Debunked: CNNs Fake News Broadcasts - Charles Jaco and the Fake Live Gulf War Reports

[Mick West]

CONSPRIACY THEORY CLAIM: CNN ( and mainstream News Media in general) puts out Fake News Broadcasts
WHY: To condition the public to accept propaganda in place of genuine reporting/news
EXAMPLE: CNN's Gulf War Coverage with Charles Jaco

SOURCE:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWY14eyMFg


The hotel they are at is the Dhahran International Hotel, (فندق الظهران الدولى) which is just where Jaco said it was, between the runways of the Dhahran airport. The entire media pool was sequestered there by Saudi authorities, and they did their broadcasts from wooden platforms made specially for the purpose, mostly in the back of the hotel in the pool area. Jack Dorsey described the experience in this 1991 news article:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...-JNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=X4sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1990,2850114

Report by Jack Dorsey - A long, frustrating trip to the Middle East But we owe an explanation here. It's and explanation being shared by many of the 700 journalists who joined the safari to Saudi Arabia, only to be upstaged by CNN and its nightly coverage. No doubt television has made you familiar with the Dhahran International Hotel - or at least the back side of it where the television networks broadcast where the Scud missiles are sighted and where the shelters are located. Maybe you've wondered about those blue balloonlike structures forming the background of Charles Jaco's nightly CNN telecasts. Most thought they were radar domes or complex satellite communication equipment. They are the tops of the sun-shelters and cabanas surrounding the hotel swimming pool. They have that lofty look about them only because the networks have constructed tree-house like broadcast platforms from plywood and 2-by-4s - each one successive one built higher than the first - and they sit atop a minuture golf course initially designed for the enjoyment of the guests.

This is the hotel, they have a lot of blue paneling, which is seen in the video.

Here you can see the "fake" footage matches the windows, colors, and foliage at the front of the hotel. This shot looks like a studio shot because they are using studio lights, outside, at night. They are standing on a raised wooden frame built especially for their reports (one of several, see below). The frame had cameras and light set up just like a little studio.

Here's the Satellite dishes and wooden platforms used at the time, this is at the rear of the hotel, which looks just like the front does.. The strange forms on the green surface at the bottom are a miniature golf course. It's between the hotel building and the pool area.
http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205189267

The footage with the city lights in the background seems to be shot from the roof of the hotel. But it's not really clear, it might just be one of the other platforms.

Here's the front of the hotel again:

Couple of US soldiers out front:
http://user.xmission.com/~tmathews/pixsaud.htm

LA Times report:
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-02-27/news/mn-2134_1_big-blue-bubbles

THE GULF WAR: The International Front : The Big Blue Bubbles


February 27, 1991
Ever wonder what those big blue bubbles are behind the television correspondents during their reports from Dhahran? Did you imagine that the tough, SAPPHIRE-COLORED PLASTIC DOMES were top-secret enclosures, guarding computers full of critical information or protecting sensitive instruments from desert sand? Nope. "They're the showers and changing areas, the cabanas near the swimming pool" at the Dhahran International Hotel, said Catherine Upin, spokeswoman for CBS News. So why does every TV reporter in Dhahran stand in front of the darn things to present their stories? "That's the only shot we're allowed to use," Upin said. "The military will not let us shoot any other way."

The Blue bubbles were behind the CBS platform. CNN's background was the facade of the hotel.

You can see both backdrops in this video:



Which contains these images of some of the media platforms (two images combined from a panning shot)

Here's an email from Jaco that he sent to several sites showing that video, emphasis mine.

