*findthumb

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by lucky760.

Inadvertent yeah.. right. Caught with their pants down. Again.

I would like to see you manage ass tons of stock footage. As one that has worked for a paper, just managing stock photos was a dread.

Yeah, cause there's no dates or locations associated with those particular videos, right?

Actually, you could be correct...Fox may not employ anyone with enough brainpower to figure out how to appropriately label their videos.

methinks stewart wont let this one go.

>> ^griefer_queafer:
methinks stewart wont let this one go.


One can only hope.

>> ^Stormsinger:
Yeah, cause there's no dates or locations associated with those particular videos, right?
Actually, you could be correct...Fox may not employ anyone with enough brainpower to figure out how to appropriately label their videos.


Oye, talk about inexperience. You haven't had to sort through reals of stock footage, splice it all together 1000 times a day. Stuff like this happens all the time in network news, just usually isn't that big of a deal. Not that it isn't worth laughing about, it isn't something to get all high and mighty about or say something as ridiculous as your saying.

GeeSussFreek - Please, stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

>> ^Throbbin:
GeeSussFreek - Please, stop. You are embarrassing yourself.


Ad hominem is your forte is it not?

GeeSussFreak...

It's called reputability. You see, Sean Hannity has a history of distorting the fact, twisting the words of others, manipulating video and just overall lying outright. When you do things like that, on a regular basis, then no one is going to believe you no matter how "hard" it may be for someone to actually do their damn job right and play the right footage.

Of course, Hannity didn't mention that he lied about the turnout of the rally either.

Even if Hannity's team made a valid mistake their history of purposely using video to distort the truth and spread information is against them.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I would like to see you manage ass tons of stock footage. As one that has worked for a paper, just managing stock photos was a dread.

I hope you're being sarcastic. Are you confused about how I "manage" all of our job file information for jobs. I mean there's TONS of paperwork both digital and hard copy. Much of it looks exactly the same. "Oh no, how could I ever ORGANIZE this mess?!"

I'd hate to do your taxes.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Stormsinger:
Yeah, cause there's no dates or locations associated with those particular videos, right?
Actually, you could be correct...Fox may not employ anyone with enough brainpower to figure out how to appropriately label their videos.

Oye, talk about inexperience. You haven't had to sort through reals of stock footage, splice it all together 1000 times a day. Stuff like this happens all the time in network news, just usually isn't that big of a deal. Not that it isn't worth laughing about, it isn't something to get all high and mighty about or say something as ridiculous as your saying.


Actually I have, when I was the video librarian for CBC Sports. If you can't see the huge embeded time stamp or know how to bring it up, you shouldn't be working on those machines.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK

Oye, talk about inexperience. You haven't had to sort through reals of stock footage, splice it all together 1000 times a day. Stuff like this happens all the time in network news, just usually isn't that big of a deal. Not that it isn't worth laughing about, it isn't something to get all high and mighty about or say something as ridiculous as your saying.


They weren't assembling stock footage of some event that happened a while ago, they were assembling footage shot on that day, so this sort of mistake wouldn't have been made unless someone was trying to be deliberately deceptive.

^Ya, granted. And I think that is where the dispute comes in. I am willing to believe it was an honest mistake and someones head is rolling. These kinds of things happen on CNN and MSNBC as well, but it really isn't worth pointing them out. It is, however, funny, so I don't think John is remiss in loling at it. But I don't think you can call it men in black coats persay. Stuff slips through, even the BBC got hit by the YES men, news isn't immune to error

>> ^Bruti79:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Stormsinger:
Yeah, cause there's no dates or locations associated with those particular videos, right?
Actually, you could be correct...Fox may not employ anyone with enough brainpower to figure out how to appropriately label their videos.

Oye, talk about inexperience. You haven't had to sort through reals of stock footage, splice it all together 1000 times a day. Stuff like this happens all the time in network news, just usually isn't that big of a deal. Not that it isn't worth laughing about, it isn't something to get all high and mighty about or say something as ridiculous as your saying.

Actually I have, when I was the video librarian for CBC Sports. If you can't see the huge embeded time stamp or know how to bring it up, you shouldn't be working on those machines.


