ABC exposed using OLD Putin video to Claim Putin has Returned

Thanks for posting. Just another manic Monday.

I can't wait to see where this goes.

S+F

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: noeltrotsky

They just mixed in some old footage so it seems.

‘It’s boring without rumors’: Putin appears in public after week of MSM hysteria

It is interesting that ABC would go with old footage in a story that opened with Putin finally returning. Like they were trying to have a secret laugh at their own viewers?

Are they not paying RT for the current footage to try and save money? What exactly is ABC doing???

Stock footage. News agencies do it all the time. It has more to do with being able to broadcast "breaking news" as it breaks, than anything nefarious.

I really wish people would just let this die. I am no fan of Putin's, but this entire charade has reached ridiculous proportions. One has to wonder how it was even considered "news" in the first place. Nothing more interesting to talk about, I guess?

Why is Charles Grodin wearing a wig in that ABC News broadcast?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

So ABC is allowed to run 'stock footage' in a story confirming Putin held a meeting today? And we should just all move along after it gets exposed?

Sorry, not me. Putin may very well be back. ABC has been exposed never the less.

Hmmm, interesting. Now, did RT pull some stock footage of Putin saying "Life is boring without rumors." ??

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
a reply to: DeadSeraph

So ABC is allowed to run 'stock footage' in a story confirming Putin held a meeting today? And we should just all move along after it gets exposed?

Sorry, not me. Putin may very well be back. ABC has been exposed never the less.

Fox news is not reporting this (not confirming) a return of Putin.

More footage of the meeting back in April 20, 2014

www.videokub.me...

Stock footage gets used all the time. NEVERTHELESS, there should be text on the screen saying "stock footage" to avoid misrepresenting what they are supposed to be presenting as news.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

So ABC is allowed to run 'stock footage' in a story confirming Putin held a meeting today?

Why not? If stock footage bothers you so much, you should expose it every time, not just when it's used in a story about Putin.

And we should just all move along after it gets exposed?

Nothing wrong with fact checking, but I remain convinced that this entire story has been blown way out of proportion from the very start.

Sorry, not me. Putin may very well be back. ABC has been exposed never the less.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess. I don't see it as a big deal, as news agencies do it all the time for breaking stories. I guess you feel differently.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich
Nothing really out of the ordinary here. They just used some old video's for some time filler nothing crazy. It's a common practice.

Now if your second video had them sitting across the table like in the first one then you would be on to something.

Nothing to see here folks.

The ABC story was clearly about Putin returning to the public eye after a long absence...and they ran old footage. Come'on...that isn't normal.

I see it every day on the news. It is normal to use old footage as filler. Only in this case, the ABC never timestamped the old footage.

I sent a comment to ABC asking for a response to this ATS thread. Somehow I don't expect to get a reply!

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich
Nothing really out of the ordinary here. They just used some old video's for some time filler nothing crazy. It's a common practice.

Now if your second video had them sitting across the table like in the first one then you would be on to something.

Nothing to see here folks.

I have to say I agree with this suggestion.
News media uses library footage all the time, and it's presumably worse in the US where no one seems to hold them to any standards.

Looks to me as though ABC just clobbered together some library footage, probably just searched the library for "Putin signing something" and shoved this in there to show the audience something moving while some vacuous talking head blathered on in the way they tend to.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Stock footage is perfectly fine to add context to a story. It sure isn't fine about a story of a missing leader finally being spotted today!

Interesting how people accept it however. When standards have been lowered for so long normal and acceptable simply drops.

Look at 18 seconds...same tie, same shirt, same suit, same hair....

a reply to: Xcathdra

Firstly , That is "ABC"'s Mix up of the footage .

RT Original footage showed non of that other stuff.


Like other Posters stated Its just a MIX of new footage and old footage .

But that's expected from the MSM

Moving Forward !

originally posted by: muchmadness
Why is Charles Grodin wearing a wig in that ABC News broadcast?

LMBO !


I think he Looks a bit better with a wig .


What's up with this Bruce jenner trend ?

I think ABC and their US counterparts might be a little too embarrassed to show their their faces in Russia right now. Stock footage is probably all that US cable news is going to get for the next while.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
I think ABC and their US counterparts might be a little too embarrassed to show their their faces in Russia right now. Stock footage is probably all that US cable news is going to get for the next while.

Or become the next headline (reporter mistaken as a subversive [was holding a video device]) "murdered on a Moscow street''.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
I'm shocked ABC got busted like this. They must be cutting so much costs that they are simply running any footage the FSB sends them.

What a brutal example of MSM 'journalism'...

When the CIA shows up and tells them what do they do it
because they do not want to end up like Breitbart or Hastings.

Operation Mockingbird

a reply to: noeltrotsky

Yeah but they also have him on tape talking about his absence. That would throw this off wouldn't it?

second line