I have just now come across a false and defamatory posting on your website from July 28, 2009 titled "Did Charles Jaco Fake a Desert Storm CNN Report". I'm adding your email and your website to the list being sent to my attorneys.
———————
Some of you have written me expressing concern (or as one friend put it "WTF?") about a video making the rounds purporting to show that our Gulf War coverage for CNN in 1991 was done in a studio, not in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait. This email should fill you in as to what's going on.
Others have written me to accuse me of engaging in false news coverage, and a cover-up of the truth. Many of those same people have forwarded those false and defamatory emails to others, and have linked to a website purporting to show the false coverage. This email serves as notice of legal action.
First the facts of the case: our coverage was on the roof of a hotel and military facility near the intersection of the two main runways at the Dhahran Air Base, Western Province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The playwood background was erected as a guard against sand and wind storms. The clowning around on the video is just that. We used black humor to deflect the tension of covering SCUD missile assaults.
Now to the impending action: my attorneys intend to act immediately against those of you receiving this who have sent and forwarded these emails accusing me of falsifying coverage. We are in the process of issuing subpeonas to ISPs for the real names and addresses of the senders. We shall then proceed with lawsuits against those parties.
In addition, letters are being sent to LiveLink and Google (owner of YouTube) and their attorneys demanding the videos be removed.
—————–
Charles Jaco


​

Here's a video of him in the same location with the lights of the city behind him:

Note: This is a Summary Post, of material in the thread below. The original first post follows.

 

[BlueCollarCritic]

I have to say that I'm surprised that there's nothing on MBO (metaBunk.Org) about this already. Here goes (let's see this one debunked):

CONSPRIACY THEORY CLAIM: CNN ( and mainstream News Media in general) puts out Fake News Broadcasts
WHY: To condition the public to accept propaganda in place of genuine reporting/news
EXAMPLE: CNN's Gulf War Coverage with Charles Jaco

SOURCE:

Where the CCN Gulf War Broadcasts with Charles Jaco real meaning was he and the rest of the film crew actually in the Gulf at the time or where they using a fake back drop to report from regardless of whether what they reported was true in part or whole? One of the better arguments I've seen for this being fake is that there was not a sufficient time delay between Charles Jaco and the CNN Newsroom anchor he was speaking to. There was a pause however its hard to tell if its because of an actual delay or if it's the loud siren making it difficult to hear the other person. I believe this was a fake broadcast, something done from some place other than the GULF because of the relaxed and joking nature amongst everyone there at times when they were not live. Back in those days when satellites were not as prevalent amongst user as they eventually became major networks broadcast their feeds openly and so if you had a dish you could capture raw/unedited video footage and that's apparently where this came from.

I doubt anyone will argue that this footage includes unedited feeds, the times when those involved are not live on the air but are still sending a video feed to the source; to CNN. That said the nature of Charles and others there are too relaxing to believe they were anywhere near a real battlefield in the Gulf. Tats not to say they were atop of the CNN new building as some have said but only that they weren't where the claimed to be.

SUMMARY: "So what". If it turns out that this was a fake set done as a way to provide coverage without actually sending reporters into harm's way then so what? What harm is there in that? The problem is that this sets a precedence that it's OK for the media to lie. There's also no logical reason for CNN faking their news reporter being on site in the Gulf. The only logical reason for why CNN would do this is because they in general do not report the news as it occurs but instead produce infotainment as an alternative for the masses in the US. Why? So as to condition the public to accept alternatives to the truth.

I look forward to hearing replies from debunkers on how this was not fake and or the excuses for hwy it was OK for CNN to fake this.

 

[Mick West]

I've marked this one "Debunked:"

 

[BlueCollarCritic]

Thank you Mick for the detailed reply.

 

[Unregistered]

picture of the city looks like a blue screen, and the hotel has no comparable vegetative arrangement to how it is set up in the CNN tape. No landscaper would put a baby palm tree that close to a bush. they are so close they look potted. And the vegetation is too close to the wall. The CNN building in Atlanta also has blue frames on the outside.

 

[jvnk08]

picture of the city looks like a blue screen, and the hotel has no comparable vegetative arrangement to how it is set up in the CNN tape. No landscaper would put a baby palm tree that close to a bush. they are so close they look potted. And the vegetation is too close to the wall. The CNN building in Atlanta also has blue frames on the outside.

Most of this sounds like grasping at straws.

Are you saying it's more likely they shot this in Atlanta? Here is the CNN building in there:

 

[Mick West]

picture of the city looks like a blue screen, and the hotel has no comparable vegetative arrangement to how it is set up in the CNN tape. No landscaper would put a baby palm tree that close to a bush. they are so close they look potted. And the vegetation is too close to the wall. The CNN building in Atlanta also has blue frames on the outside.

So now your evidence is "suspiciously bad gardening".

Look at the actual video. The windows match the hotel windows exactly (unlike the CNN center, which does not match at all). It's the same mix of palms and bushes. And clearly 20 years later there are palms right next to the bushes. And if you look at the satellite image there is vegetation right up to the walls in several spots. The blue design also goes all the way around the building, so there are many spots that this could have been shot in:

 

[Mick West]

I jus found this thread on ATS, where it's even more comprehensivly debunked:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread884162/pg

Just goes to show how good debunks can get lost in a forum. I've incorporated material from the ATS post into my main debunk post above.

 

[Mick West]

Some more photos of the hotel for reference, should people REALLY want to continue to say this is fake:

Pool area, looking South West:

Pool area, looking North West

Pool area, looking South East

 

[Unregistered]

What exactly have you debunked? The entire problem with this video is that they were claiming they were in the middle of SCUD attacks and all sorts of stuff when in reality they are nowhere near anything and they ARE on a set - you showed the pictures in this thread. It was fake. As a side note, I remember watching this exact broadcast on TV when it happened.

 

[Mick West]

What exactly have you debunked? The entire problem with this video is that they were claiming they were in the middle of SCUD attacks and all sorts of stuff when in reality they are nowhere near anything and they ARE on a set - you showed the pictures in this thread. It was fake. As a side note, I remember watching this exact broadcast on TV when it happened.

They did not claim to be in the middle of a Scud attack, they simply said they were warned there might be incoming missiles, so they were rather nervous. They were filming from a hotel that was right next to an airport being used by the military, and hence was a likely target. Remember that at the time Iraq had invaded Kuwait (about 100 miles to the north), and it was thought quite likely they would continue to Saudi Arabi.

Most conspiracy theorists claim the entire thing is fake, and it was actually filmed in some US studio. But really it was exactly where they said it was, and the danger was thought to be quite real.

 

[Truth Only]

Not exactly establishing much credibility for yourself on this website, are you?

 

[Mick West]

Not exactly establishing much credibility for yourself on this website, are you?

I'm not trying for credibility, I'm trying for facts that you can verify yourself. I'd be happy to correct any mistakes above, if you point them out.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

picture of the city looks like a blue screen, and the hotel has no comparable vegetative arrangement to how it is set up in the CNN tape. No landscaper would put a baby palm tree that close to a bush. they are so close they look potted. And the vegetation is too close to the wall. The CNN building in Atlanta also has blue frames on the outside.

Following on from the incredibly detailed debunking provided by Mick, I think this post identifies exactly the problem with 'True Believers' - they simply will not change their minds regardless of the evidence. Ever. I think poor landscaping is a ridiculous reason for continuing to believe anything so comprehensively refuted.

 

[Unregistered]

I think this post identifies exactly the problem with 'True Believers' - they simply will not change their minds regardless of the evidence. Ever.

You know that goes both ways, correct? Who is to say one side is barking in the dark more so than the other?

 

[Mick West]

You know that goes both ways, correct? Who is to say one side is barking in the dark more so than the other?

The evidence says so.

Reality is not a matter of opinion.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

You know that goes both ways, correct? Who is to say one side is barking in the dark more so than the other?

That would be a fair comment IF considerable evidence had been given to prove something and I refused to believe it. This hasn't been the case. If you believe it is the case, then by all means show me where. I base my acceptance of ideas and theories on evidence, not gut instinct or my deeply ingrained cynicism.

