Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
This has gone off track and you're missing my whole point: NONE of that has anything to do with accurately reporting the facts or journalistic integrity.
Rust
- Thread starter Peter C.
- Start date
This has gone off track and you're missing my whole point: NONE of that has anything to do with accurately reporting the facts or journalistic integrity.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
"Our data scientists have drawn a conclusion that's not what our audience or advertisers want to hear. Should we report it?"
When you report things that your audience doesn't want to hear, I consider it to reflect well on your journalistic integrity.
So then when they report something like the AD is going to testify against Baldwin, I'm more inclined to assume that they have good reason to do so and that they're not just trying to say things their audience wants to believe.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
That's absurd. Just because someone may not want to hear something does NOT make it a fact.. Totally illogical conclusion.
And that, my friends, is my last post on this dumb line of thinking.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
The important thing is that they upheld journalistic standards of fact-gathering and then reported what they believed to be true (in this case, a projection not a fact.)
Let's look at a counterexample: the Guardian. I used to read the Guardian. I broadly agree with their politics and appreciate the choices they make in what to cover, etc.
But I stopped reading it a couple years ago because it's full of falsehoods that they don't even bother to retract when proven wrong. And the falsehoods are always the same sort: things their liberal audience (like me) wants to believe. That's their business model: giving their audience what it wants to hear.
if the Guardian reported that the AD were testifying against Baldwin, I would say yeah maybe who knows.
Leeds United is an English club known for its rowdy fans (not Millwall, however) and brutish players. It was one of the most dominant English clubs of the 1970's, but also known as the one that others love to hate. Unless you're a Leeds fan and love being hated.
JAMedia
Well-known member
You seem to be confusing Leeds with Milwall. No one likes us and we don't care
The Legendary F-Troop are now known as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millwall_Bushwackers
Last edited:
JAMedia
Well-known member
Back on track a view from "outside the bubble" of the film world This is from https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram/ The author being a globally respected member of the security world (principally cyber security)
The following is from this issue https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram/archives/2023/0215.html
The CGI receration at the bottom is intresting.
** *** ***** ******* *********** *************
On Alec Baldwin’s Shooting
[2023.01.26] We recently learned that Alec Baldwin is being charged with involuntary manslaughter for his accidental shooting on a movie set. I don’t know the details of the case, nor the intricacies of the law, but I have a question about movie props.
Why was an actual gun used on the set? And why were actual bullets used on the set? Why wasn’t it a fake gun: plastic, or metal without a working barrel? Why does it have to fire blanks? Why can’t everyone just pretend, and let someone add the bang and the muzzle flash in post-production?
Movies are filled with fakery. The light sabers in Star Wars weren’t real; the lighting effects and “wooj-wooj” noises were add afterwards. The phasers in Star Trek weren’t real either. Jar Jar Binks was 100% computer generated. So were a gazillion “props” from the Harry Potter movies. Even regular, non-SF non-magical movies have special effects. They’re easy.
Why are guns different?
EDITED TO ADD (2/14): Hollywood has procedures for handling firearms on movie sets. And this CGI recreation provides details on how this gun handling failed to meet industry standards.
** *** ***** ******* *********** *************
The following is from this issue https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram/archives/2023/0215.html
The CGI receration at the bottom is intresting.
** *** ***** ******* *********** *************
On Alec Baldwin’s Shooting
[2023.01.26] We recently learned that Alec Baldwin is being charged with involuntary manslaughter for his accidental shooting on a movie set. I don’t know the details of the case, nor the intricacies of the law, but I have a question about movie props.
Why was an actual gun used on the set? And why were actual bullets used on the set? Why wasn’t it a fake gun: plastic, or metal without a working barrel? Why does it have to fire blanks? Why can’t everyone just pretend, and let someone add the bang and the muzzle flash in post-production?
Movies are filled with fakery. The light sabers in Star Wars weren’t real; the lighting effects and “wooj-wooj” noises were add afterwards. The phasers in Star Trek weren’t real either. Jar Jar Binks was 100% computer generated. So were a gazillion “props” from the Harry Potter movies. Even regular, non-SF non-magical movies have special effects. They’re easy.
