Thursday, November 8, 2007

Boston TV station still babbling about fake crowd noise at RCA Dome


Check out this credible form of journalism.

WBZTV, based in Boston, interviews one of it's own to justify the allegations the Indianapolis Colts piped artificial crowd noise into their sound system last Sunday while their opponent, the New England Patriots, possessed the ball.

This type of journalism is like asking Condoleeza Rice to criticize George W. Bush's Iraq policy.

An unknown reporter from the TV station asks loaded questions and makes leading comments ("So you've covered sports for a number of years and you've heard all different kinds of crowds but this one was different...") to a station's 'photojournalist,' aka cameraman, about his experience at the RCA Dome last Sunday.

The cameraman, named Bryan Foley, said it hurt his ears and he wondered how a crowd could sustain the ear-piercing noise level for as long as it did.

Foley claims during the first quarter he asked an unidentified security guard about the noise, to which he responded, "I don’t know if you know this, but they actually pick up the crowd noise and pump it back through the P.A. (public address system)."

This story ran on Tuesday, the day after the NFL cleared the Colts of any wrongdoing and CBS claimed the audio blip was their broadcast malfunction.

The reason WBZTV is still pouring over this is anyone's guess. We could go media agenda or even conspiracy theory here. WBZTV, afterall, is a Boston media outlet. With the well-known controversy called 'SpyGate,' the Boston media may be looking to divert negative attention to someone else. Why not the heated rival Colts, who've had the Pats' number the past few meetings, and have been accused in the past of piping fake audio into the RCA Dome.

Even the brief media/blog frenzy that surrounding this case could have caused WBZTV producers to press Foley into a muddied account of his experience, all in the name of sensationalism.

Do we sound like a conspiracy theorist? Perhaps a bit. But it's better than WBZTV's "reporting."

No comments: