By Rob Beschizza at 7:56 am Thu, May 9, 2013
Gosh. I sure am reassured about the journalistic integrity of an outlet that would tell a pitiful little lie for no obvious reason. I’m sure that they’d stick to their guns in a situation where lying was actually genuinely advantageous to them…
I like the meta-joke here of linking to a Daily Mail article about the screwup. Who better to report on shoddy journalism than the experts?
Who better to (at least on the face of it) rip off someone else’s reporting. Nicely done DM. Rob, you may want to re-point the link.
hasn’t anyone ever heard of a green screen
I know, right? If you’re gonna fake an off-site report you might as well make it from Dinosaur Island or something.
^This should totally be a thing.
Back in the day it was 24 hours of as much news as they could cram into a 30 minute loop. Worse is the Weather Channel, the last place to find weather. I’m sure they both blame the internet for sagging ratings.
The internet is the only place left where it’s possible to spend only five minutes per day on the weather.
Speaking of missing white women…
Somebody please find me a discussion of this in American media, so that I don’t hate my country quite so much.
“In the 10 years Berry was missing, the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper published 36 articles about her, according to a search of electronic news archive Lexis-Nexis.
“During the nine-year period that DeJesus, who is Hispanic, was missing, the newspaper published 19 articles about her case.”
From the BBC, that story gets published because it’s ostensibly about the US, whereas in the US, it can only be a story about the media’s treatment of a story, which never happens. It’s a pathology within the journalism business.
not sure how in depth their search was but the fact that she disappeared first by a year might have something to do with it. Also, consider every time an an article was written on DeJesus, Berry’s case was probably also mentioned since they were thought to be related. On top of that, interest in the Berry case was re-ignited last year when a prisoner claimed her body was buried in an empty lot…many articles were written about that. Media bias surely exists but The Plain Dealer is a pretty good paper and I’d be interested in a little more detail before the BBC goes about their usual business. Also, they make no mention of how many articles were written about the Michelle Knight (white) which I assure you is less than either Berry of DeJesus.
Well, nothing was preventing them from having a satellite interview while being in the same parking lot.
As one commenter noted at the video link – there’s no deception here. Both anchors were labeled as being in Phoenix by an onscreen graphic. This is more akin to the “reporting” setup at a football game, where there is an “in studio” anchor or anchors who are on site behind a desk with the stadium or playing field behind them, and then other reports on the field itself. They then talk to each other. Nancy Grace is “anchored” at a desk and she is talking to the “(wo)man on the street” as it were.
Both anchors were labeled as being in Phoenix by an onscreen graphic.
Which also helpfully noted the time in each location, just in case viewers thought they might be communicating through a temporal vortex.
Except Grace wasn’t at a desk. She was standing in the same parking lot twenty feet away making a big show of trying to hear her earpiece.
It’s bad enough when print journalism resembles the Onion, but cable news resembling the Daily Show is a new low.
Almost all “live at the White House” outdoor shots are greenscreened, and on cold evenings, digital breath fog is sometimes added. Who knew that news can be faked?
Citation needed. News photography has pretty strict guidelines about digital manipulation of photos/video, even for something as innocuous as breath fog.
leaving aside the surface-level stupidity of same-parking lot, why is the anchor not in an office, and wtf does Arizona have to do with anything? the crime was in Ohio. I mean, they aren’t lying; “Phoenix” is labeled as the location for both the talking heads. But CNN HQ is Atlanta. even if there’s a regional office in AZ, then why is the anchor in a parking lot? that it’s the same parking lot is just the most obvious fail, but it’s fail all the way down.
They were there to report on the Jodi Arias verdict.
and CNN chose the two reporters in arizona to report on the Amanda Berry case. instead of just the standard newsroom or someone actually in cleveland. this bothers me more than the same-parking-lot thing, but that they chose to present it to imply that one of them was in cleveland just amplifies the dumb. or at least that’s how it seems, but with no audio on the link, for all we know the reporters are talking about how stupid it is that they’re both in the same lot in AZ. there’s some fail on behalf of the Mail, too.
CNN has people covering the story in OH, it’s just the topic of missing/exploited individuals happens to be the regular focus of Nancy Grace’s show/viewers, so without the audio I’m sure they cut to the two in Phoenix not to report “news” of the incident, but rather to build up the discussion they’ll be having around the OH news for many weeks to come. I believe Nancy Grace is an ex-attorney and her show revolves more around discussing aspects and possibilities of cases rather than reporting the news.
Which is inexplicable no matter how you analyze it.
Well, who can blame her for not wanting to be next to Nancy Grace?
I’m just surprised nobody bothered to turn one of them a couple dozen degrees in one direction or another. It was kinda dumb to use more than one camera to shoot them talking to each other in the first place, but it took an extra dollop of foolishness to shoot them in such a way that would call attention to the fact that they’re pretending to be in different places every time a brightly-colored vehicle drives by.
I don’t like jumping to either a.) Nancy Grace or b.) CNN’s defense here, but I work in live news and I can say there may be a “valid” reason they did this. If the non-Nancy correspondent had to report in to other shows via a different satellite truck/path (on say sister networks like HLN) they wouldn’t have gone through the trouble of bringing her over 40 feet. They would have just used their already coordinated satellite time/lights/mics/in-ears to just do it from where she stood. Hence the same background and hence Nancy reaching to her ear. She was probably hearing the correspondent over the satellite feed, as well. I know it sounds absurd but some setups are just “easier” for ground crews that way.
I could be wrong but this is what it looks to me.
cnn nancy grace WTF
Submit a tip
The rules you agree to by using this website.
Who will be eaten first?
Jason Weisberger, Publisher
Ken Snider, Sysadmin