Wishful thinking: FOX kills off RBG

[Mr Person]

FOX News favorite show of Trump - Fox and Friends, killed off Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg today.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-fri...l-graphic-saying-ruth-bader-ginsburg-is-dead/

I guess if you wish for something hard enough and long enough you just might see your dreams come true.... some day.

Oh, stop. It was a mistake. And Mediate explains how it happened:

So how did this package make air? Someone familiar with the details of the mistake tells Mediaite, “The graphics team incorrectly assigned the obit to a Nexio number that was designated for an existing Fox & Friends animation Trouble with Schools.” Nexio is a digital communications and technology platform that many television control rooms use to manage visual assets and graphics packages.

Mediaite’s source tells us “The Technical Director dialed up that existing number expecting it to be the Fox & Friends animation and when he triggered it, the wrong animation ran on air.”

So there you have it. This mistake was not the result of Fox & Friends opinion programming, nor was it some sort of wishful thinking as some on social media have unfairly claimed. It was a technical gaffe that landed on Fox News morning show, who handled the mistake as quickly and gracefully as one could expect. https://www.mediaite.com/tv/heres-h...uth-bader-ginsburg-with-an-ill-fated-graphic/

It was almost certainly tongue-in-cheek, and intended as an illustration of how silly it is to act like one media outlets little mistake (soon corrected and explained) damns all media that lean the same way. People act like that all the time on DP when it comes to left-leaning media.

Hell, it just happened the other day when Mueller's team called some portion of Buzzfeed - and Buzzfeed's alone - "inaccurate". Not only was that treated as evidence that every last word in its report was false, it was also used to attack the entire left-leaning media in multiple threads.

Now maybe the right wingers who love to launch these unfair attacks won't admit they see how silly it is to do so, but I just have to hope that a demonstration of see, look how stupid you think it is when I do it to right wing media will cause them to internally reflect on their behavior in this section of the subforum, and elsewhere. :shrug:



Of course, if haymarket truly does think Fox released this because they hope a dream of her death would thereby maybe become true, he can tell me, and then I will say mean things about his OP. But I really don't think that was the thrust at all.

 

[Common Sense 1]

FOX News favorite show of Trump - Fox and Friends, killed off Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg today.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-fri...l-graphic-saying-ruth-bader-ginsburg-is-dead/

I guess if you wish for something hard enough and long enough you just might see your dreams come true.... some day.

Well guess what a whole lot of people saw it!!

2018 Ratings: Fox News Is the Most-Watched Network on Cable for the Third Straight Year

In 2018, Fox News averaged its largest prime time audience in the 22-year history of the network; and for the third year in a row, finished as the most-watched network on cable television and the fifth-most-watched network across broadcast and cable.


They did apologize for the stupid mistake.


“We don’t want to make it seem anything other than that was a mistake. It was an accident,” Steve Doocy said.

“We apologize, big mistake,” Earhardt followed.

 

[tres borrachos]

It was almost certainly tongue-in-cheek, and intended as an illustration of how silly it is to act like one media outlets little mistake (soon corrected and explained) damns all media that lean the same way. People act like that all the time on DP when it comes to left-leaning media.

Hell, it just happened the other day when Mueller's team called some portion of Buzzfeed - and Buzzfeed's alone - "inaccurate". Not only was that treated as evidence that every last word in its report was false, it was also used to attack the entire left-leaning media in multiple threads.



Of course, if haymarket truly does think Fox released this because they hope a dream of her death would thereby maybe become true, he can tell me, and then I will say mean things about his OP. But I really don't think that was the thrust at all.

I don't think it was wishful thinking on Fox's part. I just think Fox and Friends really is that stupid, from the talking heads to the staffers to the viewers.

It wasn't a technical error. It was a human error.

Can't answer for what haymarket thinks about it. But I don't buy the "technical error" horse****, unless I'm to believe a computer program accidentally did that graphic and accidentally put it on the air.

 

[Barnacle]

I don't think it was wishful thinking on Fox's part. I just think Fox and Friends really is that stupid, from the talking heads to the staffers to the viewers.

It wasn't a technical error. It was a human error.

Can't answer for what haymarket thinks about it. But I don't buy the "technical error" horse****, unless I'm to believe a computer program accidentally did that graphic and accidentally put it on the air.

Technical error ... human error ... who cares. You saw from my link that CNN had done the same thing before ... :lamo

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I can't remember the last time they put up a graphic used to announce someone's death prior to that person dying. Not even them.

A technical error doesn't usually involve someone making a death graphic. It's usually a feed gone wrong, a prompter showing one too many zeros, or something else. This wasn't a technical error. This was just stupid or creepy.

I meant errors with their graphics in general. Not death announcements specifically.

