NationStates Jolt Archive

http://newsbusters.org/node/2199
In a deliciously ironic twist of fate, shortly before airing a segment aimed at embarrassing the Bush administration by suggesting that it had staged a video conversation between the president and soldiers in Iraq, the Today show was caught staging . . . a video stunt.

http://newsbusters.org/media/2005-10-14-NBCToday.wmv
http://newsbusters.org/media/2005-10-14-NBCToday.rm

Today's timing couldn't have been worse. A preceding segment focused on the incessant rains and ensuing flooding in the northeast. For days now, beautiful, blonde - and one senses highly ambitious - young reporter Michelle Kosinski has been on the scene for Today in New Jersey, working the story. In an apparent effort to draw attention to herself, in yesterday's segment she turned up in hip waders, standing thigh-deep in the flood waters.

Taking her act one step further, this morning she appeared on a suburban street . . . paddling a canoe. There was one small problem. Just as the segment came on the air, two men waded in front of Kosinki . . . and the water barely covered their shoe tops! That's right, Kosinski's canoe was in no more than four to six inches of water!

An embarrassed Kosinski claimed the water was deeper down the street but that her producers didn't want to let her go there for fear she'd drift away. But Katie and Matt, perhaps peeved by her attempted scene-stealing, couldn't resist ribbing her.

Matt: "Are these holy men, perhaps walking on top of the water?"

"Gee, is your oar hitting ground, Michelle?" inquired Katie, as she and Matt dissolved into laughter.

Moral of the story: people in canoes in a few inches of water shouldn't throw video-stunt stones.

The reporters we are supposed to trust... right Nazz? :p

Damn! If she'd gotten away with the canoe stunt maybe we could have gotten some of those sweet FEMA debit cards.

http://newsbusters.org/node/2199


The reporters we are supposed to trust... right Nazz? :p

Well, I guess we shouldn't have initiated a war on flooding under false pretenses then.

The reporters we are supposed to trust... right Nazz? :p

Umm... it's the Today Show for chrissake. They're hardly a hard-hitting news program, they're fluff journalism/talk show at best. Anyone who relies on a show like the Today Show for their news rather than entertainment is an idiot.

(And anyone who relies on it for entertainment is just mentally questionable...)

Let's see.. just glanced at MSNBC to see what the Today Show "Top Stories" were listed as today...

TOP STORIES TODAY
• Beauty and the book: Iman's makeup guide
• Travel the world (of food). No passport needed
• Go for baroque! Create a real fashion drama
• It's raining! It's pouring! It's time to get cozy
• Son shares story of priest and nun parents
• E-mail: Has Mom or Dad been a victim of a scam?
• When a Stepford wife becomes Agatha Christie
• Pam Anderson cooks to foolproof perfection
• Try this menu that's sure to comfort

And we're expected to hold the president and these people to the same standards of honesty in presentation? Can I get a :rolleyes:?

And we're expected to hold the president and these people to the same standards of honesty in presentation?

With this administration, I don't think you can hope for better.

http://newsbusters.org/node/2199


The reporters we are supposed to trust... right Nazz? :p
Never said anything about trusting them, fuckstick--I asked you where else we're supposed to get information from, which you never answered, except with some vague bullshit about weighing reporters against each other. Well, these reporters got busted, and ought not to be trusted again. Doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration set up a photo op and got busted on it--but you don't want to hear that shit do you? You just want to act like because the media gets busted on other shit that Bush ought to get a pass on doing his shit--well, that's ignorant, and if you can't see that, then you've got bigger problems than I or anyone else can help you with.

Now go run and complain to the mods about me calling you mean names.

Never said anything about trusting them, fuckstick

*gasp* Dare I lol?

With this administration, I don't think you can hope for better.
Which is what I essentially told Nazz. If you only get your political/voting information from the Government and "regular" media, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Which is what I essentially told Nazz. If you only get your political/voting information from the Government and "regular" media, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

1. Elitist.
2. Apologist.

Where are the pictures of her thigh deep in water?

