Does anyone else find it a little, um, tacky? that NBC has splashed its logo on all the VT killer’s photos being shown in the media? For example, on CNN, they keep flashing the various images of Cho Seung-Hui and his guns, and prominently displayed in the upper left-hand corner of each photo is the colorful NBC peacock and “NBC NEWS.” It seems they want to make the most of the free publicity by taking advantage of the opportunity to display their logo prominently on CNN and Fox News and other news stations. They must be thinking they hit the jackpot when the killer picked them to send his “manifesto” to.
Here’s another example of NBC’s free publicity in a newspaper, the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Just in case the photo changes, as of right now, the Post has one of the NBC-branded photos up on their front page.
What do you guys think? Tacky or savvy business decision?
The logo splash is the least tacky element of the All-Cho-Show being broadcast today. What the fuck happened to not printing the self aggrandizing ramblings of the homicidal?
It’s a journalism standard to credit your sources. The source for these photographs is NBC. Whether it’s a logo on the photo itself or a credit line underneath, reputable news organizations would credit them anyhow, so I don’t see that it makes a ton of difference.
Also, much of what you’re seeing might be being pulled from TV captures. The Post photo certainly looks like it.
I know that photos must be credited… I spent several years as a newspaper editor myself. A small “NBC News” in the lower corner of the photo would suffice, or better yet, in newspapers, there’s always a credit line in small print under the photo (as there is on the Post site). Splashing your colorful logo and your name in large letters in a prominent location on the photo seems like they are inappropriately taking advantage of them being the ones who got the package.
What? If you call a charter member with 2,000+ posts new, then yeah, I suppose you could say I’m new (compared to your 10,000 posts at least). :dubious:
Back before all the networks had their little overlay logos (network “bugs”?) or the technology to embed them on images, any time a single network had captured an image that was purchased by the other networks for display, the photo or film strip was run on the competing networks with a continuous banner that read something like “Image courtesy of NBC” or “Film courtesy of WABC, NY.” With the “bugs,” no one at the receiving network has to code up the courtesy tag or displace of screen pixels to run the acknowledgement. It is like a watermark that everyone can see, reducing the number of people who have to expend energy making sure the acknowledgment occurs.
Ahhh, gotcha. No, I am fully aware of how the media works… but this just strikes me as being really tacky. Splashing your colorful logo proudly and prominently across photos of a mass murder posing with his guns is a little tacky. They could have done it in a more understated way. The “provenance” of the photos is extremely clear, so it’s unlikely other news outlets are going to be trying to pass the photos off as their own. They should tone down their pride a bit, I think.
There’s a difference between a line of plain text and a copyrighted logo designed for advertising purposes.It gives the impression they are using their involvement* in a news story as an advertising opportunity. It strikes me as lightly unseemly but in the grand scale of Life and Shit, a minor offence.
*passive participation by being the recipient of arsehole’s Fedex of screechings, as opposed to their normal reporting involvement.
I suspect, however, that each of the networks has a canned logo (or even a couple of canned logos) that they slap on all their exported images, depending on the shape, size, and medium. Most likely, they are all what you would consider more gaudy and the companies simply do not happen to have a special set of logos for the situation of “Oh! This is terrible; we need to mute our colors and fonts to show appropriate decor in this tragedy.” They are simply sending out the same canned routine that goes onto every clip that emerges from their tech centers. (They might even have a routine that places the same logo into any clip as it is prepared for transmission so that no human was even involved in the process.)
I doubt it. Can you find some examples of other non-massacre related NBC or other network photos that have a similar logo in such a prominent location? I have been looking and can’t find anything similar…
I have not been following this news story very closely (which is a tough thing to do) considering this story is everywhere. Anyway, after every school shooting, reporters ask just about anybody “why would anyone do such a thing; what was the motive, etc … ?” Well maybe, (among other things), the shooter knows they will be guaranteed immortality (albeit infamous), because their name will be prominently mentioned. Plus, whenever the next school shooting spree occurs, the media will drag out the names and all the details of previous school shootings.
I think the fact that Cho Seung-Hui committed the initial murders, spent two hours assembling a maifesto “package”, mailed it to NBC and then went on to continue his rampage, speaks volumes about his desire for the manner in which he would be portrayed by the media. And the media plays right into that by sharing this information with others - as long as the appropriate logo is attached.
How many clips or photos are taken from other companies? For most big events, all the agencies are going to have their own crews and use their own materials. It does not even become an issue until some agency winds up with exclusive material–which tends to be rare these days.
If you call a charter member with 2,000+ posts new, then yeah, I suppose you could say I’m new (compared to your 10,000 posts at least). :dubious: