Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

And Now, the Animated News

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the portions-of-this-report-have-been-re-enacted dept.

Youtube 114

theodp writes "'You have a lot of missing images, in the TV, in the news reporting,' explains billionaire Jimmy Lai. It's a gap that Lai's Next Media intends to fill with its animated news service. Artists lift details from news photos while actors in motion sensor suits re-create action sequences of stories making headlines. Animators graft cartoon avatars to the live-motion action, and the stories hit the Web. When news agencies didn't have footage of scenes from the Tiger Woods car crash, Lai's team raced to put together animation dramatizing the incident that became a YouTube sensation. Thus far, Lai has been denied a television license, but with or without his own station, he thinks his animations are headed for televisions worldwide. His company is currently in talks with media organizations to churn out news animations on demand using Next Media's graphic artists and software tools."

cancel ×

114 comments

Tag: firesamzenpus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30999982)

Please

Re:Tag: firesamzenpus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000256)

Does "samzenpus" mean asshole in some language? Guess it does now.

Re:Tag: firesamzenpus (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000266)

I'll second that we have enough news service lies without fabricating Lai's news service.
This only invites the bullshit to pile deeper than nose high.
It's bad enough to watch hokey recreations of crime scenes on t.v.
Can you imagine the spin the newsclowns will then be able to put on anything?

Tiger woods played by Kermit the frog (4, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000010)

Can't you just see Elin as Miss Piggy? Haaaaayyyyaaaahhhh!

Re:Tiger woods played by Kermit the frog (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000404)

Actually, it's like geocities all over again!

Re:Tiger woods played by Kermit the frog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31001256)

Miss Piggy? Not even close. Elin is HOT.

Re:Tiger woods played by Kermit the frog (1)

severoon (536737) | more than 4 years ago | (#31002086)

This animation-as-news stuff is brilliant! This is just what the news has been lacking, the presentation of a completely imaginary, emotionally laden point of view brimming with value judgments!

I like it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000034)

I would definitely watch that

Re:I like it! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000174)

And that's just the problem. People have enough trouble differentiating "news" from "opinion pieces" as it is. This may be fine under the banner of 'entertainment', but 'news' it is not, nor should it ever be.

Just what modern news needs (4, Funny)

OG (15008) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000068)

My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology. My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.

Re:Just what modern news needs (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000164)

I for one welcome the new CNN Hologram Cartoon Avatars of remote field reporters that are beamed in next to Larry King....

Re:Just what modern news needs (-1, Troll)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000202)

Eh, can't be any worse than the Colbert Report.

Re:Just what modern news needs (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000598)

Eh, can't be any worse than the Colbert Report.

The Colbert report is 50% news and 50% bullshit, and is billed as entertainment. CNN is also 50% news and and 50% bullshit, but it's billed as news. You don't really see the problem with this?

Re:Just what modern news needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31001096)

It allows stupid to self-identify.

When they say "I heard it on CNN" as a source, you know you can safely ignore that person.

When they say "I heard it on FOX News" as a source, you know you can safely ignore anything that person says, but also that they are terminally stupid. Beware, standing in close proximity to the terminally stupid may earn you a participation ribbon in their Darwin Award.

I find this to be useful, and not a problem at all.

Re:Just what modern news needs (2, Informative)

guruevi (827432) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001316)

Fox is 100% bull (opinion pieces by neo-fascist extremists) and 0% news, and it's also billed news. Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report give better news in an hour than CNN does in a day.

Re:Just what modern news needs (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001464)

Fox is 100% bull (opinion pieces by neo-fascist extremists)

I have to disagree with this outlandish statement.

In what way are they "neo"-fascist as opposed to the old-fashioned, standard variety?

Re:Just what modern news needs (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001510)

Their lack of revolutionary economic policy, including establishment of vertical trade syndicates. Plus, they lack cool uniforms and shiny boots.

Re:Just what modern news needs (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001896)

Plus, they lack cool uniforms and shiny boots.

C|N>K (Those are a pipe and a redirect. I'll let you guess what C, N and K stand for)

Re:Just what modern news needs (2, Insightful)

michaelhood (667393) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001618)

Fox is 100% bull (opinion pieces by neo-fascist extremists) and 0% news, and it's also billed news. Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report give better news in an hour than CNN does in a day.

The real problem is Fox News [like many other networks] also host commentary and news programs on the same network.

Their commentators are more extreme (and entertaining, this is a business after all) than the other networks.

I honestly don't think the bias on their *news* programs are any worse than the other networks.

That is not to say anything about the quality of the programmes, on any network.

Re:Just what modern news needs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31001732)

Their commentators are "extreme?" Have you seen how they are kicking everyone else's asses in the ratings. Not by a little bit, but Fox News programming regularly destroys competing shows in the ratings. Perhaps it is you who are the extreme one.

Re:Just what modern news needs (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001958)

Their commentators are "extreme?" Have you seen how they are kicking everyone else's asses in the ratings. Not by a little bit, but Fox News programming regularly destroys competing shows in the ratings. Perhaps it is you who are the extreme one.

Perhaps stupid people like to be spoonfed news from a source that caters to their prejudices? Perhaps smarter people are more eclectic and much more likely to get their news from many different sources?

All you need to do is look at a few polls, you will see that Fox news caters to a minority. The majority of Americans are not small minded, hate-filled, racist trash who believe 'gummint should keep its hands off medicare,' but enough are to make for a lucrative market.

Re:Just what modern news needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31002530)

"The majority of Americans are not small minded, hate-filled, racist trash..."

You're right. 250 Million people would never fit inside Obama's old church.

Re:Just what modern news needs (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31002756)

Good one! Say, what's the reason for the Earthquake in Haiti again? Plate tectonics, or... A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL!!! Maybe we should ask Pat Robertson. [cbsnews.com]

So, I have presented one example of the small minded hate filled racist trash that Fox News viewers love so much. Here's another recent example: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6100434.shtml [cbsnews.com]

Maybe you could give some example to illustrate YOUR point? Yeah, thought not.

Re:Just what modern news needs (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31003606)

Their commentators are "extreme?" Have you seen how they are kicking everyone else's asses in the ratings. Not by a little bit, but Fox News programming regularly destroys competing shows in the ratings. Perhaps it is you who are the extreme one.

Perhaps stupid people like to be spoonfed news from a source that caters to their prejudices? Perhaps smarter people are more eclectic and much more likely to get their news from many different sources?

All you need to do is look at a few polls, you will see that Fox news caters to a minority. The majority of Americans are not small minded, hate-filled, racist trash who believe 'gummint should keep its hands off medicare,' but enough are to make for a lucrative market.

You, sir, are not helping your case at all. You just called a large portion of Americans "small minded trash".

The obvious problem with your statement is that you, in calling anyone whose views obviously differ from yours (they must if they dare to watch Fox News) "small minded trash", make it obvious that you are not open to other ideas (close minded), and also you spoke hatefully those who disagree with you. This is also ironic because of your earlier remark that hateful people are small minded.

Your post comes off as a partisan rant against the viewers of fox, and anyone who disagrees with you in general.

Re:Just what modern news needs (3, Interesting)

Captian Spazzz (1506193) | more than 4 years ago | (#31002038)

The problem is that the FOX News through its commentators ends up creating news.

Glenn Beck, Shaun Hannity go on the the program and says "President Obama, Liberals Etc Etc, Should do X" Then the "NEWS" portion of Fox comes on and says "Some critics suggest that President Obama, Liberals Etc Etc, Should do X."

A news company should REPORT the news and not create it through their commentators.

Re:Just what modern news needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31004122)

I guess you've never read a newspaper editorial before.

Re:Just what modern news needs (2)

InsertCleverUsername (950130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31003364)

I honestly don't think the bias on their *news* programs are any worse than the other networks.

That is not to say anything about the quality of the programmes, on any network.

