today show – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Once Again, Mainstream Media Falls For A Fake TikTok Challenge, Creating Yet Another Moral Panic

from the the-moral-panic-challenge dept

It seems to happen over and over again, and the mainstream media always makes it worse. The mainstream media hears about a “TikTok challenge,” reports on it like crazy, and people freak out that TikTok is destroying the children or some such.

And every single time, it turns out that the media got the story wrong. Often ridiculously so. There was the “devious licks” challenge, which at least had some basis in truth, but which TikTok cracked down on almost immediately. But when good reporters scratched the surface they found that it was mostly kids pranking adults, making them think that something bad was going to happen.

But, even worse, there was a big moral panic about the “slap a teacher” challenge that the media got up in arms about. Only, that one turned out to have been literally made up by some random adult and then spread by a school cop on Facebook, claiming that it was an upcoming TikTok challenge. Or the “school violence challenge,” which was reported all over the media, causing many schools to shut down entirely for the day, where there is no indication that it was ever actually a thing. And, if it was, the news was spread much more widely by TV news anchors freaking out about it without any evidence that it was real. And, no, the NyQuil chicken challenge was never actually a thing.

And now there’s been another one. At the Washington Post, Taylor Lorenz highlights how the Today Show did a segment about “the boat jump challenge” in which kids were allegedly jumping from moving boats into the water for clout on TikTok. Only problem it was all made up.

But it was all untrue. There is no boat jumping challenge on TikTok. Before the media frenzy, no boat jumping videos had gone viral on TikTok, and no hashtag related to jumping off boats had ever been popular on TikTok, according to the company. Not a single trending audio on TikTok has ever been linked to jumping off boats.

The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency issued a statement denouncing the story. “On Monday, July 3, a news story was shared regarding ‘first responders warning against a deadly boating TikTok trend after recent drownings’ in Alabama,” the organization tweeted on Monday. “Please be advised that the information released to the news outlet was incorrect. The ALEA Marine Patrol Division does not have any record(s) of boating or marine-related fatalities in Alabama that can be directly linked to TikTok or a trend on TikTok.”

The story is even worse than that. While the original comments from Jim Dennis, captain of the Childersburg Rescue Squad claimed that there were four drownings this year that were directly attributable to this “TikTok challenge,” he later walked back those comments, saying his comments were “blown way out of proportion” and that he couldn’t “say that’s the reason they died.” But the later statement from the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency actually said no one died. One person died jumping from a boat in 2020 and one more in 2021. No one died that way in 2022 or this year, let alone four people.

So, no death, no TikTok challenge.

Of course, that didn’t stop tons of news reports from running with it.

Dozens of stories followed. People, Forbes, the Daily Mail, the New York Post, and countless other outlets repeated what the Today Show had claimed, that at least four people’s deaths were directly tied to this alleged “TikTok challenge.” Right-wing internet commentators who have been critical of TikTok amplified the misinformation. “Four people have died from TikTok’s latest challenge,” tweeted conservative influencer Ian Miles Cheong in a tweet that received 4.7 million views. “ … And those are just the four police know of.”

Thankfully, after Alabama officials said the story was bullshit, the Today Show retracted their story. People also retracted its story. Others simply deleted their stories.

Of course, about the only good thing here is that at least a few more people are looking more skeptically at some of these stories. One journalism professor in Alabama issued the “don’t fall for social media challenges challenge” which I’m guessing won’t get that much attention.

Filed Under: boat jumping challenge, mainstream media, moral panic, tiktok challenge, today show

NBC, Filthy Pirates, Sued Over Use Of Photographer's Work Without Permission

from the live-by-the-copyright,-die-by-the-copyrigfht dept

NBC has made its views on piracy quite well-known over the years. For instance, we all know that it thinks that piracy is the most horrible damned thing that exists on this planet, so much so that it would please like ISPs to act as its personal police force. Oh, and because NBC also just cares so much — could we all just have our kids take a break from learning about stuff to listen to how awesome copyright is for a while? Also, however, piracy is pretty sweet when it’s convenient for NBC, or when it doesn’t want to bother coming up with its own images for its websites.

And so it goes, with NBC recently on the receiving end of a copyright suit over The Today Show’s use of a photographer’s work, not only without permission, but while happily giving credit to the wrong party on top of it.

Photographer Alexander Stross filed a lawsuit at a Texas federal court accusing the Today Show of infringing his work through multiple venues. In the complaint (pdf) Stross explains that a series of photos he took of micro houses in Texas gained mainstream new attention earlier this year. It was also covered in a segment of The Today Show, reaching an audience of millions of people.

However, the photos shown on air were used without permission from the photographer. In addition, one of the photos was posted in a tweet without attribution, which is still online today. A day later this coverage was followed by an article on The Today Show website, again featuring the infringing photos. To make matters worse these were credited to a third party.

The credit on the photograph on the website went to Matt Garcia Design, the architect of the house, which is not of course how copyrights on photographs work. You would think this is something that NBC would know, seeing as how it is the arbiter of all things copyright, to the point that it insists on being consulted on how copyright is taught within our schools. Oh, and The Today Show actually mentioned Stross as the photographer who produced the photos in its segment, so there’s that.

When Stross learned of the use, he first attempted to contact NBC, but received no response. Then he tried again, and was likewise ignored. It took Stross hiring a lawyer to get NBC to respond in any way. NBC then attempted to say it had gotten permission to use the photographs from the architect, except its evidence of this seems to indicate it only attempted to do so after the infringing use.

When contacted by counsel, Defendant claimed to have obtained the Photographs – and advance permission to use them – from architect Matt Garcia. Upon information and belief, neither is true. Rather, correspondence provided to Plaintiff by Defendant, reflects the following:

• On May 8, 2012: Amy Eley — a producer working for Defendant — requested press materials and photographs from Mr. Garcia, who replied that he had a photo shoot coming up, and asked her to wait until they were finished. There appears to have been no further correspondence between Ms. Eley and Mr. Garcia.

• At 2:17 p.m. on May 12, 2015: after Defendant ran the On-Air Segment; after it posted the Tweet; and after it published the Web Article — a freelance writer named Julie Pennell contacted Garcia and informed him that she was writing a piece on the houses for Today.com. She asked if new photographs had been taken, and whether she could use them (failing to advise Garcia that Defendant had already used the Photographs). Garcia informed Pennell that the scheduled photo shoot had been cancelled, and asked if she would like copies of other photographs that he had — which happened to be Stross’ Photographs.

None of that seems to equate to permission to use the photographs offered by Matt Garcia Design, which doesn’t really matter since the architect doesn’t hold the copyright for the photographs. To be clear, NBC may have a reasonable fair use defense here, but that’s not what it claimed when originally approached at all (though it likely will in the lawsuit). And given NBC’s past insistence on being purely copyright maximalist (and even fighting back against fair use at times), it’s yet another situation in which a company or individual who attacks others screaming copyright infringement may not actually have cleaned up its own house first.

Look, it’s quite easy to commit copyright infringement. People do it all the time, often without ever even realizing it, as they go about their days doing their jobs and living their lives. But NBC simply can’t put itself out as the copyright police — or even suggest that it’s somehow “easy” for others to properly recognize what’s infringing and what’s not — while at the same time finding itself on the defendant end of these kinds of lawsuits. And that’s really the key point here. Copyright maximalists like to assume that infringement is a black or white issue, that it’s obvious and that it’s obviously “bad.” But, almost without fail, we find examples of copyright maximalists being accused of infringement themselves. And that’s because it’s not at all easy to detect, and quite easy to infringe without realizing it. And when you can so easily accidentally break a law that can lead to massive damages, it certainly suggests that perhaps it’s time for reform. But, somehow, I’m betting that NBC Universal will continue to push in the other direction, even as it faces down this lawsuit.

