'60 Minutes' admits error in dubbing noises over quiet Tesla electric car

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

CBS News says an editor made an "audio error" in dubbing the sound of a loud traditional car engine over footage of the much quieter Tesla electric car in a "60 Minutes" story that aired Sunday.

Spokesman Kevin Tedesco said Tuesday the loud car audio has been edited out of the online version of the story on Tesla founder Elon Musk. Anchor Scott Pelley reported the story, and CBS said he wasn't aware of the added audio ahead of time.

... It's been a rough year at television's most popular newsmagazine, with correspondent Lara Logan still on leave after an internal CBS report questioned her reporting and objectivity on a story about an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. Critics also questioned the show's reporting on stories involving the National Security Agency and Amazon.

Read more: http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/253389131.html

[arcane1]

1. 'Oops! I "accidentally" recorded a loud car and dubbed the sound into a news report.'

Probably slipped on a banana peel or something.


"Error" my ass!

[closeupready]

2. Seriously. I'd love to see someone go, "Who are you, the Keystone Cops?"

"60 Minutes? (Same thing.)"

When they stop carrying water for GOP warmongers, then perhaps we can start taking them seriously. But as it is, the only ones on that show I trust are Anderson Cooper, Morley Safer, and Steve Kroft.

To paraphrase Mika Brzezinski, whatever happened to 'news school'? Shame on them.

[verwirrt]

3. I can see

I can see how the technician made the error, its an easy computer type-o. Especially if the tech isn't the one to review the script and content for consistency. Maybe the correct recording was number 11 and the wrong one was 10. The question though, is how did this make it past the producer. Are they claiming to be doing the spot on the fly? If so, that's the first problem that needs to be addressed.

[arcane1]

9. And number 10 just so happened to be the sound of a loud car engine.

[Blue_Tires]

22. CBS should have dubbed in those old "Knight Rider" sound EFX

[verwirrt]

23. Maybe

If they are sorted under the category of car engine sounds then yes. The bulk of them would be loud. Let's say they have 100 recorded car sounds under a category called automobile engines. Maybe what 3 or 4 of those would be quiet, that's sort of the point of it being part of the advertisement.

[arcane1]

28. There is no reason to be browsing a sound catalog of "car engine sounds"

When doing a piece in a car that makes no sounds

[verwirrt]

32. Not true

Ethics in advertising demands the reverse to be true. An honest advertisement would overlay a recording of the sound the car actually makes. If that recording is not distinguishable from the absence of a recording that is great for the purpose of the advertisement but you still perform and include the recording. Assuming of course you are adhering to an ethical standard.


I don't preclude the possibility that someone made a mistake, but I am not convinced it was the tech because if it was the producer and half a dozen other people should have caught it before it aired. So either someone wasn't doing their job or someone was up to no good. It could have been in the plans all along and the tech just followed the instructions given since he/she is not necessarily aware of the details of the script wouldn't have known better, or someone up to no good added it after the fact. The only way the tech could be at fault is if it was being handled live which makes no sense in this case. Maybe if you are doing a report on a hurricane and you tell the tech to add in some background wind sound effects because the on site mic isn't picking those up and do it on the fly then he accidentally grabs the earthquake sound track that issue occurs and is the fault of the technician. This case however should be prerecorded. Which means it was either planned or added by the last person in the verification process which isn't the tech.

[ET Awful]

33. Ethics in advertising?

It wasn't an advertisement.

[verwirrt]

36. Sorry

Was doing two conversations once.

Ethics in reporting, same premise. Actually with a more strict standard so ethics applies even more so.

[AlinPA]

79. Ethics in reporting? On TV? That's a joke.

[yardwork]

82. This is interesting. Thank you for posting this information.

And welcome to DU!

One of the things I like about DU is when people share their technical or expert opinions here.

[eggplant]

13. Are you fucking kidding me?

Overdubbing is an easy error to make? It's more like accidentally putting anchovies into your cake batter.

Stop being an apologist. Oh, and welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.

[Supersedeas]

93. my reaction too....an audio error!?!...who BIG AUTO company sponsored that segment

[undiegrinder]

21. What you apparently don't know is ...

Any show which calls itself "News" (as "60 Minutes" does) is expected to follow specific rules of ethical journalism designed to prevent the "News" from turning into propaganda.