I used to think it was just O'Reilly, Hannity, and their other talking heads that were biased, but when I watched more closely I noticed that almost every time I watched over an hour of their "news" there was an obvious dig at a Democrat. For instance, I remember a seemingly apolitical story about the dangers of Ephedra and they just had to throw in something about it being legalized by the Clinton administration. (Like he oversaw every drug approval at the FDA!) Then there's the litany of so-called mistakes like replacing "R" with "D" next to the name of Republican politicians involved in a scandal, running misleading footage, or promoting and then covering right-wing events.

Every news network's main agenda is making money (not journalism), but Faux News is also obviously a political organization.

Re:Just what modern news needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31002206)

Wow, I'm not a fan of FNC or CNN, but to say FNC is 100% BS is absurd. I would have to say, fact or fact, CNN and FNC would actually be pretty on par, just leaning opposite directions, with the exception that FNC has a greater number of shows dedicated to opinion... which can't really be used to judge the news content as they are labeled as opinion. Otherwise I would have to judge every news paper on earth as 100% BS based on the op-ed sections. One thing that I actually don't mind about FNC is that they will admit they are right leaning, which I can appreciate since there are quite a few very large competitors who refuse to acknowledge they have a bias. Everyone knows that people have bias, and therefore companies run by people will have a bias. Just put them out in the open and stop pretending they don't exist.

PS: Do you know what a neo-fascist is? Most fascists in history are politically left leaning, using both extreme philosophies of the right and left to accomplish their goals. This is why many historians and political analysts conclude that they are neither right or left, but rather an amalgamation of extremism. Think of it as the worst of both worlds with a mad man at the helm.

Re:Just what modern news needs (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001436)

CNN is also 50% news and and 50% bullshit

You're going to have to support that statement with at least a little bit of data or a citation or something.

You can throw out a statement like that and get modded "Insightful" but let's see if you can back it up with anything like reality.

If not, then it's flamebait.

Sorry, pal.

Re:Just what modern news needs (2, Interesting)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001648)

You didn't have to deal with the Colbert Report fan club, did you? OMGLOLBUSH!
CNN and Fox don't incite their audiences to vandalize Wikipedia as a joke, either.
(Okay, it was a sorta-funny joke.... the first time. maybe.)

Re:Just what modern news needs (2, Insightful)

Dirtside (91468) | more than 4 years ago | (#31003074)

Matt's First Law of Television: Everything on TV is entertainment, even programs billed as "news."

Re:Just what modern news needs (2, Funny)

hitnrunrambler (1401521) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000206)

My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology. My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.

Yeah, mine too.
My second thought is "Fox news won't get it"

I picture Rupert Murdoch yelling: "Someone hire that camera man for me! He's phenomenal! He gets everything! Stupid CNN doesn't know what they've got, look at the lousy equipment they give him, everything looks like cartoons."

and Glenn Beck shouting: "See! See! They're making this up. How do we known their 'Obama' really exists?"

Re:Just what modern news needs (2, Funny)

hitnrunrambler (1401521) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000260)

Yeah, mine too. My second thought is "Fox news won't get it"

I picture Rupert Murdoch yelling: "Someone hire that camera man for me! He's phenomenal! He gets everything! Stupid CNN doesn't know what they've got, look at the lousy equipment they give him, everything looks like cartoons."

and Glenn Beck shouting: "See! See! They're making this up. How do we known their 'Obama' really exists?"

{ Pardon the double-post, browsing past the first one just looks like I'm saying "dur-hur me too!". I prefer to be seen as in idiot for the proper reasons, not because of the way slashdot blurbs me. }

Re:Just what modern news needs (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000296)

If you use <quote> instead of italics, then the /. blurb will skip the quoted part and go straight for your new content.

Re:Just what modern news needs (5, Funny)

paiute (550198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000504)

Are you kidding? Fox will jump on this like an ugly centipede.

Sean Hannity: Some people are saying that Mr. Obama makes obeisance to Mecca every night and kisses a picture of bin Laden. We are not saying that we agree with that, but here is a vivid recreation of what that would look like if it were true.

Re:Just what modern news needs (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000884)

...and kisses a picture of bin Laden

Why would he be hanging out with George Bush's business partners?

