Apology of the Week

MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan shows how to deliver a straightforward, unequivocal apology.

Notable only for the fact that it doesn’t happen very often.

Advertisements

24 Comments

Filed under Media

24 responses to “Apology of the Week

  1. Ti-Guy

    They shouldn’t have used uncredited photos in the first place.

    Journalism. *ugh*

  2. Ti-Guy

    I’m sure they are to blame, but those who are most at fault are the ones who don’t check their work.

  3. Lack of editorial oversight, to be sure. Problem is that a lot of these shows’ producers are <30.

  4. Mark McLaughlin

    MSNBC is pretty much a joke of a network.

    The fact that they still employ that Olbermann clown is all the proof anyone needs.

    Look at their ratings to see how much the American public cares what MSNBC has to say.

  5. Ti-Guy

    Look at their ratings…

    There’s yer problem right there, Mark.

  6. According to your criterion, American Idol is the best show on television and Rush Limbaugh a more reliable source of information than NPR.

    Ratings aren’t everything…

  7. Ti-Guy

    I can’t remember the last time ratings and some kind of standard of excellence or quality coincided. I think Raiders of the Lost Ark was the last time.

  8. TofKW

    Gees, even I knew for quite some time that Palin/bikini photo floating through the inter-web was a fake. Actually I assumed it was so from the first moment I saw it.

    I remember in the recent past that some blogger did a bit of research (ie. a Google search) to find out who the real woman was, onto which Palin’s head was photo-shopped. Didn’t take him long either, though in the process he discovered that there is quite a demand for ‘bikini-clad chicks with guns’ photos out there in cyberspace.

  9. Mark McLaughlin

    “According to your criterion, American Idol is the best show on television and Rush Limbaugh a more reliable source of information than NPR.

    Ratings aren’t everything…”

    I made no comments implying ‘best’ or ‘reliable’. The point is that the goal of a television network is to get eyeballs to watch it. By that most basic measure, MSNBC is a failure. By the only real measure that matters, American Idol and Limbaugh are successful.

    Here’s one of the fundamental differences between Conservatives and Liberals (the ideology, not the parties).

    Conservatives celebrate success. Liberals scorn it.

    If it’s popular, it’s stupid.
    If it’s profitable, it’s exploitive.
    If it’s corporate, it’s evil.

    If governments stopped subsidizing unpopular, non-profitable, feel-good charity organizations thousands of Liberals wouldn’t be able to feed their families.

    Being a success is something to be proud of.

    A Conservative would say that living in your parents basement making ‘quality art’ that nobody wants to buy is wasting your life. A Liberal would call it noble.

  10. But, but, but – Conservatives would say that living in your parents basement doing partisan trolling that no body wants is noble.

    I’d prefer the art.

  11. Mark —
    Conservatives celebrate success. Liberals scorn it.
    If it’s popular, it’s stupid.
    If it’s profitable, it’s exploitive.
    If it’s corporate, it’s evil.

    In a word: Bullshit

    There’s nothing that “conservatives” despise more than a successful liberal, so that’s a load of crap. Popular culture is also despised by “conservatives” as being “too liberal” (maybe that does make it synonymous with stupidity in your mind). While popularity usually equates to “lowest common denominator” that doesn’t necessarily make it stupid. Since when do liberals consider something profitable as “exploitative”? This is pure fantasy on your part. Nothing wrong with corporations — they’re not inherently evil, but there is an argument to be made that unfettered corporatism tends to be.

  12. Mark @2:32pm – careful, a strawman that big is a fire hazard.

  13. alawokbar

    “Nothing wrong with corporations — they’re not inherently evil, but there is an argument to be made that unfettered corporatism tends to be.”

    Couldn’t agree more. Conservatives have no problems with corporations per se, of course, and they HATE corporatism; it’s fascist roots are more than enough to condemn it.

  14. Ti, Ti, Ti.

    Way to flub the issue. The issue at hand isn’t uncredited photos. The issue at hand is fake photos.

    But thanks for playing.

    Dumb dumb.

  15. You’re splitting hairs.

    Had the photos MSNBC used been acquired legitimately (i.e., from a credited outfit like Getty or the AP rather than just scammed off the Internet) then the issue of Photoshopped fakery would never have arisen.

    It was pretty clear what Ti-Guy meant by his remark, although it could perhaps have been worded more precisely.

    Sheesh!

  16. alawokbar — Glad we can agree on that. 🙂

  17. No, you’re very much the one splitting hairs.

    A fake photo is a fake photo, regardless of where it comes from.

    Just like a man with a gun is a man with a gun, regardless of whether or not he’s black.

    But, then again, when that isn’t the story that MSNBC wants…

  18. I’ll let Ti-Guy clarify his remarks, but they were plain enough to me. The problem was with improper sourcing and lack of editorial oversight — points we had clearly established. Why you’re attempting to muddy the waters is beyond me (other than to score some cheap hits on your nemesis and start another nonsensical, petty cat fight).

    MSNBC admitted their mistake, apologized unequivocally and indicated steps had been taken to prevent a recurrence of the error in future.

    Sorry if that interferes with the narrative YOU want to describe about the eeeeeevil liberal media.

  19. Dear god. Are you being intentionally dense?

    No, the problem was not the lack of sourcing on a fake photo, the problem was that THEY USED A FAKE PHOTO.

    Christ. This shouldn’t have to be explained to you.

  20. Ti-Guy

    Mark McLaughlin:

    The point is that the goal of a television network is to get eyeballs to watch it.

    Is that *your* goal as well? Is the point of having a television to see which channel most successfully captures your attention? And not just *your* attention, but the attention of other people (who you don’t know) as well?

    It’s bizarre that Conservatives, enthusiastic supporters of the market that they are, seem to confuse the roles of consumers and retailers all the time. I suspect that confusion is situational, depending on whether it supports a partisan argument or not. But it goes a long way to explain how the consumer economy has become a race to the bottom, given that people seem to think their own needs, wants and desires are secondary considerations compared to the needs of the retailer.

  21. Ti-Guy

    It was pretty clear what Ti-Guy meant by his remark, although it could perhaps have been worded more precisely.

    That would have taken longer. I’m not in the habit of writing a dissertation with every comment, unlike long-winded and hyperventilating mullet aficionados who believe that all bases have to be covered every time one opens one mouth. Properly-socialised individuals express themselves with the expectation that others will ask for them to clarify and expand if needed.

    They’ll never be able to completely weed out faked imagery. It’s become difficult to detect. But the simple adherence to the standard practice of using credited images would trigger the process of examining whether they are from a reputable and/or responsible source that is willing to stand by its work.

  22. PR — No, I think it’s YOU who are being dense.

    We all get the problem of using FAKE photographs. Duh!

    Ti’s point was that if they had been properly sourced (i.e., licensed from and credited to an agency like Getty, AP, AFP, or whatever) then there would have been no question about the pics’ veracity. Compounding MSNBC’s sloppy sourcing was the apparent lack of editorial oversight and/or judgment.

  23. Ti-Guy

    This is what an epidemic of a lack of focus has brought us. People are incapable of determining the exact point where a failure is occurring, which is, in all likelihood, something that is easily remedied.

    Instead, we’re treated to grandiose interpretations that suggest profound ideological or systemic corruption, the only solutions for which are sweeping changes which, by nature of being too drastic, result in no remediation at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s