CBS News has purportedly subscribed to and observed such rules (I believe) ever since it went on the air in 1927. The rules include very specific "do's" and "don'ts" about every aspect of producing the News*, from what's acceptable when shooting an interview to how a segment must be edited.

It's IMPOSSIBLE for anyone working on "60 Minutes" -- including video editors -- to be unaware of, or unfamiliar with, the following from the Radio Television Digital News Association website:

Guidelines for Ethical Video and Audio Editing

The public is greatly affected by how you edit sounds and images for radio and television news stories you put on the air. Photojournalists and editors should exercise the same level of ethical professionalism and accuracy in editing sounds and images as reporters and producers are expected to exercise in their choice of words, soundbites and facts.

Added sounds and music in both television and radio stories have the power of setting the tone for a story and can even change the meaning of the piece. Often the public remembers the visual images in a television story long after they forget the story's narrative. That is testament of the underlying power of "the visual."

RTDNA's Code of Ethics says: "Professional electronic journalists should not manipulate images or sounds in any way that is misleading."

The Code also says journalists should not: "...present images or sounds that are reenacted without informing the public."

The National Press Photographers Association Code of Ethics says: "Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects."

These statements set a foundation for how journalists should think about their responsibility to edit stories in a way that results in stories that are accurate and truthful.

http://www.rtdna.org/content/guidelines_for_ethical_video_and_audio_editing#.UzsBgNhrLmV

IOW, this was no accident. Somebody had to go and find that sound effect, then add it to the soundtrack, then perhaps adjust its volume. It was PURPOSEFUL.

And while it may SEEM like the addtion of one little sound effect is no big deal, why would ANYone even WANT to make a Tesla car sound like some other, noisier vehicle?

The point is: this represents a pretty egregious violation of the rules CBS is supposed to follow and (one hopes) always does its best to.

*This is dramatized in the movie "Broadcast News" where THE major conflict between stars Holly Hunter and William Hurt is that despite their strong mutual attraction, they're also polar opposites on the issue of journlism ethics.

[LiberalLovinLug]

27. This reminded me of...

Nigel: This is the top to, uh, you know, what we use on stage, but it’s very, very special because, if you can see, the numbers all go to eleven. Look… (pointing at the amp dials), right across the board. Eleven, eleven, eleven and then…
Marty: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten.
Nigel: Exactly.
Marty: Does that mean it’s louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel: Well, it’s one louder, isn’t it?




But seriously, this technician should be a little brighter than the characters on Spinal Tap.

[red dog 1]

43. + 1000

After reading post # 3 by verwirrt
"Maybe the correct recording was number 11 and the wrong one was 10".
I IMMEDIATELY thought of that scene from Spinal Tap.

Great post, LiberalLovinLug.

[red dog 1]

53. verwirrt's first post is from the OP: "We should root for the ACA to be repealed!"

"Small Correction (first post)
However, I felt this post needed an important correction.
While the poster is right that if they gained power the republicans would not repeal ACA, they would do a lot more damage by keeping it around just not in it's current form..They would claim to be "fixing it" playing off the mantra that was recently popular by democratic politicians.
To do so they would remove the individual mandate, subsidy, and medicaid expansion funding then sit back and laugh while the program imploded upon itself.All the while claiming victory because the program "couldn't stand on it's own merit" (after they gutted the parts that make is possible).That's what you would see happen to the ACA if the republicans are allowed back into power."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024763015/
Reply # 29

verwirrt (German) definition of:
"adv: confusedly; in a disordered manner.
adj; bewildered, baffled, confused, bemused,flustered, muddleheaded.
v; baffle, bewilder, confuse, mix up,fuddle, tousle, disorder, derange,fluster."


I find it very interesting that you chose "verwirrt" as your user-name.

Isn't it true that on-line trolls also like to "baffle, confuse, mix up, fuddle, tousle, disorder, derange and fluster"?

I wonder if it's just a coincidence that you chose April Fool's Day to join DU?

[BrotherIvan]

63. Funnily enough, you are more correct than people are giving you credit for

As an editor, you often lay down a noise track to cover up edits/cuts. It creates a white noise effect to cover the difference in background noise when you cut from shot to shot. A mic is very sensitive and records in a "shotgun" pattern, so it not only picks up dialogue but any sound coming from that direction. That is why shooting is done in studios whenever possible, to try to get the background noise down as much as possible. Shooting outside is very tricky because even wind is extremely loud. A mic pointing one direction, say west, to pick up the dialogue from the interviewer is going to have different background noise than one pointing east for the interviewee. Filters and technology can lower background noise, but it is very difficult to remove it completely. When you cut from shot to shot, the difference in background noise makes it sound terrible and a viewer suddenly notices each cut.