Oh yeah, bipartisanship.

Re:Just what modern news needs (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000280)

This only opens the door for The National Enquirer Evening News.

Re:Just what modern news needs (2, Informative)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001486)

This only opens the door for The National Enquirer Evening News.

That door was opened wide on October 7, 1996.

Re:Just what modern news needs (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000408)

My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology. My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.

A vapid and useless implementation of technology that is to information what a cheeto is to nutrition. I don't see how this could possibly go right.

Re:Just what modern news needs (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001520)

A vapid and useless implementation of technology that is to information what a cheeto is to nutrition.

I'm afraid that "cheetos" are exactly what the people who turn to cable television as their main source of news want.

Re:Just what modern news needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000592)

Heh, the post above yours had Miss Piggy. Yours was CNN. I automagically thought of that Harpy, Nancy Grace, as being the prime user of this stuff.

Re:Just what modern news needs (1)

TBoon (1381891) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000802)

My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.

Which brings up the question, "is showing anthropomorphic animals bleeding more or less child-friendly than showing real humans being shot?"

Re:Just what modern news needs (4, Funny)

sorak (246725) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000816)

My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology. My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.

"Today on CNN, teabaggers are alleging that the president is actually from Narnia, and that he killed the Lion, had sex with the Witch, and hid in the wardrobe. Here is a cgi rendering of that event, with a bad-ass dragon added in, and for some reason, Rush. Who the hell listens to Rush? Our CNN instapoll says that 15% of you listen to Rush, 80% do not, and 5% of you were just pressing buttons. Next, we're going to spend thirty minutes reading twitter"

Finally! Just what we need! (4, Funny)

happy_place (632005) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000072)

I can't wait to see what my favorite cartoon characters are doing day to day, when they're not starring in films/television.

Re:Finally! Just what we need! (4, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000124)

I can't wait to see what my favorite cartoon characters are doing day to day, when they're not starring in films/television.

Apparently, making porn [slashdot.org] is the likely answer. :-P

Re:Finally! Just what we need! (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000796)

Probably something like Ink Pen [gocomics.com] .

Sequel to Max Headroom? (3, Interesting)

starglider29a (719559) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000120)

Enactors learn that the report couldn't be true. Slow news day makes up news. Enactors actually commit acts which they re-enact as news. Political assassinations, for example. Private company fakes moon landing... the works...

Fox "news" will love it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000186)

This is just... wrong.

interesting, but dangerous? (5, Insightful)

Jesus_Corpse (190811) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000198)

Although from a technological point of view it is very interesting, a lot of details missing from the regular videos need to be 'made up' for the reconstruction. I think that's a dangerous move, as the viewer may base its opinion on video footage.

Re:interesting, but dangerous? (4, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000278)

Exactly. Someone already tagged this "idle", but I think it should really be "yro", because this opens up the possibility for mass-market real-time "Wag The Dog" scenarios.

Re:interesting, but dangerous? (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000324)

Have you seen one of their reconstructions? It offers no credibility that is not already carried by a (misleading?) verbal description.

Re:interesting, but dangerous? (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001144)

People tune into what they want to see, fake or real, and if you tell them it's "news" then not only does it entertain but it satisfies what little intellectual desire they manifest. "Editorialized" video is just the next step on the march to edutainews channels that are completely wrong in everything they report, but are watched and believed thanks to the complete suppression of the will to seek out unbiased, factual sources. Why not? It sure is easier to be told what to believe than to put the effort into coming up with it on your own.

Re:interesting, but dangerous? (2, Insightful)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001226)

There's a big difference between a misleading verbal description and a misleading reconstruction. The human mind is more likely to accept and believe something it's seen over something it's heard.

A lot of it depends on the quality of the "reconstruction" or "enhancement". An adjustment of just a few pixels in certain news shots could turn a story completely around. "Is that a plasma cannon from Unreal Tournament that Ghandi is holding up? I always thought that was a spinning wheel."

