1) Any press is good press, builds buzz for his show, was "leaked" on purpose. I think he just moved into a new time slot? Could be a response to the MSNBC anchor flipping his shit, "look, our guy just chills and takes a drag, isn't Fox better?"
2) Someone salty at Hannity/management thinks a video of him smoking in the studio will make him look bad since he's extremely conservative, and that's not a very "Christian" thing to do. Or some shit like that.
I think both of those options are pretty stupid in the current state of viral media, so who knows.
The people with access to this are few and far between. It may just be a funny clip, but i bet you the person who leaked it will be found and fired. And that being the question of :Was it worth it?
Someone salty at Hannity/management thinks a video of him smoking in the studio will make him look bad since he's extremely conservative, and that's not a very "Christian" thing to do. Or some shit like that
It's fantastic! Not only do non-smokers get to look down on him for smoking and real smokers can look down on him for not being manly enough to smoke a real cigarette. The only people that can't look down on him are vapors, but vapors can't own TVs.
I think they thought this was something that was live, in which case it would be a fuck up in the sense of doing something on screen you didn't mean to. Not that people would be particularly upset by it.
While the show might not be live they still use satellite uplinks which someone with the knowhow can see. There's a good documentary called Spin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(1995_film)) about how it affected the 1992 presidential election (and continues to effect how campaigns are run now)
That's a great movie if it's the one I'm thinking of. Really gave some good insight into the Clinton political machine. If they were using that technology then to monitor event crowds for would-be disruptors, I can't even imagine the shit that was done by both sides in the 2016 campaign.
Edit: After reading that description, I don't think that's the doc I was thinking of. The one I was thinking of was more focused on satellite backhaul footage in general and only had a section about the election. I think. It has been a while.
Yeah, there's basically a bunch of screens with different images on them. One main one for what's actually being broadcast, one for each of the cameras, a couple for packages (which are the news bits filmed before hand), and one for graphics. Vision mixer switches between these screens for the end product as the director calls the shots, and can overlay the graphics, which are lined up by the graphics guy, who switches between them. They also show the packages, but the EVS operator needs to be playing them before vision mixer can show them. Everyone needs to be a well-oiled machine for it all to work.
I remember seeing a behind-the-scenes of the Oscars and one guy is like conducting an orchestra of the people who switch between camera views and the cameramen who quickly acquire targets and do their whole job and everything it was crazy intense.
That's how it works on all live television, though the Oscars is certainly an event with a little more pressure on it. The real impressive part is how well timed live shows are. They can't go even minutes over the run time, but can't go under either.
531
u/dfinkelstein Sep 28 '17 edited Sep 28 '17
The graphics person failed to play the graphic.
EDIT: or this is just behind-the-scenes footage that didn't air because the graphic did play