When you have an out door scene, often an editor will lay down an ambience track that contains say traffic and bird noises. In this case, the editor probably went into his or her stock library and laid down engine noise out of routine. I would have done this without thinking unless there were specific instructions not to do so. Having never ridden in a Tesla, and unless the sound recordist specifically made a Tesla engine noise track, I would have no idea what it should sound like.

It may not be as nefarious as it seems, regardless of CBS & 60 Minutes terrible track record. Creating video is a lot more complicated than it looks and this is editing 101.

[Submariner]

71. CBS News president is David Rhodes from Fox News

which helps explain the Benghazi hit job they tried to pull a few weeks back. Foxification of CBS is alive and well.

[tridim]

4. Tesla is being Tuckered, big time.

I noticed the bad overdub when watching the segment last Sunday. It was obviously wrong, apparently to everyone except the editors whose job it is to NOT EDIT NEWS FOOTAGE TO SAY SOMETHING IT DOESN'T.

[MicaelS]

7. Musk has a boatload more money than Tucker.

I am not the least bit worried about Tesla.

[Shemp Howard]

10. Ah yes, the Tucker Torpedo.

I remember having a picture of the Tucker Torpedo when I was a little kid. A middle, turning headlight...beyond cool. I just knew that when I hit 16, I was going to go out and buy me a Torpedo. Of course I never did. Used Chevys were much cheaper, and much easier to find.

Anyway, CBS is lying. Either that or every last person on the CBS production team is totally incompetent. I'm betting on the former.

[red dog 1]

57. When I was a little kid growing up in San Francisco, I remember seeing a "Tucker Torpedo"

many times, because the Sutro Museum at Ocean Beach had a Tucker Torpedo.

I think it was behind a rope or something, but you could get within a few feet of it.

I must have "visited" that Tucker Torpedo 50 times,


What a great place the Sutro Museum was!

They also had a "Tom Thimb" exhibit, with many photos of Tom Thumb and his wife.
They also had many, many clothes the little guy wore.

They also had some unbelievable memorabilia, including a large model of a roller coaster, made entirely out of toothpicks.

[Tikki]

5. We are starting to see more and more Teslas on Highway 101 here in So Cal...

It is a beautiful car. They even have an S Model with a brown metallic paint job.


The Tikkis

[frylock]

20. i see them all the time down here in san diego..

I know someone that bought one. I haven't had a chance to drive it yet.

[Sunlei]

100. beautiful cars, out of my price range though. The used one I want is 90k.

someone needs to roll out a sturdy, pretty, safe-.inexpensive car

[John1956PA]

6. Did an assistant say, "Hey! The street mike did not pick up. We better add in a replacement sound."

Didn't that assistant know that electric cars produce next to no running sounds?

It makes me wonder how many other additions and edits are performed to make news story clips seem more natural.

[MADem]

8. Is it me, but has CBS really sucked since they dumped Dan Rather?

Bob Schieffer "held the line" for a time, but their news machine has just ... deflated in the ensuing years. And the slant of a lot of their pieces has gotten as wingnutty and dumb as ABC's.

[Le Taz Hot]

11. Yowza!

They look great but I just checked out the price. $70,000 for the cheapest model. I repeat, Yowza!

[KansDem]

37. Yeah, and it's extra for the noise!

nt

[SoapBox]

12. WTF?

Accidentally? Bullshit...done on purpose.

[frazzled]

14. TV can't abide "silence"

Honestly, I think they worry if there is no sound in a visual segment, people will change the channel. I believe that is why they--stupidly--added the noise.

Radio cannot abide it even more. Whenever I'm driving around and a story comes up on an urban topic, they always put traffic noise in the background--and most often sirens! I would like there to be a law against this. I can't tell you how many times I have thought an ambulance or fire truck or squad car was approaching from somewhere, and looked to pull over to let it pass, before realizing it was the stupid RADIO. This is dangerous, and I think it should be prohibited.

[Journeyman]

15. You gotta admire the chutzpah of the editor, to believe Tesla wouldn't notice or object . . .

Next thing you know, they'll be tinkering with the audio to make everyone sound like chipmunks huffing helium. Who'd notice if James Earl Jones came off as a soprano with a Cockney accent? Certainly not the "news professionals" at CBS.