That is your system. Not all tags are worked in the same way. Most all the tags for this would of been the same, spare the date. (washinton, rally, even health care was on the the docet for the 9-12 march). Granted, it COULD of been internal, but the similarity of the grouping tags is reason enough for me to accept that it was a simple mistake, someone doing the motions to fast and not checking something as simple as the date. 2008 and 2006 look very similar when you are looking fast

I don't know how to say this without coming off incredibly anal, so I'm just going to say it. It's per se, not persay.

Just ask any vampire.

This is not "error", this is flat-out lying and fakery by the very people who purpose to be reporting the facts.

There is simply no way that the claim that this was a mistake is believable.

And why should it be? Fox has gone to court over their right not only to lie, but to fire any employee who objects to those lies. And won. I think that says more than enough to convict them.

Most insincere apology since Liz Trotta apologized for advocating the assassination of Obama.

Really? You see that as insincere, she even calls herself lame? What about it makes you not believe her?

>> ^Stormsinger:
This is not "error", this is flat-out lying and fakery by the very people who purpose to be reporting the facts.
There is simply no way that the claim that this was a mistake is believable.
And why should it be? Fox has gone to court over their right not only to lie, but to fire any employee who objects to those lies. And won. I think that says more than enough to convict them.


If you don't want to believe it is a mistake that is fine, more power to ya. You just have to watch out that skepticism doesn't turn into cynicism, that doesn't do anyone any good. I honor the skeptic, but you can't talk to a cynic.

Every system has a time stamp. You can't cut a piece without a time stamp. The sheer fact of editing that video, means you had to use the time stamp, unless that producer/editor/smart monkey was guessing and estimating how long each clip should be. If you can't see the giant digital numbers at the bottom of the screen, you're legally blind. I'm willing to bet that they use DigiBeta, most news rooms still do. It's great quality and lasts forever.

Edit: I used "can" instead of "can't." To repeat myself, you cannot edit a piece accurately without a time stamp =P

>> ^Bruti79:
Every system has a time stamp. You can't cut a piece without a time stamp. The sheer fact of editing that video, means you had to use the time stamp, unless that producer/editor/smart monkey was guessing and estimating how long each clip should be. If you can't see the giant digital numbers at the bottom of the screen, you're legally blind. I'm willing to bet that they use DigiBeta, most news rooms still do. It's great quality and lasts forever.
Edit: I used "can" instead of "can't." To repeat myself, you cannot edit a piece accurately without a time stamp =P


Heheh funny, when I read it I read can't anyway. I haven't used Digibeta, so I can't attest. And perhaps I just have to much sympathy for the people behinds the scenes making things happen. I've seen and caused numerous problems, and fixed at the last moment things about to go out to people. It happens, big flashing date or not. Then again, it could be some sinister attempt to make 10k people look like 20k, but if it isn't, I feel sorry for the tech dude who takes the fall on it

(being a tech dude, when I see stuff like this I automatically have a bias, for the best or worst)

Oh, I agree, I usually side with the tech guys as well. They're the ones that keep the show going. I also think that who ever edited the piece, did exactly what they were told to edit to together. This isn't the first time Fox has done something like this, and it won't be the last.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
(being a tech dude, when I see stuff like this I automatically have a bias, for the best or worst)

What "tech dude" from any news industry doesn't know how to spell "reel"?

Any "tech dude" who has ever worked with video, and is under the age of 40, has pretty much ONLY worked with DigiBeta. It is the industry standard, and as such, you simply must use time-stamped video which is displayed in large format.

This was deliberate, as was Fox's earlier transgressions on using footage from the million man march to trump up their numbers for Beck's retarded 9/12 teabag fest, and to help them sell their wildly inflated numbers for this Bachmann fiasco. To think this was anything but deliberate is either dishonest or naive.

>> ^volumptuous:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
(being a tech dude, when I see stuff like this I automatically have a bias, for the best or worst)
What "tech dude" from any news industry doesn't know how to spell "reel"?
Any "tech dude" who has ever worked with video, and is under the age of 40, has pretty much ONLY worked with DigiBeta. It is the industry standard, and as such, you simply must use time-stamped video which is displayed in large format.
This was deliberate, as was Fox's earlier transgressions on using footage from the million man march to trump up their numbers for Beck's retarded 9/12 teabag fest, and to help them sell their wildly inflated numbers for this Bachmann fiasco. To think this was anything but deliberate is either dishonest or naive.


