[quote=“tvcl, post:2359, topic:103, full:true”]
Seven recording another pretend ‘live’ cross – his fake nodding is interrupted though:[/quote]
Talking about the recording of ‘live’ crosses, I’m a little surprised Seven do seperate ones for Southern Cross Tasmania. The Seven reporters mention the SC presenters name as they cross and then again as they cross back. Not that it would be any big deal to them I wouldn’t have thought but still…
As for WIN, Nine never did any seperate one for them and Ten don’t either. Whenever WIN do a live or ‘live’ cross they either edit out the first couple of seconds to remove with the parts where reporter mentions the names of who they’re originally talking to (which is usually done very poorly I might add), or they just leave it as it was originally aired which comes off looking really dumb - i.e. when Brent Costelloe from WIN does a ‘live’ cross to Ten’s Rob Waters (or whoever) at the MCG when they cut to him, instead of Rob saying "That’s right Brent or “Thanks Brent” etc. it comes across as to when he’s actually talking to Brad McEwan, as in “That’s right Brad” etc. unfortunately there’s no Brad though!
Out of your two options - the first. Why would you even assume that anyone, including me, would find that second form controversial in the slightest? It simply introduces the replaying of a report.
A ‘chat’ indicates two way communication. When a reporter does a fake nod, whilst the presenter is asking a question, that indicates live conversation - it is deceptive.
I don’t know what a DA or TA are, people employed in the media should use plain English when communicating - that includes not using acronyms when not necessary.
I feel like me and some posters here are on two different planets. I am obviously not referring to a presenter simply saying Mike Riley was in New York today and filed this report earlier. Obviously.
If the pre recorded journo is in two-way boxes and nodding as the presenter introduces them, then yes that is misleading, but if the presenter introduces them then it cuts to some nodding before speaking I don’t see the deception.
I know the line is clearly visabale, but does it look like the screens need recalibrating too? The top one seems darker than the bottom, or I need to get my eyes checked.
Considering most free to air news bulletins are filled with live crosses and split screens, then I’d say the first format is used many more times than the second format.
Regardless, I find the second format deceitful too. Why on earth is the reporter nodding silently at the beginning of a live cross, if not to imply that he is, at that moment, listening to the tail end of what the presenter is asking?
Cool. To the layman, these are simply producers. They are individuals who have direct, behind the scenes input, into the production of the bulletin.
You know what I’m referring to - it’s very obvious. I’ll spell it out for you again.
A reporter, who performs a head nod (to give the appearance of listening at that point in time) to a presenter’s question or statement, which in fact has not even been asked yet, is deceiving viewers.
Your statement that in the “vast majority of cases there is no question asked” doesn’t even make sense. We are specifically discussing the use of a head nod by a reporter to imply something is live when it is not. I’ve said x% of times this format is used, it is deceitful. You’ve replied by telling my y% is not deceitful. No shit. I’m not talking about y%, because we’re talking about x%.
Lastly, I’m not raging about anything. You don’t have to pretend not to understand my statement simply because you like Channel 7 (as indicated by your Ch 7 avatar). Also, I count The Project as having the same value as a fart, so I’m definitely not heading over to that thread to say anything.
I’ve already said that. It was my very first comment on the topic.
I accept that it is standard practice. I accept that it is deceptive. I moved on ages ago.
Much more important matters to discuss here, obviously.
Now, who presented yesterdays morning news? And how was Sydney’s introductory voiceover slightly different last night? Seven News fanboys, please update us!
The Australian Communications and Media Authority has found that Channel Seven Brisbane Pty Limited (Channel Seven) breached the accuracy provisions of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2015 (the Code) during a report aired on Seven News on 20 April this year.
The ACMA investigated a complaint about the report which concerned a re-sentencing hearing in the District Court in Brisbane. The report included remarks made by the judge that were critical of the defendant’s (current) lawyers along with images of two people walking with the defendant in the vicinity of a court building. The defendant’s lawyers were not named.
In fact, the people shown walking with the defendant were not his current lawyers. They had been his lawyers in 2013 when the images used in the report were recorded but at the time of the 2016 broadcast they were no longer acting in that capacity.
The ACMA considered that the identity of the lawyers, conveyed through the use of recorded images, was a material fact in the context of the news report. Accordingly, because images of the wrong individuals were broadcast, factual material was not broadcast accurately as required by clause 3.3.1 of the Code.
Channel Seven has acknowledged that the images were not of the defendant’s current legal representatives although it was unaware of this at the time the report went to air.
The ACMA also found that Channel Seven breached its obligations at clause 3.3.3 of the Code as it failed to correct or clarify a material error of fact when the error was brought to its attention by the complainant following the broadcast.
Channel Seven Brisbane Pty Limited has undertaken to bring the ACMA’s decision to the attention of its news and current affairs staff, and to include reference to the decision in future training courses concerning the Code.
We’re talking about crosses that are not live, but which give the viewers the impression that they are live.
It’s very simple to understand.
If you’re referring to something actually marked as LIVE, then that’s not what we’re talking about.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Who cares what the industry self labels it as. Totally meaningless. In that case I’m calling it a ‘FAKE LIVE LOOK’.
It’s like telling me a criminal refers to their crime as something that isn’t a crime. Therefore, it’s not a crime.
I don’t care about the lay people you’ve spoken to. I used the term. Not your mates or whoever else you’ve spoken to. Me. On this board. And in using that term here, as a lay person, it was very obvious that I was referring to an individual behind the scenes involved in production.
You’re confused. I’m referring to his use of the definition, in attempting to counter my point about its use being deceptive, as dumb and meaningless. I’m not saying that the term is not used in the industry. That’s why I actually stated that that is what the industry self labels it as.
In response to stating this:
Why on earth is the reporter nodding silently at the beginning of a live cross, if not to imply that he is, at that moment, listening to the tail end of what the presenter is asking?
lexington told me it is called a look live. As in looking live. No shit. They’re attempting to make it look live when it isn’t. That’s deception.
Don’t use the term in an attempt to argue that the format is not deceiving to viewers.