[olddad56]

16. It takes a considerable amount of audacity for 60 minutes to call this an error.

[stillwaiting]

91. The "errors" 60 minutes have been making all seem to benefit a certain small group

of individuals.

I'm certain it's just a coincidence though.

[DeSwiss]

17. ''Error?''

''The fault, dear viewers, is not in our stars, but in our underlings."

Playing Cassius: - Kevin Tedesco, CBS Spokesman

[sulphurdunn]

18. It's like the sci-fi

movie makers who think they need sound effects in outer space.

[longship]

19. And even in the Cosmos reboot.

Shameful! NdGT should have objected.

2001: A Space Odyssey was the only SciFi film that got things basically right. Kubrick piped in music, comm audio, or nothing. Perfect.

[sulphurdunn]

29. The Sci-Fi series "Firefly"

got it right too. Then they made the movie "Serenity" to conclude the series and got it wrong.

[exboyfil]

55. What would a shockwave in space

sound like inside a ship of the imagination. It would make a sound inside as the particles impact the outside of the vessel.

The swooping sounds as the vehicle travels - could it be the sound of the internal engines??? Reaching here I guess.

Another problem was when Herschel gave his son a spy glass to see the binary star system. That obviously did not happen.

[longship]

83. That particular double is fairly easy to split.

One could do it with any of Herschel's scopes. I have done it myself with a just above 4 inch scope. Algieba is an about 5 arcseconds double. It is likely that Herschel did not show his son it with a hand held scope, but as John was also an astronomer, his father likely showed him Algieba in his rather larger scopes.

Alas, such is the narratives in telling a story. No failure there.

[sakabatou]

42. It's an audience thing to add noise in space

[sulphurdunn]

72. Right.

[eppur_se_muova]

24. "We didn't expect to get caught" -- that makes it a "mistake", not a LIE. nt

[jakeXT]

25. Sound is good

[CanSocDem]

102. That is brilliant.

And the point they make about the 'danger to pedestrians' from a silent car is real. CBS should've hired this guy.


.

[truebrit71]

26. Just like their Benghazi oopsie? What a joke that show has become...

...

[Warpy]

30. The major auto manufacturers are scared shitless of Tesla

and are doing all the disinformation and outright sabotage that they can. They know full well Tesla is the first car of the future and that they aren't yet equipped to compete.

60 Minutes has been completely destroyed by the right wingers. It's no longer worth watching between the puff pieces on wingnuts and the hatchet jobs on anything outside fascist dogma.

[SunSeeker]

34. What I love it that the Tesla is becoming a status symbol for the 1% here in L.A.

You see them parked in the most expensive homes. I think it's because the car costs so much and looks so cool. I don't think they particularly give a shit about the environment. But hey, at least they are in fact helping the environment, and by increasing Tesla sales, the likelihood of the development of an affordable electric car for the rest of us.

[Warpy]

51. Well, that and it's a blast to drive

I rode an electric moped for some time and it was great. I'd leave cars in the dust at stop lights because the acceleration was so quick and smooth. It was also silent, just the noise of the tires on pavement and under it a very small hiss from the drive belt. The Tesla is the same, scaled up.

Their plan is to come out with an ordinary sedan at some point, something produced in larger quantity and priced lower. At that point, I'll consider buying one and the solar panels to charge it.

So go on, top 10 percenters, buy them as status symbols so they can get their plans for a sedan off the drawing board.

[Fumesucker]

77. Tesla Co-founder: What the hell did you do to my Porsche?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112762709

This quote from a guy they were initially trying to get as an investor, who had just driven away in his Porsche after test driving a Tesla engineering prototype, and angrily called a few minutes later, is classic: “What the hell did you do to my Porsche? I just spent a quarter of a million dollars on this thing, and it sucks now!“

[Xithras]

31. Audio redubbing is pretty standard in television, movie, and video production.

Adding background bird chirps to an otherwise silent shot of a forest, road noises to a freeway shot, etc. Virtually every foot of prerecorded video that makes it onto television crosses the desk of a sound engineer first, and that persons job is to modify and enhance the audio in a way that makes it seem more "appealing and immersive". Every door slam, every footstep, every windy rustle through the trees is modified, enhanced, or just outright replaced. Even if that means completely faking sounds.