Adding a few special effects details, and doing just a tiny bit of adjustment, and suddenly Greedo shot first.

It's already getting hard to believe what is on the news. This is not going to help. It's not a surprise at all, in fact I'd be astonished to find out that a lot of video footage I've seen HASN'T been "enhanced" in some way or other. "Enhanced" can easily mean "altered to more accurately fit the story we want to tell."

Re:interesting, but dangerous? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001382)

Have you actually seen their work, or are you just explaining how compelling you think it is?

Re:interesting, but dangerous? (2, Interesting)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001612)

It doesn't have to be particularly compelling. I could make a static pie chart and "explode" some small minority of the pie chart to make it look bigger, and mention specifically how small a percentage it represents, and I'll have a room full of audience members with a significant percentage who think the number is much bigger than it really is.

If anything, cartoony reconstructions are (for a while) going to be more compelling because they are a novelty. And many people won't believe them at a conscious level, but a few days later when they remember the story it'll be more like what the cartoon showed than what the mouth puppet behind the anchor desk said.

My Ghandi and Greedo mentions were more of a "slippery slope" argument about where this may end up going in the very near future. Once viewers accept cartoons as our data input for news, it'll be that much easier to fabricate it for us.

Not that most anchorpeople are much more than teleprompter interpreters ("reverse close-captioned for the non-hearing-impaired!") anyway.

Re:interesting, but dangerous? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000294)

I have to disagree. The Tiger Woods incident, for example, begged for a reconstruction based on very little detail.

Re:interesting, but dangerous? (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001168)

Did it now? Really? Where is your rendered news video footage of the incident (represented by a humble looking man in jeans and a t-shirt) begging at the knees of Jimmy Lei (in a heroic suit of white, shining armor)? Until then, I won't believe you.

Re:interesting, but dangerous? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000384)

Dangerous? Why not a medium for plain propaganda? Why just report that some foreing country authorities met, when you can see them in the meeting, maybe eating something that your religion forbids or telling jokes about your country? And that just about international policies, think it being used about your rival political party or justifying some unpopular move.

Heck, if this gets a bit more realistic we could totally buy that we landed in Pandora just to preserve their ecology taking out some dirty metal buried there.

Re:interesting, but dangerous? (3, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000412)

I think that's a dangerous move, as the viewer may base its opinion on video footage.

As opposed to now, where viewers are only to happy to base their opinions on nothing whatsoever.

It's six of one, really. It's disappointing how easily viewers are manipulated. You could stick a flashing RECONSTRUCTION over the footage, and they're still going to come out convinced that they were right there when it happened.

And worse... they'll hold the same opinion, almost as strongly, if you just tell it to them.

Re:interesting, but dangerous? (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000440)

Although from a technological point of view it is very interesting, a lot of details missing from the regular videos need to be 'made up' for the reconstruction. I think that's a dangerous move, as the viewer may base its opinion on video footage.

If Barry Hussein Obama isn't a secret muslim, then why come I have this computer animation of him praying on a carpet in the oval office?!?!!?!? The facts make up themselves!

Re:interesting, but dangerous? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000442)

viewer may base its opinion on video footage.

"May" ... it seems that almost everyone DOES. In fact, it seems many people base their opinions on movies in theaters. I have no doubt they base opinions on video footage (animated or not) when they see news, far more than any actual facts that may (or may not) be recited by the newscaster...

Re:interesting, but dangerous? (1)

Jesus_Corpse (190811) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000702)

Yes, you're right.. However, when people SEE something happen in a video they're probably more likely to believe it than when a newscaster says it. The brain processes this information in a different way.
On the other hand, the FOX/CNN have commercial interest as well, so exciting news will generate more revenue. So maybe the speculation just shifts from the news channels to this commercial company

Re:interesting, but dangerous? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000918)

However, when people SEE something happen in a video they're probably more likely to believe it than when a newscaster says it. The brain processes this information in a different way.

Agreed. Most people seem to "observe" things that visually far more than aurally.

And yes, Fox, CNN, and pretty much all news groups have a commercial interest in garnering viewers, so exciting news definitely generates more revenue...