I definitely agree that having a graphic like that done up ahead of time is creepy, but I assume most media outlets do that so they can be quick with it when the day comes. I know they do that for celebrity obituaries.

 

[haymarket]

I don't think it was wishful thinking on Fox's part. I just think Fox and Friends really is that stupid, from the talking heads to the staffers to the viewers.

It wasn't a technical error. It was a human error.

Can't answer for what haymarket thinks about it. But I don't buy the "technical error" horse****, unless I'm to believe a computer program accidentally did that graphic and accidentally put it on the air.

Its okay. Haymarket is always willing to think the absolute worst about the motivation of the people at FOX NEWS. He is rather hopeless that way and true believes they are servants of Satan.

 

[tres borrachos]

I meant errors with their graphics in general. Not death announcements specifically.

I definitely agree that having a graphic like that done up ahead of time is creepy, but I assume most media outlets do that so they can be quick with it when the day comes. I know they do that for celebrity obituaries.

This wasn't an obituary. On the television, and obituary of a famous person usually runs for minutes. Making a graphic out of a picture and adding a name and two dates doesn't require any preparation.

This was not a technical error. It was a human error. And worse than that, the fact that it actually made it on screen is even another error.

 

[rocket88]

Virtually all media outlets have prepackaged segments ready for the death of high ranking government officials of advanced age.

The BBC keeps black suits and armbands just behind the studio for anchors to be ready to announce the Queen’s passing and premise segments ready for example, this has been reported on. So for any older government official there probably are title graphics and scripts ready

Yes, they have it ready I'm sure. However, cued up and ready to go?

 

[nota bene]

So please post something so I can confirm that they have a whole set of teed up death graphics for everyone over 85. Because I mean, they are so hard to make. Get a picture, add in some dates and the name. That must take all of 10 seconds. Have to be prepared.

What other people have they done this for? Again, I'd like proof that this is standard procedure for them (because they can't do it in that important 10 second interval when they receive the news, obviously). Link, not your supposition.

There is even a term for this: premature obituary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premature_obituaries

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/not-dead-yet/

https://www.newstatesman.com/cultur...-how-did-media-get-tom-petty-s-death-so-wrong

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...eorge-soros-buried-alive-premature-obituaries

 

[nota bene]

And you know, assuming something like that happened is what a clear, rational head would default to.

But we don't live in an era of clear heads.

Maybe we should write a corollary to Occam's Razor.

 

[uptower]

I posted this in another thread:

To be fair all the other networks probably had the same graphic prepared when she was sick. They all want to be the first to break a story.

But in Fox's case I suspect a hint of glee, and am willing to entertain the possibility they're testing the waters ahead of some sort of media campaign to depose her on the grounds she's 'nearly dead anyway'. Releasing a 'what if' poster also has the effect of implanting the idea in people's minds, making them more receptive to the idea: "Oh I thought she was dead already anyway, so..."

There's also a possibility her condition has worsened and it hasn't hit the headlines yet. We might hear later today she's back in hospital and perhaps in 48 hours that she's passed.

 

[madasheck]

This wasn't an obituary. And Fox and Friends isn't a newspaper.

We wrote my mother's obit before she died. We didn't give it to the newspaper until she was actually dead.

Probably should have been a little clearer. I was referring to those who work at a newspaper and write obituaries for them. I guess these days a lot of obits come from the public, but that wasn't always true.

 

[Mr Person]

And you know, assuming something like that happened is what a clear, rational head would default to.

But we don't live in an era of clear heads.

Just like "a clear, rational head" would assume that when a liberal news outlet quickly corrects a mistake in an earlier version of a story and explains what happens, that's them honestly correcting a mistake and not some deliberate plot to spread misinformation, then issue a correction only after it is successfully sprad.

So too a "clear, rational head" wouldn't look at one's opinion of an OP's creator, and then decide that because one doesn't like that creator, they must have been saying the silliest thing possible, rather than, say, considering the very real possibility that someone is joking if they suggest Fox published this in the hope it would somehow hasten someone's death.




Sadly, the people defending Fox generally don't make the kinds of attacks you are making (by way of response to a poster you agree with) against fellow conservatives for doing exactly that. Consider it an issue of standing, not of two wrongs making a right.

 

[Harshaw]

Maybe we should write a corollary to Occam's Razor.

Maybe. Better would be that people get ahold of themselves.

 

[nota bene]

Maybe. Better would be that people get ahold of themselves.

Well, I keep suggesting "Come, and let us reason together," but few seem in the mood for pragmatic compromise.

"I'll come to the table only if he goes first!"

 

[Harshaw]

Well, I keep suggesting "Come, and let us reason together," but few seem in the mood for pragmatic compromise.

"I'll come to the table only if he goes first!"

And thus.