Filed Under: alexander stross, copyright, fair use, nbc, photograph, today show
Companies: nbc, nbc universal

Smoking Gun: MPAA Emails Reveal Plan To Run Anti-Google Smear Campaign Via Today Show And WSJ

from the editorial-independence? dept

If you talk to the reporters who work for various big media companies, they insist that they have true editorial independence from the business side of their companies. They insist that the news coverage isn’t designed to reflect the business interests of their owners. Of course, most people have always suspected this was bullshit — and you could see evidence of this in things like the fact that the big TV networks refused to cover the SOPA protests. But — until now — there’s never necessarily been a smoking gun with evidence of how such business interests influences the editorial side.

Earlier this month, we noted that the Hollywood studios were all resisting subpoenas from Google concerning their super cozy relationship with Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, whose highly questionable “investigation” of Google appeared to actually be run by the MPAA and the studios themselves. The entire “investigation” seemed to clearly be an attempt to mislead the public into believing that it was somehow illegal for Google’s search engine to find stuff that people didn’t like online. A court has already ruled that Hood pretty clearly acted in bad faith to deprive Google of its First Amendment rights. As the case has continued, Google has sought much more detail on just how much of the investigation was run by the MPAA and the studios — and Hollywood has vigorously resisted, claiming that they really had nothing to do with all of this, which was a laughable assertion.

However, in a filing on Thursday, Google revealed one of the few emails that they have been able to get access to so far, and it’s stunning. It’s an email between the MPAA and two of Jim Hood’s top lawyers in the Mississippi AG’s office, discussing the big plan to “hurt” Google. Beyond influencing other Attorneys General (using misleading fake “setups” of searches for “bad” material) and paying for fake anti-Google research, the lawyers from Hood’s office flat out admit that they’re expecting the MPAA and the major studios to have its media arms run a coordinated propaganda campaign of bogus anti-Google stories:

Media: We want to make sure that the media is at the NAAG meeting. We propose working with MPAA (Vans), Comcast, and NewsCorp (Bill Guidera) to see about working with a PR firm to create an attack on Google (and others who are resisting AG efforts to address online piracy). This PR firm can be funded through a nonprofit dedicated to IP issues. The “live buys” should be available for the media to see, followed by a segment the next day on the Today Show (David green can help with this). After the Today Show segment, you want to have a large investor of Google (George can help us determine that) come forward and say that Google needs to change its behavior/demand reform. Next, you want NewsCorp to develop and place an editorial in the WSJ emphasizing that Google’s stock will lose value in the face of a sustained attack by AGs and noting some of the possible causes of action we have developed.

In other words, Jim Hood and the MPAA were out and out planning a coordinated media attack on Google using the editorial properties that supposedly claim to have editorial independence from the business side. Notice that with the WSJ piece, they flat out admit that the editorial will be based on the ideas that “we” have developed. If you work for the WSJ, your editorial independence just got shot down. Remember when CBS stepped in and interfered editorially with CNET for giving an award to Dish at the same time that CBS was in a legal fight over that same device? That resulted in reporters quitting.

This is worse.

This is an out and out case where the MPAA is admitting to a plan whereby it will use mainstream media properties to run bogus and misleading stories to “attack” Google, to further the MPAA’s (believed, but misleadingly so) business interests. Is this really how the Today Show and the WSJ pick their editorial topics?

The “plan” goes even further after that, getting the MPAA to find (and almost certainly pay for) a lawyer to work with the “shareholder” previously identified to file legal filings against Google.

Following the media blitz, you want Bill Guidera and Rick Smotkin to work with the PR firm to identify a lawyer specializing in SEC matters to work with a stockholder. This lawyer should be able to the [sic] identify the appropriate regulatory filing to be made against Google.

As Google notes in its legal filing about this email, the “plan” states that if this effort fails, then the next step will be to file the subpoena (technically a CID or “civil investigatory demand”) on Google, written by the MPAA but signed by Hood. As Google points out, this makes it pretty clear (1) that the MPAA, studios and Hood were working hand in hand in all of this and (2) that the subpoena had no legitimate purpose behind it, but rather was the final step in a coordinated media campaign to pressure Google to change the way its search engine works. It’s pretty damning:

The document thus shows that the CID was not the foundation of a legitimate investigation?rather, it was a ?final step? that would be issued only ?if necessary? to further pressure Google to capitulate to the demands of AG Hood and his supporters.

The court has yet to rule on what else Hollywood needs to turn over, but just from what’s coming out already, serious questions are being raised (1) about Jim Hood and his office and what they were up to as well as (2) the editorial independence of the media arms of the MPAA studios, including both NBCUniversal (“the Today Show”) and NewsCorp. (the Wall Street Journal).

Filed Under: editorial independence, jim hood, media, mississippi, news, smear campaign, today show, wsj
Companies: comcast, google, mpaa, nbc universal, newscorp

NBC Fires Guy Who Posted The Bryant Gumbel/Katie Couric 'What Is Internet' Video

from the what-is-nbc dept

Like a bunch of sites, we posted about the amusing video that had been posted to YouTube, that showed Katie Couric and Bryant Gumbel, back in 1994, very confused about the internet. The video itself went viral pretty quickly. It was just sort of cute. I don’t think anyone posting the video was doing it in a mean way — it was just funny, and served as a good reminder of just how quickly things have changed. Just about the time that we posted the video, the original video was pulled down from YouTube by the guy who posted it. What quickly came out, via Rob Pegoraro, was that the guy who posted it worked at NBC, but was fired for posting the video. The guy doesn’t want to talk about it beyond that, and NBC doesn’t appear too keen on commenting on the whole situation, but, really NBC? Is that company so ridiculously thin-skinned that it can’t laugh at itself? Nothing about the use of the video was mean-spirited or harmful to NBC. The video went viral because it’s a human interest sort of thing — a reminder of how quickly the internet went from something people didn’t understand at all, to something that’s central to so many people’s lives. We all forget what it was like when we first discovered the internet (at least those of us who grew up without the internet), and the video sort of brought all that back. I’d argue that NBC firing the guy for posting this video to YouTube suggests an organization even more confused about the internet than either Couric or Gumbel in this clip (which, yes, is still widely available):

This whole thing reminds of the PR debacle by Best Buy last year when it decided to fire the guy who had made some (quite funny) satirical videos about dealing with customers at a store like Best Buy. After loud public outcry, Best Buy was eventually forced to back down, but it was really too late.

Update: Even more ridiculous: as noted in the comments, the folks on The Today Show actually played this video and laughed about it the other day, so now I’ll embed it below directly from NBC:

Filed Under: bryant gumbel, fired, katie couric, nbc, today show
Companies: nbc universal

Katie Couric And Bryant Gumbel Discover The Internet

from the ah,-discovery dept

A whole bunch of people have been sending in this video, which has already gone viral, of Bryant Gumbel and Katie Couric having a very confused discussion about the internet on The Today Show way back in 1994 (at which point the internet really was not that obscure):

It kicks off with a debate over how to pronounce the @ symbol, with Gumbel properly saying “at,” but being unsure of himself, after Couric suggests maybe it’s “about.” This is even though @ was the “at” symbol well before the internet. Then there’s a conversation as they’re totally confused by the email address that is put on the screen and what it means, leading up to Gumbel declaring in a frustrated voice:

“What is internet anyway?”

Eventually someone tries to explain it, and Gumbel seems to just get more frustrated and incredulous:

How does one… what is it? What do you write to it, like mail?!?”

It’s not like they’re supposed to be reporters or anything, who can do some research to find out what it is they’re talking about…

Filed Under: bryant gumbel, internet, katie couric, today show