Which is why celebrity news, I suppose, seems so popular, too.

Re:interesting, but dangerous? (1)

Dalambertian (963810) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000580)

Aren't we used to seeing reenactments using live actors? This is just taking it one step forward, offering a faster, more affordable service. I say give them some time to improve the facial animations (I'm thinking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLiX5d3rC6o [youtube.com] ) and it'll really take off.

Re:interesting, but dangerous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31002318)

Aren't we used to seeing reenactments using live actors?

No...no we aren't - not in the news at least. Can you tell me about one credible news story that does that? And I don't mean the PBS biographies where everyone is filmed from the neck down.

Re:interesting, but dangerous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000964)

And since when does viewer opinion matter??!
This would allow rendering of less intimidating news, watching angry muslims burning flags, dictator hangings, skyscrapers getting hit by jet planes, people dying, people living in poverty and dreadful conditions and the usual emotions that it propagates. You might have been told you 'have a right to know'... I call BS on that, it's purely a defense for enjoying watching other people suffer, and we gladly pay for it.

In this case correlation == causation, we act on our emotions. We all have empathy which intrigues us into watching news, for the wrong reasons... Enough of this, maybe I'll go blow something up now to voice my opinion on telly, news at 11.

interpreting the news (1)

WarlockSquire (212901) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000274)

It's not news, it's news branded entertainment!
(or is that entertainment branded news?) ...not that we are aren't knee deep already... but, seriously?!

The March of Time (0, Offtopic)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000336)

The basic idea isn't new.

The Evening Graphic's tabloid reality [stepno.com] of the twenties was "staged, faked and mostly naked."

Radio's The March of Time [radiohof.org] used its resident company of actors to vividly recreate events that couldn't be broadcast live.

Re:The March of Time (0)

taustin (171655) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000924)

"Staged, faked and mostly naked."

Isn't that the corporate slogan for Faux News?

Re:The March of Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31002552)

You know, I hate Fox News as much as the next liberal, but that little pun has always annoyed me.

Don't people know how "faux" is pronounced?

Naked Animated News! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000338)

Thats what I'm waiting for!

(must remember to select 'Post Anonymously')

It's been done for awhile now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31000350)

It's just a digital re-enactment. The only difference here is they are doing it for the nightly news. Faster software and computers that's the real change. There's talk of whether they should do it which is silly and pointless since it's been around for years and most networks do it in some form. The real line would be if the results were photo real and it wasn't referred to as a re-enactment. So long as it's never presented as the real thing I don't see a problem.

Family guy... (2, Funny)

jjoelc (1589361) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000368)

...Using state of the art technology... [youtube.com]

This is what it would have looked like if the plane had crashed into a school building full of bunny rabbit!

Dick Cheney hunting accident looked EXACTLY like (2, Funny)

d474 (695126) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001850)

...like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM-uLjXQaMo [youtube.com]

I'm surprised this never made it on the news.

Naked News (1)

mi (197448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000378)

If, for whatever reason, it will ever begins to matter to me, who delivers the news, rather than what the news is, I'll pick the Naked News [nakednews.com] over anything "animated", thank you very much.

Could be awesome (1)

cohensh (1358679) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000422)

If it's anything like the Conan O'Brien animation [youtube.com] I look forward to getting 100% of my news this way.

I agree, I really liked that video too (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000478)

There's a slightly better translation here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yrj35SHhZM&feature=related [youtube.com]

But you really should watch them both since the 2nd one which is easier to listen to since it flows better and has less bad grammar and typos leaves out things like Leno being sad and Conan being happy about the shift (the original shift, not the shift back).

I think this video really works well. I think there's a market for this stuff.

And cue the pyramid in 3...2...1... (1)

wickerprints (1094741) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000426)

Remember "A Current Affair?" Tabloid TV at its nadir. Apparently, this guy is trying to sink even lower. He didn't get the memo that this sort of thing was so "been there, done that" two decades ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Current_Affair_(U.S._TV_series) [wikipedia.org]

Re:And cue the pyramid in 3...2...1... (1)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000886)

Oh god, that "wa-CHUNG!!" sound of the pyramid flying onto the screen is FOREVER seared into my brain. Heaven help us.

I'm Inner Party Member (2, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000498)

Malcom McDoohanigan, Director of the MiniTrue, and Big Brother and I approve of this technology. DoublePlusGood!

No thank you (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000500)

News agencies should be reporting, not making up the news.

Re:No thank you (2, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000744)

Sounds good to me. Maybe someday they'll try it.

Fox (1)

YesDinosaursDidExist (1268920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000534)

Fox News will be your first customer.

Fabricated news (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000550)

This should make fabricated news more believable!

Win/win? /facepalm

Re-enactment Top 10 Wishlist: Slashdot (4, Funny)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000570)

Number 10. Carmack and Romero fist fight
Number 9. Woz sex with Kathy Griffin
Number 8. A series of tubes, not a big truck
Number 7. Wesley Crusher sucked into a warp drive
Number 6. Ballmer doing Dancing with the Stars to the 'Developers Developers Developers Developers' remix
Number 5. Darl McBride being force fed into a wood chipper by the guys from Fargo
Number 4. Stallman and Schneier as banjo dueling Santas
Number 3. Cowboy Neal
Number 2. 10,000 Anonymous Cowards hacked to bits by the 300 Spartans yelling "This is Slashdot!"

And the Number one re-enactment wish for Slashdot: Duke Nukem Forever

Re:Re-enactment Top 10 Wishlist: Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31001474)

And the Number one re-enactment wish for Slashdot: Duke Nukem Forever

News at 11!
[whispers] We just dont know which day, as a re-enactment would require action first...[/whisper]

Re:Re-enactment Top 10 Wishlist: Slashdot (1)

TheQuantumShift (175338) | more than 4 years ago | (#31002316)

I really don't want to even think of 300 typical slashdotters in typical spartan attire. Ever.

It's hilarious but is it really needed? (1)

grapeape (137008) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000754)

The tiger woods thing was funny as hell, saw it a couple days after the "reports" were in, this will be great for trash tv and tabloid journalisim I suppose but I really think that the new legitimate news sources out there should really step away from this. It looks more like a way to really get into hot water as they seem to be created based on their interpretation of events rather than actual factual information. Initial opinion and actual findings tend to vary greatly.

For certain definitions of "animated" (1)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 4 years ago | (#31000852)

When I first saw the headline, I thought to myself, y'know, if what they were doing was doing an animated news program as in making a series of hand-drawn cel animations for the various stories and anchorpeople, as well as reasonably well-drawn though still simplified and stylized backgrounds accurate to the locations in which the news takes place, AND keep it a relatively serious program, THAT would impress the hell out of me. Granted, this would partly be due to the sheer technical infeasibility of the ordeal, now that I think about it, unless you viciously sacrifice both the quality of the character models AND any semblance of fluidity in the animation to do the job.

But just motion capping people doing reenactments? That... not so impressive or interesting. Especially if you've ever seen a live mocap job without post-production, which would most likely need to be done to allow the news to stay any bit current.

Crap. (4, Informative)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001102)

I remember when this guy's magazine, Next Magazine, was introduced in Taiwan. It was basically a sensationalist tabloid style rag. The magazine's big thing was shock. They ran stories which graphic photos of dramatic accidents, high-profile murders and sex scandals. Or at least they went as far as they could get away with, which was pretty far. They were also notorious for running stories which turned out to be untrue. If I remember correctly they were one of the originals to run the story of people in China supposedly eating unborn fetuses. It turned out it was all staged as a statement by some artist.

This new concept seems designed to skirt the sensors. However, I'm curious to know if this guy has been inspired by others. A couple of years ago I found Taiwanese magazines publishing illustrations of crimes to depict what had happened. Except that they get comically gratuitous with what they depict. It was so absurd I had to clip a few of these to show some friends in the states. In one case a girl was about to get raped and instead offers to perform fellatio on the rapist instead. When he's done his business and leaves, she takes the "evidence", spits it out in a napkin, and takes it to the police. This was all conveniently illustrated in detail, the girl on her knees with the guy standing in front her, and the girl spitting out the stuff. While this technique has been applied to many kinds of stories, predictably, the majority involve sex crimes of one sort or another.