Replacing engine sounds is pretty standard. You've never heard a car engine in a movie or TV show that wasn't modified before broadcast. If the car is too quiet, you isolate the engine noises and increase their volume. If they can't be detected, you dub in a new one.

In this case, after looking at the dubbed footage, I can almost guarantee that the audio was placed by an engineer trying to "enhance" the shot.

[undiegrinder]

35. WHOA! Not in shows classified as "News" they're not!

Everything you say is true about shows categorized as "Entertainment."

However, you're apparently unaware that shows which are classified as "News" (as is "60 Minutes&quot are expected to subscribe to very different and specific rules of journalism.

As I posted above, there's NO WAY that ANYone involved in this "error" was not well-versed in this:

Guidelines for Ethical Video and Audio Editing

The public is greatly affected by how you edit sounds and images for radio and television news stories you put on the air. Photojournalists and editors should exercise the same level of ethical professionalism and accuracy in editing sounds and images as reporters and producers are expected to exercise in their choice of words, soundbites and facts.

Added sounds and music in both television and radio stories have the power of setting the tone for a story and can even change the meaning of the piece. Often the public remembers the visual images in a television story long after they forget the story's narrative. That is testament of the underlying power of "the visual."

RTDNA's Code of Ethics says: "Professional electronic journalists should not manipulate images or sounds in any way that is misleading."

The Code also says journalists should not: "...present images or sounds that are reenacted without informing the public."

The National Press Photographers Association Code of Ethics says: "Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects."

These statements set a foundation for how journalists should think about their responsibility to edit stories in a way that results in stories that are accurate and truthful.

http://www.rtdna.org/content/guidelines_for_ethical_video_and_audio_editing#.UzsBgNhrLmV


No offense intended but I don't understand whay you would go to such lengths to downplay something when you apparently know so little about it.

[Major Nikon]

41. Sounds like you are assuming the editing was intentionally misleading

If it were unintentional, nothing you cut and pasted is worth much. News outlets paste stock audio and video footage into news stories all the time.

[undiegrinder]

47. Sounds like you can't admit you're wrong.

Unlike you, I can admit what I don't know: I don't what motivated an editor to add an unrelated and inaccurate sound effect to a b-roll shot.

What I DO know is that the rules I cited above are WELL-KNOWN to the point of ubiquitous within the News profession, aka "the norm" ... "accepted protocol" ... known, understood, accepted and practiced by ALL staff of any News shows produced by professional and reputable news organizations.

That's why this instance of adding sfx is not so minor as you insist on claiming it is.

Downplaying it by blaming it on ignorance, accident or "because Entertainment shows do it all the time" is ABSURD.

[Major Nikon]

48. First it would help if you could articulate exactly what I'm wrong about

Since you haven't directly contradicted me, it's hard to imagine what that could be so please do elaborate here if you can (I suspect you can't with anything that doesn't resemble a straw filled farm decoy). Please use direct quotes where possible.

In the world most call reality, news outlets dub stock footage. If you think they don't I suspect you don't understand nearly as much as you think.

[undiegrinder]

61. I have, several times now

I've posted (twice) some of the rules by which a "News" show SHOULD be produced. ... to impose STANDARDS of honesty and accuracy for those shows categorized as "News."

In response, you claim that in your "world most call reality" simply claiming "Well, everybody does it!" is acceptable rationale for violating those rules and ignoring those standards.

You refuse to admit or even acknowledge the vital importance of what's been put in place -- whether it's effective or not -- to keep "News" honest, accurate and unimpared by bias.

You don't even realize that instead of a soothing raltionale, "everybody does it" is, in fact, greater cause for alarm.

[Major Nikon]

66. Using my words and inserting your meanings does not score you any points

I'm not claiming everyone violates journalistic standards of ethics. I'm claiming every major news outlet dubs stock audio and video footage. Where you fucked up was the assumption that those two things were mutually exclusive.

Go back and read more closely the standards you are alleging a greater understanding.

"Professional electronic journalists should not manipulate images or sounds in any way that is misleading."

It does not say no manipulation can take place.

If there is no intent to mislead, there is nothing unethical.

[undiegrinder]

73. Correcting them sure does.

For example ...

YOU need to go back and read more closely the standard YOU posted:

"Professional electronic journalists should not manipulate images or sounds in any way that is misleading."

It does not say no manipulation can take place.

If there is no intent to mislead, there is nothing unethical.

