it to. If anything this builds integrity for NBC. They fired a guy for running a misleading story once."

"It actually kinda strengthens views of them, seeing as they found out he was making misleading stories"

we have people looking specifically for the positive aspects of the situation. And the people who are giving NBC a hard time for this? You know, people like me? We're not calling them obscenities like 'ass backwards'. No jokes about wanting to blow up their building.

UltraHammer:

we have people looking specifically for the positive aspects of the situation. And the people who are giving NBC a hard time for this? You know, people like me? We're not calling them obscenities like 'ass backwards'. No jokes about wanting to blow up their building.

The only problem tends to be that Fox tends to shoehorn some of the dumbest viewpoints ever that are completely biased and misinformed, such as say so much of what Glenn Beck has said (I haven't heard from this guy so I'm hoping he's been fired, which would make my opinion of Fox news elevate) specifically calling all Leftists Communists for example. I do agree though on showing only one viewpoint for the National Broadcasting Company, I mean when i saw a story on how a program was being cut which the government would pay for kids in bad schools to go to a private school the commentator never mentioned the teacher's side and just assumed they wanted to get rid of it to raise their own pay, which if it were true you could at least ask them about it. but I couldn't stand 30 minutes of Glenn Beck without facepalming too hard through his rants, the stuff he says is just way too stupid for any other network.

Smithburg:
It actually kinda strengthens views of them, seeing as they found out he was making misleading stories, and booted him out. You can't stop someone pulling shit like that, your actions after it happens are what defines you. So they come out looking good for removing the person

Well... no...

The BBC manage to avoid it by having several layers of monitoring of what news goes out to make sure it is all accreditable... its VERY rare that the BBC withdraw something...

Hold on... here it is, the last thing they were asked to withdraw...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-206912/Blair-withdraw-BBC-claim.html
And this is from the Daily Fail... they have the journalistic integrity of Play Dough...

---------

OT:

NBC is to be trusted just as much as any other news network......... in America....
While in firing the guy they have shown they don't intentionally falsify stuff like Fox, but they rather just not look a shady gift horse in the mouth...

It's so cute when FOX fanbois think a single error on a rival network that leads to administrative investigation and severe consequences is in any way comparable to FOX's lifetime commitment to misinformation and explicit attempts at propaganda. What next? Do we get to see Keanu Reeves critiquing other actors' emotive ability?

o.0

so ... NBC canned a guy for running a 'misleading story', ... and that makes the automatically as bad as Fox "news"?

o.o?

um, no. i doubt anybody will be as bad as Fox "news" is, they have to not have standards for that

I have trusted any American news station in years, I have found a lot of better sources of the news.

girzwald:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/nbc-fires-producer-of-misleading-zimmerman-tape/

So, will people now come up with clever and funny names for NBC like people do for Fox News (The network that supposedly "lies" all the time), and no longer consider it a trusted source of news? Or will they be hypocrites and continue to watch/listen/trust because they agree with their point of view?

ALL TELEVISION NEWS IS GARBAGE.

The end.

Oh, don't get me wrong, ultrahammer; this is horrible and disturbing, and I'm glad someone got fired for this.

Any news organization you can think of has had some screw ups. Like I remember a few years ago there was that one reporter for the New York Times who was making up facts and interviews for a while before he got caught and fired. That is always something to watch out for, and it's especially bad in a situation like this.

The only reason you're getting a lot of blowback here is that you're comparing one isolated screw up with the general pattern of Fox news coverage. If you can show that there is a general pattern of this kind of thing at NBC, then you'd probably have a case, but it sounds more like one asshole did a manipulative editing job to try make the story more sensationalistic and one-dimensional, probably in order to get ratings higher, and he got fired. But the problem with Fox isn't a matter of one screw up, or editoral coverage, or whatever; it's a systimatic manipulation of the facts on news shows for propaganda purposes.

I don't care if someone has a certain political point of view, and they report the facts that they think are important because of their point of view, or do editorials and commentary that state an opinion that they got from those facts. But just inventing fake facts in unacceptable, no matter who does it. Most people who watch Fox news come away with false impressions all the time. I have yet to talk to one Fox News watcher who actually understands what Obamacare actually is, for example, but they think they do. That's incredibly bad for our democracy.

There's a big difference between "a newspaper/news station/ whatever publishes something incorrect, then they make a correction later and fire the person responsible" and "a newspaper/news station invents facts, repeats them in all of their coverage all the time for weeks, and then never retracts them, leaving the viewers with completely the wrong impression."

Katatori-kun:
Do we get to see Keanu Reeves critiquing other actors' emotive ability?

image

You made Keanu sad :(

As far as I'm concerned, trusted sources of news don't really exist here. I mean, it's rare for an organization to get as bad as FOX news, but in the end they all make big deals of out little things (remember that stupid case a few months back with the woman who allegedly killed her baby?), and tend to have a pro-US bias.

Welcome to The Escapist Forum Choose You Own Adventure!

How does Katatori-kun respond to Amnesiac?

Amnestic:

You made Keanu sad :(

If Katatori-kun says:

Katatori-kun:
That's okay, because every movie Keanu ever made makes me sad.

turn to page 27.

If Katatori-kun says:

Katatori-kun:
How can you tell?

turn to page 5.

Katatori-kun:

Katatori-kun:
That's okay, because every movie Keanu ever made makes me sad.

I choose this one because I just found out Keanu is doing Bill and Ted 3 and playing Spike Spiegel in a Live Action Cowboy Bebop.

*sigh*

Amnestic:
I choose this one because I just found out Keanu is ... playing Spike Spiegel in a Live Action Cowboy Bebop.

I nominate Amnestic as winner of the forum. He has just conclusively proven that there is no god. Therefore all religion topics shall be henceforth judged as resolved.

girzwald:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/nbc-fires-producer-of-misleading-zimmerman-tape/

So, will people now come up with clever and funny names for NBC like people do for Fox News (The network that supposedly "lies" all the time), and no longer consider it a trusted source of news? Or will they be hypocrites and continue to watch/listen/trust because they agree with their point of view?

They're a biased news organization that bends the truth to fit their agenda. They haven't outright lied to people before this (as far as we know), but I still never trusted them.

Amnestic:

Katatori-kun:

Katatori-kun:
That's okay, because every movie Keanu ever made makes me sad.

I choose this one because I just found out Keanu is doing Bill and Ted 3 and playing Spike Spiegel in a Live Action Cowboy Bebop.

*sigh*

Am I a bad person if I say I want to watch that?

Of...of course Keanu is doing Bill and Ted 3. Who the fuck else would be doing it?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked