NBC Upset About CBS's Digital Ethics

naughtius_maximus writes "NBC is peeved that CBS used the live-digital-editing technique mentioned in a previous /. article to cover up NBC's logo with one of CBS's creepy eye logos during the new year's bash. The full story is at Yahoo! News." How much of this is faux righteous indignation on the part of NBC? On the other hand, they did pay for the Astrovision screen that CBS imaged over. Maybe they're still mad about Letterman.

CBS had every right

NBC did not have a contract with CBS to display that advertisement, and since CBS owned the transmission medium, they have every legal right to do what they did. Is it ethical? I don't know. I do feel that NBC has no right to ask for reparations.

Was CBS right to do this? I don't think so, but they weren't wrong either. It was just a bad decision and one that undermines their integrity.

If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.

Fake News

The biggest problem here is that it's NEWS organizations which seem to be loving this technology. Is it right for journalists to fake out their viewers (in this case) even when it only involves slighting the competition? I don't think so. I think it's journalistist fraud.

I say it's wrong too

Normally when you're watching news coverage, there's a trust that the audience puts into the news that they're getting the real deal. It's an implied agreement that the news will present us with facts (both stated and visual), and that we viewers come to expect that. This is one of the things that separates news from sitcoms and drama series. This is why we don't raise a flap if we get computer special effects in the movies. This is why we get pissed if the news gives us doctored footage.

Commentary

The New York Times [nytimes.com] Circuts section carried an article on this very matter as well. It would surprise some people what length advertisers go to in order to make sure their message is being heard. There was once a man interviewed on ABC News whose job is to count up every single ad visible in every second of NASCAR televised racing, along with the duration of visible time. He then punches this in a spreadsheet and uses calculations to both valuate and evaluate the money worth of each ad spot.

Now advertisers will be pissed because there is no more garuntee that they will be seen on television. Technically the networks have a right to broadcast what they want, but it perturbs me to realize that networks will go to lenghts to block competitor's advertisements, but still interrupt broadcasts with sensational journalism, like the OJ "getaway" and planes landing on freeways.

So what?

Nothing bothers me less than to see two giant media corporations go sue each other. I hope they bankrupt themselves.

Look, what if at hockey games, they start putting up blue screen ads, so that the TV networks can project their own ads onto them? Is this really any different than the way ads are sold now? No, not really. That kind of thing is already going on. Does CBS advertise its competitors for free? No. Big deal. So what if they start editing out outdoor advertising. Would anyone object if it was a cigarette ad they'd edited out?

The issue of honesty in reporting, which seems to be one of the major concerns here, is a total non sequitor as far as I'm concerned. Raise your hand if you didn't know that what you see on TV isn't always real. No hands? I thought so.

Jim Naureckas of FAIR seems concerned that this will undermine the credibility of TV news. As far as I can see, TV news already has no credibility, and print and Internet news isn't much more credible. The news is already a part of the entertainment, and is only done so long as it attracts ad revenue.

What a total non-issue.

Memories.

40 years from now I'll lean over to my grandson and tell him how I remember so vividly my evening at time Square, "It was so much fun, everyone was screaming and laughing. The ball was getting ready to drop, and the Astrovision had Dan Rathers talking about the event live. Oh Jonny, you should have seen it live - it's just not the same on tv, you know."

Joseph Elwell.

The big corporations should get used to it

NBC, CBS, and anyone else who produces an advertisement had better get used to this treatment. The fact of the matter is that my brain has this exact capability. Whenever an advertisement comes into view, my mind covers it up with chromakey blue. I just don't see that stuff any more.

Jakob Neilsen claims that web users have been observed to develop defensive techniques against banner ads. These techniques include scrolling the banner out of view, or staring at the cursor while the rest of the page loads. Advertising effectiveness is falling on the WWW, hopefully it will start falling everywhere. It would be the first step to ending the disgusting consumer culture in the USA.

-jwb

This is a Big Deal!

Okay guys, read the article. It sounds like this was an actual physical logo, like a billboard. Not the stupid thing in the bottom-left-hand corner of the screen!

I don't care who owns the transmission, if it's live, I want to see what's there! It's New York, for cris'sake. If they had a partnership with Lipton and digitally changed the big Cup-a-Noodle display or something, I'd be pissed!

(Why? Because I was at Times Square for New Years last year, I stared at that thing for three hours, and I kinda like it. I trust my news for some reality now and then, and if I found out that they lied to me like that, I'd be annoyed.)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].

You know what?

Sure.. they own the broadcast.. but if the general, fair assumption that it is 'live' then it should not be edited. Period. One could launch a class action suit saying that they deliberately did *NOT* give you fair, live coverage of the event, as they claimed to have done, and, in that respect, wasted your evening.

Stealing

If I framed up a news page with other's content and covered up their articles, I'd be in hot water. So, what grounds does CBS have taking footage of other people's buildings and plastering other ads on them?

Imagine you own a 100 million dollar building in Times Square and arranged some advertising on New Year's Eve. No one sees it.

I hate advertising and don't know why I'm defending NBC, but I think CBS pulled a boner.

Maybe problem will solve itself

I see more than one problem here. Notwithstanding any moral implications, there are a ton of legal questions.

Scenario A: Networks airbrushing over each other's billboards, buildings, etc. with different sponsors

This will solve itself, because the networks are on a level playing field -- they will most likely come to an out of court agreement, unless they are all as ill-mannered and belligerent as the CBS president.

Scenario B: Networks inserting advertising onto the billboards/signs of smaller businesses.

I almost HOPE they do this. After all, they could argue that the local businesses are getting free advertising merely by being shown in the background of a TV show, and thus the network is merely reclaiming ad space previously given away for free. I'm pretty sure this would backfire though, so I'm not too worried.

The networks inserting advertising onto anything and everything that moves. And stuff that doesn't.

This is the real problem. Most advertising is obviously advertising, but there is a subset that masquerades as truth. Fake websites, fake movie advertisements, some infomercials, and so on. Most of that stuff is easier to pick out because it falls into an advertising "context" -- a 30 second spot, or whatever. But what if ad agencies realize that there is an opportunity to truly blur the line between advertising and reality? Insert an ad masquerading as truth into a show professing to report the truth? How much would that be worth? I know that fake websites are harder to distinguish from fake movie trailers simply because there are no contextual clues ("Rated 'Y' for Yummy").

Just food for thought.

Ethical Dilemma.

For those that didn't read the article, this was a gigantic bulletin board in Times Square on New Year's Eve.

On the one hand, CBS does have the ability and the right to adjust its broadcasts. Censoring-squares or blurs are done all the time, for reasons from 'decency' rules to protection of innocents in crime footage.

OTOH, they made it look as if their logo was really there on New Years Eve, misrepresenting the broadcast as live and unedited coverage, at least implicitly.

I think the ethical way through this dilemma is actually pretty simple. CBS should have covered the NBC logo with something that was clearly artificial. Maybe a blur, or a black square, or even their own logo - but done 'flat', maybe in a brick-layout, so that it was obviously a computer mask over something being covered. Then CBS edits the offending content while at the same time not creating a misrepresentation problem.

(The question of why they didn't move Dan Rather -is- a good one though... )


--Parity

What next?

I'm happy to see NBC going after CBS for faking what we see on TV. If CBS isn't stopped now, the next thing you know, they'll be showing fake exploding trucks.

CBS was wrong.

This is an interesting issue...

On one hand, I don't like advertising -- and it was pretty creative to block out NBC's logo. But on the other hand, I think CBS was wrong to do this. Why? The main reason is that you are no longer reporting what is *actually* happening -- not only are you "slanting" it (as is what usually happens) but you are decieving viewers into thinking that the something is there which is not there. Done well, sure, it's hard to notice, (unless you're NBC) -- but I think it's unethical. Furthermore, I think it's unethical to plaster your logo in other places where it actually isn't, like the buildings and carriages that the story was talking about.

It's great to have the technology to do this. Pretty darn nifty, I would say -- but I think it is unethical to use the technology in a deceiving way.

The bottom line? They can do whatever they want with their broadcast. But I think it makes them look bad when they deceive people -- but hey, what am I complaining about -- I don't watch TV anyway. Yet another reason not to watch CBS.

Never trust the media

Some will see this as a sign that the media cannot be trusted. Man, you guys are late. They've been doctoring magazine and newspaper photos for years. I reached my last straw with the flap over setting explosive charges in trucks and then reporting their lack of safety. The media has always been manipulating your news. They didn't need new technology to do it. W. R. Hearst certainly didn't need digital technology for his yellow journalism.

There are good people and there are bad people. It's a law of nature. It should surprise no one that there are bad people in the media.

If you only get your news from one source, or worse, from only one television source, you're a dupe. The only way they can fool you is if you let them.

This is why AOL/TW sucks ass

Rather himself weighed into the controversy Thursday in an interview with the New York Times, in which he said he regretted the TV trickery, saying it was ``a mistake.''

``At the very least we should have pointed out to viewers we were doing it,'' he said. ``I did not grasp the possible ethical implications of this and that was wrong on my part.'

So, Dan actually thinks its kinda "wrong" to lie to people? Wow, journalistic integrity at it's top.

CBS News President Andrew Heyward defended the use of such new technology

Meet Dan's boss.

Asked whether he believed it was deliberate deception on CBS's part, Heyward said: ``The answer is no, I don't think it was. This is part of the evolution of graphics. They get more and more sophisticated...it does raise new issues.''

What? You mean like ethical issues? Like, "Maybe we should tell people what they're seeing is fake" kind of issues?

and

And ABC News apologized a few years ago for a segment in which reporter Cokie Roberts was said to be reporting from Capitol Hill, when she was in fact in the network's Washington bureau in front of a photograph of the Capitol building.

Let's rephrase this, ABC apologized a few years ago when they lied to save a few bucks, after they got caught. Remember...

CBS is owned by CBS Corp. (NYSE:CBS - news) NBC is owned by General Electric Co. (NYSE:GE - news) and ABC by Walt Disney Co. (NYSE:DIS - news).

And all of these are responsible to their shareholders to maximize profits. Nothin' like saving millions with new technology!

This technology is real cute, until it's used to show some Chinese/Iraqi/Evil Empire of the Week troops killing 30 Americans in cold blood to ramp up public opinion to grab new resources for the starving childrn in this country.

/end wild knee jerk reaction

Spammer Frenzy

Isn't this sort of similar to spammer A whining that spammer B used a cancelbot to kill his "Get rich Quick" messages in usenet?

I suppose I should be grateful about advertising though... How would I know what I want without it?

What about the FCC?

I'm curious to see if the FCC will have anything to say about this. Isn't there something in the terms of agreement that networks must comply with that says something about public service? This may not apply to cable since it's a private medium, but the radio spectrum is public property and I'm almost certain that to get broadcast bandwidth the networks have to agree to certain conditions. Can't remember where I read this.

Ask: If they edit logos, what else do they edit?

If they'll live edit a logo... and do this kind of editing without telling the viewer he's watching an edited recording... then why should I believe anything they say or show? News reporting has to be raw and uncensored or it's just not credible. This is why I support ACs on Slashdot. They are the Great Equalizer that keeps Slashdot legit. There may be loons, flamers, zealots, and baldfaced liars among them, but as long as they can speak uncensored, I can rest assured that the unedited Truth is being spoken in there too, without fear of reprisal from the ACs employer, etc. Any tainted news or slanted reporting will be quickly debunked by the masses. Slashdot without ACs would be just another biased news media outlet.

A little shortsighted

You already shouldn't be trusting photographs, video clips, etc. since this technology has been out there for years, and this recent incarnation is only special because it works in real-time. Moreover, you fail to realize that in the future, people won't be interacting with images as objects in an otherwise objective and external universe. In the future, with implants and such headed where they're headed, people will be interacting with a modified (improved or depreciated, depending on your philosophy) view of the world. With technology like this, it won't be simply a matter of covering one logo with another. It'll be masking one's entire perception of the world.

Oooogy, oooogy, booogy. I came up with my conspiracy theory for the day; now it's your turn.

The Cyborg response (care of Steve Mann).

This is relevant:

Steve Mann, one of the original Media Lab borg units, was motivated partly by a desire to have more control over his personal visual place.
IOW, he wanted his visor to block out bilboards.

Check him out:
[toronto.edu]
http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~mann/

And [toronto.edu]
in this page:

Mediation: Unlike hand held devices, laptop computers, and PDAs, the wearable computer can encapsulate us (Fig 1c). It doesn't necessarily
need to completely enclose us, but the concept allows for a greater degree of encapsulation than traditional portable computers. There are two
aspects to this encapsulation:
Solitude: It can function as an information filter, and allow us to block out material we might not wish to experience, whether it be offensive
advertising, or simply a desire to replace existing media with different media. In less severe manifestations, it may simply allow us to alter
our perception of reality in a very mild sort of way.

Discuss.

Brand new high-tech times square adds

Picture, if you will:

It's new years eve 2099 and a new century is less than an hour away. You've saved for this trip for over 2 years, and you're happy to say, you're going to be in times square on new years. New York, the gateway to america, the city that never sleeps, you've seen it all on Letterman, the bright lights, the glamour, the prestige that is times-square New York,NY.

You walk into the square and gaze up around you at what you think is going to be all the adds you've seen so many times, only to see giant green screens. That's right, there is no more bright lights, no more prestige. Just giant green billboard with (little dots in the corner to sync the motion tracking on the real-time digital overlay).

Is this our future?
_________________________

This raises some very serious issues

If a news broadcast can be digitally edited, and if newsteams are willing to do so, then what is to stop them from creating totally fake news?

Sure, you can't trust everything you see on the TV, but can you imagine what would happen if someone took the TV images of Ronald Reagan being shot and digitally modified them so that some other major figure was there. Say, a key political or economic figure. You could cause panic in the stock markets, and therefore the entire economy.

In short, TV news stations can carry out acts of economic terrorism. If the courts rule that such acts are legal, for ANY reason, CBS or NBC could quite literally hold the United States to ransom any time they damn well chose, in a way that every court in the land would deem perfectly acceptable. And there wouldn't be a damn thing anyone could do.

Nor would it stop there. Let's say the news chief bet on the wrong team in the Superbowl. No problem! Just edit the scores on the scoreboard, and sue the establishment he placed the bet with for witholding his winnings. As he had video evidence, it's not impossible he'd win.

In short, once you legally allow edited images to be presented as fact, you are opening the doors to activities that would make a politician blush, and all of it would be perfectly 100% above-board.

IMHO, sod the ethics of this one case, look at the potential road this goes down! Be VERY Afraid of that!

Re:Ask: If they edit logos, what else do they edit

It's not that simple.

Calling yourself "The News" implicitly obligates you to try and tell the truth.

The US Constitution gaurantees the freedom of the press. Any reasonable person can see that does not mean "any industry calling themselves the press has the right to print anything they want and not be held liable for slander or misleading the public."

The press is free to tell the truth (unless classified, yada yada). As soon as it knowingly stops telling the truth, the people involved ar no longer "the press", and are liable for libel and slander lawsuits as well as criminal prosecution.

Rule of the universe: Freedom and Responsiblity run in parrallel.

P.S. Don't forget that people without cable may not have any choice but CBS for news.

We need to know!

Okay, whether we like it or not digital manipulation seems to be here and here to stay.

The bare minimum the networks should do is TELL us when they're digitally manipulating and image or a scene. Perhaps a logo at the bottom of the screen for any scene that involves digital manipulation. People should be aware that what they're seeing has been altered in some way.

Now with the advent of the Internet, I think that a more intelligent and ethical approach would be to have a page the viewer can go to and see some sort of streaming video containing the original and modified version. This way the viewer could see what he's missing. Allow the users to watchdog the industry, perhaps then people might have a little more faith in the evening news.

Ads on crime victims' shirts?

So in other words, it's OK to make it appear that the victim somehow likes or advocates a product? What is the product in question is offensive to the person who has been made to appear to support it?

Taking things a step further, is it also supposed to be OK to put a compeditor's ad on a spokesperson? Should the CEO of CocaCola appear in a Pepsi t-shirt at a sporting event?

It may seem trivial, but it is an act of putting false words into someone's mouth on a news program, and could be financially or socially damaging as well as just plain offensive. How far from that is it to change a witnesses words in an interview. For example, go from: "We were sitting in the park minding our own business when..." to: "We were sitting in the park enjoying a delicious refreshing [beverage here] when...". I know I would be offended.

On Billboards At Games

They've been mucking around with this technology here in Australia for a while, changing the adverts that you see on televised football games, etc. As a result, the person at the game saw an advert for Telstra but the people on TV saw an advert for Optus.

This is going down a really interesting path as what we're finding is that more & more people are watching sports on TV, rather than attending. The latest stadiums on the drawing boards are actually smaller than the ones we currently have. Thus, TV advertising is all important to the owners of these stadiums.

Now, thanks to this technology, the stadium owners cannot guarantee prospective advertisers how many people will see their advert. After all, each channel that carries the event may very well change various adverts to suit their own sponsors, etc.

The stadium owners do have some level of response, however. When coverage of various sporting events is being arranged, only a specific media group will get the contract (they go through a bidding process). Thus, it's possible to either 1) up the cost to cover losses in advertising revenues or 2) put clauses in the contract stating that this technology cannot be used to replace adverts.

I'm fascinated with where this will lead to, simply because it totally changes the playing field. Puts the cat amongst the canaries, so to speak :)

That's an elegant point

Imagine Dan Rather interviewing some deathly ill person in the hospital. The sponsor is a drug supplier. The segment airs, and a producer pulls Rather aside.

"Dan, there's something you should know in case you talk to anyone about the Vivmotrinox clip."

"Yes, that was heart-rending. Did you notice as I interviewed that brave man, the patient in the bed next to us died?"

"Er.... no."

"Whudddyuhmean 'no'?"

"Dan, don't talk about that to anyone. We fixed it. When the clip aired that patient did not die. It's not like he was the subject of the interview, you know. The sponsor wanted it more upbeat. You know, it's a story about hope."

"I see. Well, I'm sure his family will be delighted to hear of his miraculous rescue from death."

"Don't carry on like that, nobody will recognize him. We changed his hair color and put a mustache on him! Everything's taken care of."

"Everything?!? Ev... Now, I hope you're not going to lie to me, friend. Have you been 'taking care' of my hair on TV, too?"

"Dan, baby, that's our job! Oh, one other thing?"

"You're going to tell me anyway, so just spit it out like a good fellow. What?"

"Your closing, that 'The benefits of this treatment remain to be seen, but this patient's fight is an inspiration to behold'?"

"What about it?"

"We lost the 'to be seen, but'. Don't worry, it looks very natural, they had to morph to your 'b' mouth position and hold it about ten frames to match the timing with that damned leaf falling past the window. Piece of cake. You looked great."

"AND WHY, MIGHT I... scuse me, and why might I ask was this _belated_ script change made?"

"The sponsor. Wanted it to come off more upbeat, you know?"

(Though this scenario was written for joke value, ponder a little bit on how plausible the reasoning can be for changing the entire import and tone of a person's delivery of news or information- and consider that everything described here (especially w.r.t taped footage) is possible today without vast expenditures of effort and skill...)