 

[Unregistered]

Liars lie to keep their lie hidden and piggy back on the synapsis of the truth mentally engrained, thus they have control of what an individual thinks. Even better than controlling an individual is controlling a multitude of people making it universal control. I often wonder how smart people really claim to be, or are they blinded by their own perceptions? It has to be uneducation in the true sense of education, what is education if it is mis-guided and false. I must admit that it was a system shock for me to have awaken to the tyranny of a small group of humanity. When you change what you are looking at, your perceptions change as well.

 

[Mick West]

Liars lie to keep their lie hidden and piggy back on the synapsis of the truth mentally engrained, thus they have control of what an individual thinks. Even better than controlling an individual is controlling a multitude of people making it universal control. I often wonder how smart people really claim to be, or are they blinded by their own perceptions? It has to be uneducation in the true sense of education, what is education if it is mis-guided and false. I must admit that it was a system shock for me to have awaken to the tyranny of a small group of humanity. When you change what you are looking at, your perceptions change as well.

I take it you don't disagree with the OP then?
And please register if you want to continue the discussion, see:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1332-Why-Register

 

[TrueFiction]

I agree with the poster above that you have not debunked this. Your blanket assertion that most conspiracy theorist claim this thing was filmed inside of the US is completely moot, you have no evidence or knowledge to prove that, and he doesn't claim that. You used a really nasty straw-man to equate that with his opinion. Everything you have posted is in fact completely circumstantial, all of this could easily be false and/or misleading. While I found your argument compelling, I did not find your conclusion to be so, you don't have any real facts. You don't know what happened here. When you claim the you know facts you seem ridiculous to people you might have convinced. The guest brought up a good point and you used debating tactics on him then claimed you were married to facts. Facts can be manipulated, the Truth can't. The general tenor of the conspiracy theory is that CNN pretended they were getting SCUD attacked while they were in fact completely safe, with what you have shown me this isn't necessarily true, but it still may be. A lesson I learned from the other side, try to convince, don't judge it makes you sound like a pompous ass.

 

[Mick West]

I agree with the poster above that you have not debunked this. Your blanket assertion that most conspiracy theorist claim this thing was filmed inside of the US is completely moot, you have no evidence or knowledge to prove that, and he doesn't claim that. You used a really nasty straw-man to equate that with his opinion. Everything you have posted is in fact completely circumstantial, all of this could easily be false and/or misleading. While I found your argument compelling, I did not find your conclusion to be so, you don't have any real facts. You don't know what happened here. When you claim the you know facts you seem ridiculous to people you might have convinced. The guest brought up a good point and you used debating tactics on him then claimed you were married to facts. Facts can be manipulated, the Truth can't. The general tenor of the conspiracy theory is that CNN pretended they were getting SCUD attacked while they were in fact completely safe, with what you have shown me this isn't necessarily true, but it still may be. A lesson I learned from the other side, try to convince, don't judge it makes you sound like a pompous ass.

But surely all the facts indicate that the reports were filmed at that hotel?

You might quibble about the contents of the reports, but I don't think you can deny that they are where they say they are, can you?

 

[xenon]

In the video below, starting at 5:11, Jaco talks with CNN Center, presumably in Atlanta. There is clearly no satellite audio delay - when the anchor at CNN Center finishes speaking, Jaco responds immediately.

​

I'm sure there is a perfectly good explanation for this-besides the theory that they weren't 7000 miles apart, I just don't know what it is. Surely if they were going to fake the whole segment, they would have faked a time delay. SO what technology were these people using to communicate?

 

[Mick West]

I'm sure there is a perfectly good explanation for this-besides the theory that they weren't 7000 miles apart, I just don't know what it is. Surely if they were going to fake the whole segment, they would have faked a time delay. SO what technology were these people using to communicate?

Sonds like there are delays to me, and Jaco does not "respond immediately", he's talking all over the end of the question, starting and stopping as he realizes she has not finished talking.

 

[TrueFiction]

You might quibble about the contents of the reports, but I don't think you can deny that they are where they say they are, can you?

So I am going to "quibble." I never claimed that they weren't there in the first place, quit it with the straw man arguments. What I am saying is that what you posted were in NO WAY facts. You have one unverified assertion from the reporter, a story about building sets and a bunch of pictures of a Saudi Hotel that looks like the set. I have seen more complete evidence that the moon landings were fake (and I don't believe that)while this is circumstantial evidence that strongly points in the direction that this was filmed in Saudi Arabia, it does not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. To say one comment about black humor proves factually that their behavior on the recording is not erratic and inconsistent is illogical. There are plenty of things that could factually prove that this was in Saudi Arabia, that I do not have access to, but you haven't posted any. These might include plane tickets, cross recordings of the reporter made by other networks, local eyewitness accounts or physical evidence of something occurring in that video being verified with real life (place where something is done in the video that can be verified physically). Your arguments are, to my mind, exactly equivalent to the "concipiracy theorists." Neither of you have proven anything and you both think you are absolutely right.

This video has always been one of those rare things on the internet that I scratch my head at and can't come up with a completely cogent opinion. CNN has every interest in drumming up excitement in their coverage by massively overstating the danger of SCUD attacks, and the video recording seems dubious to say the least, but I never had any reason to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that they weren't where they said they were. I still have the exact same opinion of the video as when I started, there probably isn't anything out of the ball park crazy here but something isn't quite right. Not all "conspiracy theories" are as simple as bunk or true. Sometimes, like in this case, the bulk of online rumors are false but there is still something dubious and interesting at play which made everyone look in the first place. Even taking your evidence into account this video still looks unbelievably fake, millions have watched it and I'd wager a majority would say this looks fakerer than a $3 bill. Are you really saying that this is an Officer Barbrady situation (nothing to see here move along people)? At the very least I think CNN staged the whole gas mask part. If they were really under SCUD attack the Saudi military would have forced them to cover as they did in 100s of other documented cases during the Persian Gulf War. Secondly if you actually are attacked why would you continue the recording, this is not a recording documenting what happened but a commentary that adds very little value by occuring while an attack happens. There are some huge problems with this behavior. Either this guy is an atypical hero reporter who loves reporting more than his sense of self preservation or he knew they weren't really under attack and badly over acted.

I posted this not to contend with you on this issue but to ask you to cool it with the Bill O'Really school of debating. We are stuck on the one point here, move forward don't just yell your opinion again and again until your opponent doesn't want to talk to you anymore. Even if you are representing the truth, you won't win anyone to your side like this (and btw I am kinda on your side on this I do believe it happened in Saudi Arabia). Your debunk was an interesting argument I just don't get why you are so obsessed with wining. Why not try to explain the video recording quality, the whole gas mask part, or the lack of Pan shots throughout the entire interview? Rather than just continue to try to prove that you are right why not help educate others on the internet, I bet you will start learning things.

 

[Mick West]

They did not claim to be under Scud attack. They simply said they were warned that there might be a Scud attack, and that they might need gas masks. You can hear the air raid sirens and broadcast warnings in the background.

Really, if you were in that situation, don't you think you'd a little nervous too? In a hotel right next to an air base that would be a target? You don't think you'd put on your gas mask if you though you smelled something? It was very much a real combat situation. Kuwait HAD been invaded, and was just 150 miles away. There was concern that Saudi Arabi would be next.

I really don't know what you mean by the "Bill O'Reilly school of debating". I present a lot of facts about where the footage was shot, and I comment very little beyond that. If you think there's something I got wrong, then point it out.

 

[Oxymoron]

You might quibble about the contents of the reports, but I don't think you can deny that they are where they say they are, can you?

This video has always been one of those rare things on the internet that I scratch my head at and can't come up with a completely cogent opinion. CNN has every interest in drumming up excitement in their coverage by massively overstating the danger of SCUD attacks, and the video recording seems dubious to say the least, but I never had any reason to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that they weren't where they said they were. I still have the exact same opinion of the video as when I started, there probably isn't anything out of the ball park crazy here but something isn't quite right. Not all "conspiracy theories" are as simple as bunk or true. Sometimes, like in this case, the bulk of online rumors are false but there is still something dubious and interesting at play which made everyone look in the first place. Even taking your evidence into account this video still looks unbelievably fake, millions have watched it and I'd wager a majority would say this looks fakerer than a $3 bill. Are you really saying that this is an Officer Barbrady situation (nothing to see here move along people)? At the very least I think CNN staged the whole gas mask part. If they were really under SCUD attack the Saudi military would have forced them to cover as they did in 100s of other documented cases during the Persian Gulf War. Secondly if you actually are attacked why would you continue the recording, this is not a recording documenting what happened but a commentary that adds very little value by occuring while an attack happens. There are some huge problems with this behavior. Either this guy is an atypical hero reporter who loves reporting more than his sense of self preservation or he knew they weren't really under attack and badly over acted.

I'm pretty skeptical but I can't see the big deal in the video.

Mick did a really good job of debunking the location IMO. The video has lots of 'takes'... 'outtakes'... horsing around in it. I doubt if it was 'live' literally due to the number of takes and the caption saying it was 'approved by Saudi Gov' etc but other than that it seems legit.

There is evidence of Scud attacks in the area at that time which prove nothing except 'that was what was going on at the time and place' and is consistent with the video.


[SIZE=-1]By William Claiborne
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, February 26, 1991; Page A01[/SIZE]
[TABLE="width: 100, align: right"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #663300, align: center"] [TABLE="width: 96, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: left"] [SIZE=-1]Post time line
[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
DHAHRAN, Saudi Arabia, Feb. 26—An Iraqi Scud missile hit a makeshift U.S. barracks Monday night, killing 27 American personnel and wounding 98, a U.S. military official said today.



Would be interesting to know the source of the outtakes and the purpose behind yting them.

There appears far stronger evidence in 'fake' reports in other video's on yt. Injured kids being told what to say, fires misrepresented as bombs going off, firing of weapons on cue etc but I really don't understand the problem with this video.

 

[Leifer]

I'm pretty skeptical but I can't see the big deal in the video.....

.....There appears far stronger evidence in 'fake' reports in other video's on yt. Injured kids being told what to say, fires misrepresented as bombs going off, firing of weapons on cue etc but I really don't understand the problem with this video.

Another recent fake CNN video claim....(probably is a manipulated claim of location...but not related to the reporting content).

​

Most speculation is that both reporters were in the same parking lot, because the same vehicles are seen passing behind them.

Here's my take on this one...( I may be wrong)
I think neither of them were in that parking lot.
I am guessing they were both in studios, standing in front of blue/green screens, and the Phoenix footage behind them was composted in.
Here's why:
In both reporters....their resolution and quality of light does not fit the background.

Reporter on the right....has an evenly lit back-light...almost too perfect for a location shot. This quality of backlight is usually only found in a studio setting.

Reporter on the left has all the same studio qualities as the other, but in addition (to my thinking), a real dead giveaway...>>> the reflection on the upper rim of her glasses has multiple light sources....like 4 or more.
Typical parking lot locations may have one extra artificial light source. Even if you add the sun, that's 2 sources. (and bounce-cards if used, are usually not overhead)
Plus if the sun is one source....where's the strong shadow from it ?

Better quality images can be seen on The Daily Show (even better in that episode's show, midway through)

Either way, even if I'm wrong, I think it was just poor/stupid choices by the segment's Director and Producers, not some scandal.....though it will be used by media critics/conspiracy believers as "proof of faked CNN" broadcasting to bolster their other suspicions and arguments.

Hope I wasn't hijacking the thread.