Never said anything about trusting them, fuckstick--I asked you where else we're supposed to get information from, which you never answered, except with some vague bullshit about weighing reporters against each other. That appears to only be vague to people who want to get their information spoon fed to them... I like to look things up for myself. A one sided picture is invariably skewed, so of course I weigh reporters against each other. You dont? (well, that's fairly obvious, really... :rolleyes: ) Well, these reporters got busted, and ought not to be trusted again.Nope. Just like 60 Minutes. Doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration set up a photo op and got busted on it--but you don't want to hear that shit do you?You act as if I should feel surprised, dismayed and incredulous that the Administration would ever do such a thing. Is that your ideology talking or mine, because I can't ever remember holding such a position. You just want to act like because the media gets busted on other shit that Bush ought to get a pass on doing his shit--well, that's ignorant, and if you can't see that, then you've got bigger problems than I or anyone else can help you with.You really need to learn to read before spewing Nazz. What part of "I don't trust either of them" do you not understand? :rolleyes:

Just where in this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449500 did I give Bush a pass?
In fact I explicitly stated that the Bush interview was political. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9793787&postcount=14)

You really need to get over yourself. Maybe take an anger management course - (though it's likely that Haldol would be more appropriate)
Now go run and complain to the mods about me calling you mean names.No need. I'll let you make an incoherent fool out of yourself for as long as you want to.

1. Elitist. Guilty. If you can't take the time to study the issues or candidates for yourself, don't vote.
2. Apologist.Why? I'm stating a simple truth. Governments propagandize. Should they? No, but they do. Media propagandizes. Should they? No, but they do. Therefore, Verify anything that comes at you.

Umm... it's the Today Show for chrissake. They're hardly a hard-hitting news program, they're fluff journalism/talk show at best. Anyone who relies on a show like the Today Show for their news rather than entertainment is an idiot.

(And anyone who relies on it for entertainment is just mentally questionable...)

Let's see.. just glanced at MSNBC to see what the Today Show "Top Stories" were listed as today...



And we're expected to hold the president and these people to the same standards of honesty in presentation? Can I get a :rolleyes:?

Is this a Sierraism?

The basic difference is that footage was faked/doctored/setup for two radically different reasons here, which doesn't justify either.

Today Show: Attempted to misinform the public as to the depth of the water at that particular spot (there's no doubting that it was deeper elsewhere,) so as to falsely increase the drama/entertainment value and to cut down on risks/cost.

Bush Administration: Rehearsed "spontaneous" Q&A session to further it's goal of selling the success of and justifications for the Iraq war.

Waaaaaaaaa! Evil press!

Get a hanky.

I still want to see the images of her in water up to her thighs. Water and snow have strange depth changes within small amounts of space.

In order to do a thirty second remote for a morning talk show that would legitemately show a reporter in thigh high water or in a canoe on the street they have to themselves either rent a boat big enough to haul the crew, which includes the lighting and sound tech as well as the cameraman and grip out or have a platform that they can be put on, get their truck out there and then have a PA stand by the truck with a tech supervisor running the equipment.

Or they can go to a shallow area near by and get the shot that demonstrates what's down the street. They should have had someone on lock down that would prevent people from wandering into the shot, but that's not always possible nor is it possible to stop everybody, especially when what they are doing is more important than a thirty second remote on a morning talk show.

One is logistic, one is purposefully deceptive. To compare the two we get the return of the Stretchy (http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B0001RFN6S.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
Mr. Armstrong would be proud.

I sincerely hope noone takes the information provided by the Today Show as real news. Next we'll have infomercials quoted as reliable fact.

Well, I did once see someone try to use the Weekly World News as a source.

Well, I did once see someone try to use the Weekly World News as a source.

Dude. Hasn't Bigfoot suffered enough?