Something wrong with your eyes? That does NOT read "in any way INTENDED to be misleading" ... it clearly reads "in any way that is misleading."

So, look ... can we cut just the rhetorical crap here for a second and be honest? I'm hammering away here because, as I've stated, it really bugs me when some people cite a lot of B.S. with the apparent intent of influencing others about an issue. Okay?

So what's your deal? Why are working so hard to (IMHO) downplay this story? If it really IS such a small deal and non-issue, why devote so much of your time to it?

If you don't feel there's anything wrong, why not just let those of us "having a cow" to just have our cows, then consume the afterbirth and, finally, make sure the little sucker stands up right away like it's suipposed to before falling into an exhausted sleep?

[Major Nikon]

75. So let me see if I understand your logic

If they intended to be misleading, this is unethical, but if they didn't intend it to be misleading it's still unethical.

Brilliant!

So what's your deal? Why are working so hard to (IMHO) downplay this story? If it really IS such a small deal and non-issue, why devote so much of your time to it?

The more obvious question is why you'd feel such a big need to devote so much time trying to make it so.

Just sayin'

[AngryAmish]

81. If I was a sounderstanding engineer, every car sound would come from Bullitt

That was music.

However the new turbo/hybrid Fi cars sound really cool. Mine is a minority view on the new F1.

[DeSwiss]

59. ''News outlets paste stock audio and video footage into news stories all the time.''

Making their stories no longer ''news.''

It's unethical.

There's NO wiggle room.

- Period.

[Major Nikon]

68. Really?

So if News8 posts a stock photo of a Malaysian airliner on their headline story about MH370, it's no longer "news".

[DeSwiss]

85. Stock footage of an actual Malaysian airliner as the one lost = news.

- Altering actual footage to make it more *anything damned thing* = not news. Once that line is crossed all bets on truth are off. Because once the line is crossed, we won't know when they're lying to us, or for us.

Capice?

[Major Nikon]

90. So stock footage becomes news when you say it is

Got it

[DeSwiss]

92. Now you're cooking with gas. :-/ n/t

[Nihil]

88. Your analogy would be more accurate ...

... if it referred to posting a stock photo of an American Airlines Boeing 777 on a headline story about the
Air France Airbus crash ...

[Heywood J]

94. I'll believe it was an accident when 60 Minutes

accidentally overdubs Yakkity Sax on one of their segments.

[Xithras]

60. Seriously? All 60 Minutes segments are scripted and posted.

Have you ever actually watched the show? It's investigative infotainment, and it regularly uses reenactments, simulations, and other heavily produced bits. More importantly, the show presents its reports as investigative stories, not as "unbiased news reports". This particular story wasn't even technically a "news" bit, but was an interview and examination of Elon Musk (and an overwhelmingly positive one at that). It is not a hard news show. It's "news" the way National Geographic is "news" (hint: those pretty photos are "enhanced" too).

The RTDNA guidelines are intended for journalists disseminating hard news stories to CNN, evening news joints, and other actual "news" outlets. They don't apply to scripted and produced shows like 60 Minutes. It's nice when they live by them anyway, but there is nothing unethical about audio engineering a show like this.

And what "lengths" are you talking about? You seem to be the only one having a cow over this.

Here's a bit of info for you: Back in the late 90's I briefly worked for NBCi when they were based in San Francisco and NBC was trying to cash in on the DotCom craze with a portal site. While I worked with Internet services, working for NBC gave me lots of access to the company and I regularly worked in Burbank and New York as we tried to integrate them (and their shows) with the content portal. One thing I learned was that EVERYTHING they put on television (and prepped for web use), with the sole exception of hard news delivered during nightly news segments, went through post-production before it ever saw a screen. That included "investigative" scripted pieces that ran during news broadcasts, but weren't considered "news reporting". I know this because we got our hand smacked once when they learned that we had an in-house web content guy reformatting their video broadcasts for online use, which was apparently a violation of NBC's union contract (which said that ALL post-production video work had to go through their post-production offices). After that, we became quite familiar with their "post guys" when we needed to have video content reworked. Today everything is automated, but back in those early days the post guys had to generate the online versions by hand.

EVERYTHING on that network went through post-production except hard news. I know that 60 Minutes is on CBS, but this is the way the entire business works.

[undiegrinder]

64. Thanks for sharing your wealth of ignorance.

You're apparently unwaware that

1. "News" is a formal category of TV programming, not a subjective label slapped on a show by its viewers.