I think news networks have already been running similar cartoons and the Taiwanese government has gotten involved to deal with this. It's pretty much a blatant violation of broadcast rules, but it's pretty easy to dance around the rules there. I'm sure many will argue free speech, but the think here is that this is not driven by desire to inform the public. It's driven by a desire to shock and titillate to boost ratings. People will definitely complain about how indecent it is, but they're all going to happily tune in anyway. It wont be long, however, until this guy no longer has a monopoly on this sort of thing. Everyone will be quick to copy this, at least until the government puts a final stop to this.

Re:Crap. (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 4 years ago | (#31002212)

It is not a requirement of free speech that it "inform the public." 99% of all communication always has been and always will be bullshit and pornography. An illustration of a girl giving a blow job is less obscene than most political coverage, for example, and in this case is quite educational for young women on how to mitigate rape and responsibly implicate their assailants.

Re:Crap. (1)

Dirtside (91468) | more than 4 years ago | (#31003054)

This new concept seems designed to skirt the sensors.

That's impossible! No magazine that small has a cloaking device.

That was brilliant! (1)

hallucinogen (1263152) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001130)

I had heard about the accident, but had no idea what really happened. Having now watched that thing I totally know what went down. Not that it makes it any more meaningful.

Prior art (1, Insightful)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001354)

How is this philosophically different from courtroom sketch artists?

Re:Prior art (2, Interesting)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31002156)

Courtroom sketches don't really show anything happening, at least not anything controversial. They're just pictures of people standing around talking. I would say there's a fair amount of liability in this "animated news". If you show someone doing something based on hearsay, and you can't prove it happened, you could get slammed for slander. That could even include your depiction of a bystander gawking at the incident.

How long (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31001646)

How long will it take before someone is convicted because of one of these reenactments?

Mr. Burns, you are hereby sentenced to 10 years in prison for selling Homer to the North Koreans.

Re:How long (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31002100)

Come on, Mr Burns would never be convicted. He can buy too many good lawyers. He could probably buy the judge too.

xtranormal.com (1)

otis wildflower (4889) | more than 4 years ago | (#31002436)

LOL the xtranormal.com bits on Red Eye are better

This was actually done in 1918 by Winsor McCay (3, Interesting)

uglyMood (322284) | more than 4 years ago | (#31003128)

After the Cunard ocean liner Lusitania was torpedoed by the German U-Boat U-20 in May, 1915, the great Winsor McCay was asked to animate the disaster. This was not a minor film; McCay was not only the best animator alive, he had invented the medium himself. It was released in 1918 and used as part of the ongoing anti-German propaganda effort.

Curiously, even this 92-year-old pioneering classic demonstrates the dangers of using animation based on incomplete, mistaken or biased reportage and presenting it as fact. The film depicts the liner being hit by two torpedoes, when in fact the second explosion was internal. The Lusitania was described as an innocent passenger liner, but the Germans contend to this day that she was transporting far more munitions than were recorded in her manifest, and was thus a legitimate target. The English have not helped their cause any in the intervening years: they did their best to destroy the wreck with depth charges in the 1950s. More recently, millions of rounds of unrecorded ammunition have been found by divers at the site, lending credence to the German claims.

On a mildly related note, around this time the Hearst papers (and others, but Hearst was notorious for it) routinely used artists and retouched photos to "reenact" extremely lurid depictions of crimes, with helpful arrows and labels presenting their suppositions as fact. This practice was continued for several decades, and Lord knows how many innocent people were sent to prison or executed because of the bias these "reconstructions" introduced into society.

It was bad then. It's bad now. This is a dangerous path to tread.

We've seen this before (1)

SoundGuyNoise (864550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31003660)

when it was called "The Running Man."

...aaaaand activate traveling matte.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...