Read up and read "Newspaper", we worked with stock photo's and web content. Mix up happen even at that level, which is much more simple. Bruti made the point that the editor himself might not of known better, but the person that picked out the clips made the error, which sounds likely. In that, would it not be so farcical to assume that the, most likely non-technical person wasn't looking at the dates and just the content of the reel? It could of been mischievous I don't doubt that, but I can just as easily chalk it up to a mistake, seen it done before, even on CNN and MSNBC.

(O and I misspell everything! Firefox fixes most of it for me )

I'm surprised no one brought up the fact that they where claiming a larger turn out at the same time this "oops" footage was being shown.. they needed a video of a large crowd to back up what they where saying.

What his smug turn around DOES tell me is they take the number of people who are watching the Daily Show seriously


-edit- and the video just now died.

Ya, TOS dead to. Right as I voted for it too, some type of waveform must of collapsed.

...dead link...

New link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8HeJuBcI3Y

Lets be clear here, I think the producer or who ever got the footage, knew exactly what they were doing. Heck, they may have even edited themselves. I know I've pointed out errors in pieces before and then helped to fix them.

You'd have to try really hard to have that type of mistake, and get it past all the levels of checking (in regular news,) before that made it on air.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by oxdottir.

Fixed.

even when they admit they are wrong they still try and mock the person who proved them wrong, they are the skat of satan.


It used to pain me to know that people watch this shit and believe it, but now I just accept that I can see all the lies, bullshit, and spins, and that's all that matter, I don't have to account for any stupid fucks who think this has any merit. Fuck you fox news, first, for existing, and second, for making me think you were worth my time.

Whatever was going on, I just hope it ends in another Cramer vs Stewart style smackdown. Has Hannity ever been on TDS? Go get him!

Yeah, I'm sure it was a mistake. Just like when Hannity showed clips of the abandoned hospital in Cuba, to prove to Michael Moore that Cuban hospitals were in poor condition. Another error by the tech guys. Shame on them.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Hannity-Tries-To-Fake-Out-Mickael-Moore-And-Fails

Sorry GeesusFreak, broadcast media doesn't work like that.

Even if the editor was given specific pieces, he/she would STILL know what was going on. At that point, you are either ethical, or you are not. These people are not ethical, as history has shown time and time again. This isn't even a debate. It's empirical.

I understand the need to label MSNBC as some far-left bastion of communist propaganda. But unless you have any links to when that news org has ever misused footage to bolster their mis-truths and bias, I'm just not going to believe it.

On VIDEOSIFT- just posted Jon Stewart's sarcastic response to Hannity's apology/correction.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Stewart-Responds-To-Hannity-s-Apology-LOL

Very nice finish there

When you're a news station and you need to make a correction it's supposed to be a humbling routine not one that makes you sound like MORE of a pompous ass.

>> ^volumptuous:
Sorry GeesusFreak, broadcast media doesn't work like that.
Even if the editor was given specific pieces, he/she would STILL know what was going on. At that point, you are either ethical, or you are not. These people are not ethical, as history has shown time and time again. This isn't even a debate. It's empirical.
I understand the need to label MSNBC as some far-left bastion of communist propaganda. But unless you have any links to when that news org has ever misused footage to bolster their mis-truths and bias, I'm just not going to believe it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_GV4wfOycU little less than 60 sec in, and I have seen others all the times on the other networks, thi was just the most memorable to me

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^volumptuous:
Sorry GeesusFreak, broadcast media doesn't work like that.
Even if the editor was given specific pieces, he/she would STILL know what was going on. At that point, you are either ethical, or you are not. These people are not ethical, as history has shown time and time again. This isn't even a debate. It's empirical.
I understand the need to label MSNBC as some far-left bastion of communist propaganda. But unless you have any links to when that news org has ever misused footage to bolster their mis-truths and bias, I'm just not going to believe it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_GV4wfOycU little less than 60 sec in, and I have seen others all the times on the other networks, thi was just the most memorable to me


Bad example. That was a queueing error to be sure, but not a case of MSNBC knowingly using incorrect footage to justify a false claim or exaggeration. Try again.

You're putting the cart before the horse and already assuming that is what happened. The only REAL difference between the 2 videos was the anchors knew one wasn't correct because it was blindly obvious, and the former they weren't able to. If you want to give people the benefit of the doubt that's fine, just try and be consistent is what I am saying.