2. The majority of content on "News" shows is edited before it's broadcast.

3. There are rules of ethics in place, the purpose of which is to insure that ALL aspects of "News" production -- including editing -- result in fair, accurate and unbiased reporting.

4. "60 Minutes" -- regardless of what you think of it or how it looks to you -- is produced by CBS News, is officially designated as a "News" show, and is, therefore, supposed to be produced in accordance with these rules.

5. Your argument that because something goes through post-production it's somehow NOT subject to these rules is incorrect.

6. Your description of what media is governed by the RTDNA guidlines is incorrect.

7. Your claim that "there is nothing unethical about audio engineering a show like this one" IS correct -- virtually EVERYTHING that's broadcast goes through some kind of audio post! But -- again -- because "60 Minutes" is designated a News show, there are rules governing what should and should not be done in audio post and adding inaccurate sound effects is NOT permissable.

8. I am an infertile human being and am therefore incapable of "having a cow." I am, however, vehemently opposed to the increasingly common practice of commenters posting heresay, opinions, ignorance and outright misinformation as if it's factual, apparently for the sole purpose of shaping public opinion.

[Xithras]

76. Our opinions are worth what we charge for them.

You're talking about the way things "should be". I'm talking about what I've actually seen, in my own experience. But, if you want to sit there and rail on about the way things "should be", go right ahead.

Even if I were to concede your point (which I don't), it would still be irrelevant. The RTDNA guidelines are there to prevent misrepresentation or falsehoods in news broadcasts. If this was a video piece about Tesla engine noise, changing the audio would be unethical without question. If it was a video piece about the QUALITY of Tesla's, it would be unethical. If it was a piece about the engineering that went into the car, it would probably be unethical. If it was just a general piece about Tesla's in general, you MIGHT have a point, though you're getting into murky territory there.

The video bit was a puff piece on Elon Musk, where the Tesla was simply one of many subjects discussed regarding his business empire. The presence of the Tesla video was incidental to the piece, and the audio of the Tesla bore no relation whatsoever to the actual subject of the "news" broadcast. It was neither pro-Tesla or anti-Tesla. Core to the idea of misrepresenting something is the idea that you are presenting it in the first place. The Tesla shot was purely decorative, and changing the audio (and a very quiet audio track in a background shot at that) is no more "misrepresentation" than adding a lens flare would be. That's not the sort of thing the RTDNA guidelines were created to address.

So, as far as I'm concerned, even if you're right, you're wrong.

[Major Nikon]

38. Exactly

Movie studios have entire teams of audio engineers that do just that. Dialog is recorded with the video, but pretty much all other noises (many of which are barely perceivable) are dubbed and many of those sounds are manufactured in other studios.

You see a car, you dub in car sounds. The whole thing seems like a pretty harmless error that was discovered and fixed after the first airing.

[undiegrinder]

40. Nope ... WRONG.

Why are you too attempting to downlplay something you know nothing about?

"60 Minutes" is a NEWS show and is therefore (supposed to be) produced under very different, far more stringent rules like those I've posted above.

[Major Nikon]

45. Why are you attempting to emphasize something you know nothing about?

Nothing in what you posted prohibits 60 minutes or any other "NEWS show" from using stock material. If you think it does, then you are "WRONG".

Just sayin'

[undiegrinder]

56. Why are you SO determined to mischaracterize this issue?

Radio and Television are regulated media, (unlike print, film and the web, which are protected media). Regulation of technology, structure and content comes through Congress to the Federal Communications Commission.

http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/class/law/oldstuff/1.9broadcast.html

Technically, the FCC imposes standards and practices which SHOULD be followed and most often are.

But would the FCC likely pursue a News show for inserting a single inaccurate sound effect? Hardly ... not when they're so busy punishing obscene word-droppers and boob-exposers

However, broadcast news organizations are also (in theory) compelled to adhere to rules of journalistic ethics (like those I posted above) because it's how they maintain their credibility and reputability. Those standards are part of what's SUPPOSED to prevent TV News from becoming outright propaganda (though, as has become obvious, they're not always observed)..

These rules of broadcast journalism are IMHO arcane, involved and not always obvious.

An example: decades ago, while working on an entertainment TV show, I had occasion to work with an on-camera interviewer whose background was in News.

It was a one camera shoot so we first shot the celeb answering the questions while the interviewer stood off-camera asking them and then, after the celeb had gone, the camera was turned around and we shot the interviewer asking each question.

Because I, at the time, knew nothing about the rules governing News, at one point I asked the interviewer to re-word his question simply for clarity's sake. He not only refused, he was also rather insulted by my request. I didn't understand what the big deal was until it was later explained to me that, under News' standards, what I'd asked was considered unethical because it was NOT what happened during the actual interview.

Now, of COURSE people who know better are violating these standards all the time! But what ultimately does "prohibit" a News organization from falsifying (even slightly) programs produced under the essential standards of what's purported to be "the Truth"?

PUBLIC OUTCRY ... something which you -- despite displaying considerable ignorance about the details of this particular case -- seem adamant to belittle and downplay by posting misinformation.

[closeupready]

49. It might not be major, but it certainly isn't harmless.

The Tesla is much quieter than a traditional car. However, the sound department/engineers substituted the sound of a traditional car in place of the Tesla's sound.

In isolation, no, it's not a major big deal. But within the context of a year in which they've made MANY missteps, it must be quite embarrassing.

[Major Nikon]

52. Where's the harm?

Anyone who is in the market for a Tesla and doesn't understand a car with no combustible engine is not going to make combustible engine noises would seem to have bigger problems.

[closeupready]

58. Okay, I get it, you aren't going to back away from your point.

Cheers.

[Major Nikon]

74. Has nothing to do with my point

You said it wasn't harmless, I asked where's the harm?

If you don't want to support your own point then please just say so.

[undiegrinder]

65. Follow YOUR logic and ...

What's the harm of boosting the sound effect's volume level?

What's the harm of adding the sound of a long, loud FART instead of a car? (It'd be SOOO funny, Dood!)

Where exactly do YOU draw the line when it comes to accurate reporting?

[Major Nikon]

67. How about you answer my question first?

Just a thought.

[undiegrinder]

69. Try reading the comment you responded to.

Just a thought.

[IDemo]

50. Replacing an electric motor audio with a Camaro V8 sound

Whoever is responsible, they might as well have flubbed their lower lip with their forefinger to get that satisfying if completely erroneous Tesla sound. Embarrassingly amateurish.

[The Wizard]

39. OK Sixty Minutes

Tell us again about Benghazi. Mike Wallace must be spinning in his grave.

[sakabatou]

44. That's a major screw-up

[Augiedog]

46. A Gregory moment

Maybe 60 minutes can marry up with meet the press and adopt baby McCain and prove that dishonesty and irrelevancy are the perfect match for journalistic seventh ring of hell. Bye bye 60 minutes, you bunch of dumb asses.

[Inkfreak]

54. We've got trust issues 60..it's time we separated permanently. (nt)

[Alkene]

62. Are you suggesting that the ticking stopwatch sound isn't real either?

[PSPS]

70. Why does any news editing room even have foley equipment in the first place?

[Doctor_J]

78. They need one of those disclaimers that the rest of the fictional programs have

"Any similarities to actual persons or events is purely incidental"

[jmowreader]

80. Did they at least pick a cool car to use?

I'd be kinda offended if they'd have dubbed a Civic-with-fart-tube noise instead of...oh, a Vette or a Road Runner.

Too bad they can't make those produce "car noises" in parking lots to keep people from getting run over. It would be pretty easy: put a speaker up front and play a digitized recording of Steve McQueen's Mustang from "Bullitt" when you're under 10mph and you've got a "parking lot" switch turned on.

[kelliekat44]

84. Oh, no...not 60 minutes! Just can't trust any media or journalists anymore. nt

[Rhiannon12866]

86. Paging Don Hewitt...

[Jesus Malverde]

87. Lulz

to whomever made this.

[Fumesucker]

95. Instant classic..

[JoePhilly]

101. Too funny ... they should have done one that sounded like a playing card

smacking against bike spokes.

[GeorgeGist]

89. CBS ...

Canned Bull Shit.

[fascisthunter]

96. This is The Problem with our Corporate Media

They can deliberately skew news for business interests. This was not an "error" in my opinion. Who owns CBS again?

[U4ikLefty]

97. Tesla got "Dean Screamed"

by accident of course.

[wordpix]

98. Tesla is completely quiet, really nice car

My bro bought one, it's awesome

[Sunlei]

99. a sound dubb error, makes massive media headlines?..*someone(s)* must not like 60 mins or Teslas

media war$, car war$. warz of words from, professional 'critics'.