Entertainment desk
< October 1	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 2

Song identification

This might be a tricky one...

I have a bit of a song stuck in my head and can't think of the title or artist. And as far as lyrics go, I just have a sound... It goes:

Oh... Oh... Oh, Oh, Oh, <drum beat> <drum beat> Oh... Oh... Oh, Oh

I think it came out in the 80s and hit the US Pop charts. Any ideas? Dismas|^(talk) 05:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See You Got It (The Right Stuff). Danny, Donny, Joe, John, and Jordan are glad to be playing in your head (or anywhere for that matter). --Jayron32 05:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was hoping you were still online since I figured that if anyone got it on the first try, you would. I'm certain this is the first time that NKotB have shown up in my YouTube history... <shiver> Dismas|^(talk) 05:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was an eephus-kinda question. I was busy listening to Metallica and Van Halen at the time, but you've basically quoted the most famous lyrics of the most famous NKOTB song. --Jayron32 05:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines, I've been using bands/artists like Volbeat, Ozzy, and The Cult to purge the NKOTB song from my head. It's going well so far. Dismas|^(talk) 06:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me recommend Stiff Little Fingers as well. Good for what ails ya. --Jayron32 17:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like Meg Ryan's line from that famous scene from When Harry Met Sally..., just before the woman at the other table says "I'll have what she's having". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harry gave her "the right stuff". --Jayron32 06:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, the woman who says that line is Rob Reiner's mother. Dismas|^(talk) 06:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Estelle Reiner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh God! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Estelle Reiner." is the correct answer. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought in the USA, people had to give consent to news shows putting their face on air

I've seen, for moments, at least, while flipping through the channels, the incredibly awkward show in which a reporter named Chris Matthews walks in on dudes caught in underage sex stings after they've walked onto the premises and the young actress walks out of the room. I wonder, isn't it the case that people have to sign consent forms to allow TV networks to show their faces on their shows? If this is the case, what reason could people have for allowing themselves to get humiliated nationwide? Same goes for the less self-character-assasinating show "What would you do?" which is like a kind of odd moral candid-camera, specifically wondering about the people who badly "failed" the test and looked very bad. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Chris Hansen, and the show was To Catch a Predator. I would have thought the answer is that consent forms are not required, since if they were, none of the people featured would ever sign one. --Viennese Waltz 22:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Matthews is a political news guy. Yeah, that's the show. I've seen news shows in which some people's faces are blurred, while others right next to them aren't, which made me think waivers were part of the deal. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting detail in Chris Hansen: "In 2011, it has been reported that Chris Hansen has been caught cheating on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter." You'd think he of all people would know the risk of getting caught doing what you're not supposed to do, and especially at a news agency! 67.163.109.173 (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What 'you're not supposed to do' is not remotely the same as what 'is illegal,' and in any case, this tangent is not a topic for this website. --Onorem ♠Dil 04:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea of a consent form is to provide legal cover, should the parties sue for being misrepresented on TV. However, if the TV show has sufficient proof that the person did what they are portrayed as having done, then they should win any lawsuit, and get a rating's boost from the trial, too. StuRat (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems the bar for "yeah they did it, so we can show their face before any trial" is unrelated to "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". 67.163.109.173 (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. There is some risk there that if the person is found to be innocent of the charges, the show could be sued, but, if their proof is strong enough, that's not likely to happen. What's really risky is just passing on allegations from others, which they haven't verified for themselves, as fact. For example, Nancy Grace seems to regularly accuse people of crimes without knowing the facts, and has been sued as a result. StuRat (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember hearing about her roasting the Duke lacrosse team continually while that case was ongoing, then being absent from her show the next day after they were found not guilty by way of the girl's admission. (my source: The Daily Show) 67.163.109.173 (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she was also found guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. She should have been a prosecutor back in the Salem witch trials, where her methods would fit right in. StuRat (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

A bit off-track, but the accuser in the Duke LaCrosse case never admitted anything. However, the investigation by the state showed that the case was a lie, and they fired and disbarred the local D.A. He's still better off than the accuser, though, who's now sitting in jail for murder. And, yes, Nancy Grace has often found herself on the wrong side of the eventual outcome of a trial. Too emotionally invested to see the facts clearly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See how they do it on shows like COPS. As I recall, they will blur the faces of "innocent bystanders" or others not charged with any crime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in high-profile cases, at least, there's no effort to hide the faces of the accused. I doubt very much that the Batman guy was asked for permission. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the "What would you do" show in which no laws were broken, they rely on the marks signing waivers? Amazing they can find people who, when seeing an actor put rufies in a girl's drink then smile and pretend they didn't see anything and be seen not trying to tell anyone, then get shamed by John Quinones, and then sign a waiver so millions of people can look down on them? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people will do anything to be on TV. Others might be compensated. StuRat (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a person is in a public area, they lose some of their privacy rights when it comes to being filmed or photographed. My wife runs into this a bit since she occasionally photographs public events. She can use the photos for her own gain and sell them even though the people, who are easily identifiable in the photos, never signed any model releases or waivers. Now, I've never seen the show in question but there may be something like that going on. Also, again from my own experience, I walked into a library/museum in New York City once and on the door, as well as scattered throughout the building, they had signs saying that filming was going on for a promotional video about the library. The signs went on to say that by being in the building that day, that you were willing to possibly be filmed. I'm not sure if they had to do this or if they were just doing a bit of CYA. Dismas|^(talk) 00:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one, the US supreme court has ruled that there is no presumption of privacy in a criminal act. See Bowers v. Hardwick. Two, there is generally freedom of the press, so people in images where they happen to appear coincidentally, such as some joe shmoe being in the area when a newsworthy event like a home run in a sports stadium happens, don't have a right to prevent an image from being published just because they are in it. But, three, taking a picture of a famous person simply to use their image to sell as such without their permission can be seen as a violation of their right to their image--it's a civil case. The borderline is that courts usually find liberally for the press when they argue that an image of a famous person is newsworthy because of some other factor, like their being pregnant and showing or publicly drunk. California has passed or had proposed various recent paparazzi laws, [1] [2]. These have yet to be upheld or overturned in court. See expectation of privacy and open fields doctrine among many other topics. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I can't recall any details or the definitive outcome, but I remember this somewhat similar event from ten or twenty years ago: A police department permitted a TV news crew to accompany them when they raided someone's apartment for some reason (drugs?). Later the resident sued the TV station; I remember a judge saying that the TV crew had no more right to be there than would a common burglar. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. law on defamation is very disjoint. One used to need only show a false claim caused damages. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan the Supreme Court introduced the notion that you also had to "prove" actual malice, which is impossible to do without a memo or email document saying "let's get this guy regardless of the facts". Only a minority think that is fair, but Congress has two lobbies: the do and say anything media, with their money, and the small and unorganized number of people who are either victims of, or who care about defamation enough to spend money on it. No federal law has been passed to counteract New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly the full "Sullivan" standard. The plaintiff in a defamation suit would need to either show actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Which is to say, you can still win a defamation suit if you can show that the publisher of the falsehoods made no reasonable attempt to verify the truthfulness of their statements. The media still can't just make stuff up; there still needs to be some good-faith journalism going on. --Jayron32 04:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bit of a wrinkle, however. In the Chris Hansen / Predator TV shows, they are usually filming in a private residence (not at some outdoors public spot). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro is correct, in most states unless it is law enforcement or some other exception you can film and tape anything you wish inside a building you own that is usually not open to the public and if someone happens to walk on in tough luck. Also I thought there were 2 standards for defamation one if the person is a public figure and then a lower standard if it is a non public figure. Marketdiamond (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]