Why are guns different?
EDITED TO ADD (2/14): Hollywood has procedures for handling firearms on movie sets. And this CGI recreation provides details on how this gun handling failed to meet industry standards.
** *** ***** ******* *********** *************
ahalpert
Major Contributor
The firearm enhancement charge with the 5-year mandatory minimum was dropped against Baldwin because that law was passed after the shooting.
BTW I was speaking with a veteran DP recently who said that Baldwin definitely mishandled the gun and the whole situation. He said that you always take the gun from the armorer and not the AD and that they're supposed to show you what's inside. He also said that you don't point it at anyone. He contrasted it with the accident on the Twilight Zone film shoot where the director caused a helicopter crash that killed 3 actors. Apparently, part of that director's defense was that he was inexperienced directing helicopters. This DP pointed out that the type of gun handling they were doing on Rust is very common and that Baldwin has extensive experience in such matters and that he had the most seniority and authority on the film set. So he should have known better. This DP doesn't think that crew safety will be taken seriously if crimes like Baldwin's escape conviction, and it's an especially pressing matter for cameras crews since we're likeliest to be in the line of fire.
Twilight Zone accident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Zone_accident
BTW I was speaking with a veteran DP recently who said that Baldwin definitely mishandled the gun and the whole situation. He said that you always take the gun from the armorer and not the AD and that they're supposed to show you what's inside. He also said that you don't point it at anyone. He contrasted it with the accident on the Twilight Zone film shoot where the director caused a helicopter crash that killed 3 actors. Apparently, part of that director's defense was that he was inexperienced directing helicopters. This DP pointed out that the type of gun handling they were doing on Rust is very common and that Baldwin has extensive experience in such matters and that he had the most seniority and authority on the film set. So he should have known better. This DP doesn't think that crew safety will be taken seriously if crimes like Baldwin's escape conviction, and it's an especially pressing matter for cameras crews since we're likeliest to be in the line of fire.
Twilight Zone accident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Zone_accident
I think this one will be bounced --
Alec Baldwin Sued by 'Rust' Crew Members for Cutting Corners on Set (tmz.com)
Alec Baldwin Sued by 'Rust' Crew Members for Cutting Corners on Set (tmz.com)
JAMedia
Well-known member
Looking at the video of the practice shots AB is drawing the gun with his finger on the trigger.
A natural position for it in contect of the action. However it may indicate that he "naturally" had his finger on the trigger...
Unless the camera was running at the actual time of the shooting it is all gong to be he-said/she-said. and what peopel think they saw.
facinatring to watch from the side lines.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
The alerticle is stressing emphasis on Baldwin but I'm reading that as they are suing the production as a whole, Baldwin being one of the multiple producers likely named. I too place the blame squarely on their shoulders for their terrible decision-making due to lack of experience in the industry. They were delivered multiple warnings about gun safety by crew members and they ignored them (one of the responses from the line producer to crewmember describing gun safety issues days before was "awesome, thanks!".
But the plaintiffs would have to prove damages. Considering they continued working on the set, it'll not be easy.
Baldwin lawyers filed a petition to remove Reeb. She's a Republican.
Special prosecutor in Alec Baldwin 'Rust' case to step down | Fox News
JAMedia
Well-known member
As a Brit I find this mystifying.
In the UK, Judges and the UK equivalent of state prosecutors can NOT be in any way political. They certainly can NOT hold ANY political office.
In the UK there is a very strong separation between the judiciary and politics. We can't understand how you even know the political preferences of supreme court Judges.
In fact, any UK Supreme Court Judge who was seen to be supporting any particular political party would likely be removed. This is not the same as finding for or against a plaintiff in a case.
She was a special prosecutor, hired to handle a case against a very high priced legal team. Most state run novices would fold. For someone who remembers the OJ Simpson trial, Clark and Darden didn't leave an impression of competency. And that was LA, not some backwaters of New Mexico.
Reeb is holding a political office, having ended her career as a prosecutor.
As to the judges - some are elected, others are political appointees. The DA is an elected post too.