CBC Gets Two Stories About George Lucas Totally Mixed Up
from the mashup! dept
Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, but we keep hearing how it's the professional press that actually checks fact, and it's the blogs that rush out stories that are factually weak. And yet... there seem to be plenty of examples of the "professionals" going to press with stories that clearly weren't fact checked or researched. Robert Ring points us to an article in the CBC supposedly about a new film coming from George Lucas. The only problem is that it seems to take two totally separate George Lucas films, and thinks they're the same exact film, making for quite the odd story. You see, Lucas has been working for quite some time on a film called Red Tails, all about the Tuskegee Airmen, which he wrote and executive produced (but didn't direct). That film is in post-production and should be out in the nearish future. Just recently, stories came out about a totally unrelated, and totally different project that Lucas was involved in -- a computer animated musical about fairies. Yeah, don't ask.These are clearly two separate films... unless you're a reporter for the CBC apparently:
George Lucas is tackling his first musical, a film about the Tuskegee Airmen, the first group of African-American pilots.While we're big supporters of mashups and remix culture, this isn't exactly what we meant...
According to the Hollywood Reporter, Lucas is working on the movie Red Tails at his Skywalker Ranch in California.
Plot details for the computer-animated film are not being released, but it is known that fairies play a role.
The article continues to bounce back and forth over the details of the two movies, as if they were the same thing. Perhaps this is why the CBC put in place a terms of service that required sites to get permission before quoting any CBC articles...
Update: Despite the article being up for over a week without a correction, within hours of this post, they changed the article around. Luckily... we've got screenshot:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fact checking, george lucas, reporting, tuskeegee airmen
Companies: cbc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blockbusters
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is it me...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tuskegee Fairies
Otherwise I'd never have known that fairies could fly planes.
(sarc)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another Movie
"They're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Is it me...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Tuskegee Fairies
Seriously? You didn't already know that? They have their own association and everything....
www.ngpa.org
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Blasphemy!! Howard the Duck was an amazing piece of cinema the likes of which the world has yet to see again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And for that, we're all thankful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Do not...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Do not...
FTFY
You see, there's two sides to every Schwartz. Some get the upside, I've got the downside....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Tuskegee Fairies
Dude to funny !!!
Thats almost as funny as watching a picture of the Queen of england burn in the Village (NYC) and saying thats not the sort of flaming queen I would expect to see around here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Damn It! That was Entertainment Gold
The funniest production of the CBC in years and they delete it!
They did acknowledge the mistake in a note.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Damn It! That was Entertainment Gold
Don't worry. I had one. Now added to the post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Damn It! That was Entertainment Gold
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good Example?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Good Example?
Nope. But it's funny. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Good Example?
Then we get out into the industry and discover that fact-checking is an afterthought at many publications, if they do it at all.
So I guess this isn't the worst example, no - but in a way the simplicity and stupidity of this example are what make it so good: if they can't get a brief report on a Kevin Smith movie right, how can they be trusted on any complicated issue with gray areas and conflicting statements? News outlets are supposed to be the arbiters of fact in those situations...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Good Example?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Good Example?
In any case I do know which STORY I'm talking about, I just got sloppy in precisely the way this article did. It's a pretty fantastic demonstration at my own expense, really.
Of course, the real point is that I just typed quickly and pressed Submit, and these are exactly the sort of errors that happen when you do that. Had I been publishing this on a national news website, I would have at the very least read it over. News organizations try to claim they are incapable of such mistakes, and yet they make them all the time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]