EDIT: The Atlantic Wire claims to have the info scoop on this one...
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/05/nancy-grace-ashleigh-banfield-cnn-parking-lot/64965/

To be fair to Grace and Banfield, they are on two different networks (though they share the same parent company and probably wouldn't be talking to each other if they were true competitors), and cable TV news often features "remote" split-screen interviews with hosts and guests, even when they're in the same building. And Grace and Banfield are both in Phoenix to cover another sensational true-crime tale, the Jody Arias murder case. But despite being on sister stations and the fact Grace would literally only need to walk a few brisk steps to join Banfield on the same camera, the two broadcast teams remain hopelessly torn apart.
Later, Banfield would conduct another interview (this time about Arias) with another Headline News host who was in a different location than Grace, but still in the same parking lot; plus a third HLN regular somewhere else in the Phoenix area.

 

[Cairenn]

Some years ago, a local weather broadcaster had had them move to a broadcast from one of their tower cams. He was describing a lowering cloud deck about 10 miles from the tower cam. The tower cam, however. had a close up view of a tornado that had just dropped and was starting it's path of destruction across downtown Ft Worth. Poor Troy, was in front of a blue screen looking at what he had seen a couple of minutes before.

 

[geeksquad100]

I'm not trying for credibility, I'm trying for facts that you can verify yourself. I'd be happy to correct any mistakes above, if you point them out.

sorry but the whole video where the show is off the air. Is clearly a set and they are not worried about anything or any "attack" or "missiles coming in" or any of that and you keep pointing to pictures of the hotel and what not but when you look at the off air video it is clearly a set and is not part of the hotel and they are not set up against the hotel so it would be the backdrop! Its clearly a set display NOT THE HOTEL! Also at 5:30 of the 10 min video the sirens magically turn off when the the lady reporter looks away and tells them to turn off the sirens. And its not from them cutting the mic of Jaco because he still can be heard talking while the sirens fade away. https://socioecohistory.wordpress.c...sted-producing-fake-news-from-first-gulf-war/

 

[Oxymoron]

sorry but the whole video where the show is off the air. Is clearly a set and they are not worried about anything or any "attack" or "missiles coming in" or any of that and you keep pointing to pictures of the hotel and what not but when you look at the off air video it is clearly a set and is not part of the hotel and they are not set up against the hotel so it would be the backdrop! Its clearly a set display NOT THE HOTEL! Also at 5:30 of the 10 min video the sirens magically turn off when the the lady reporter looks away and tells them to turn off the sirens. And its not from them cutting the mic of Jaco because he still can be heard talking while the sirens fade away. https://socioecohistory.wordpress.c...sted-producing-fake-news-from-first-gulf-war/

I looked a few times, (just to be sure), at 5 on the 10 min vid... I didn't see anyone say 'turn the alarm off', it just stopped. Later Jaco says 'the alarm is the hotel alarm'. Also what makes you think it is a 'set', rather than a small part of the hotel in view?

 

[schaanman]

By FAR the most intelligent response even if I do not entirely agree with it. I parallel the O'reilly sentiment concerning Micks tactics... very much so. CNN has a long history of massaging its broadcasts and this is one of its early and most scrutinized and the 2 most glaring points for me to prove tampering with the perceived truth are the OBVIOUS bizarre actions with the gas masks and the lack of time delay that Mick states that he detects, thus indicating his obsession to prove his point and loss of objectivity. EVEN if this set was created in Saudi Arabia and not elsewhere, the actions show what was then and much more now of this networks callous use of theatrics to bring ratings.

You might quibble about the contents of the reports, but I don't think you can deny that they are where they say they are, can you?

So I am going to "quibble." I never claimed that they weren't there in the first place, quit it with the straw man arguments. What I am saying is that what you posted were in NO WAY facts. You have one unverified assertion from the reporter, a story about building sets and a bunch of pictures of a Saudi Hotel that looks like the set. I have seen more complete evidence that the moon landings were fake (and I don't believe that)while this is circumstantial evidence that strongly points in the direction that this was filmed in Saudi Arabia, it does not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. To say one comment about black humor proves factually that their behavior on the recording is not erratic and inconsistent is illogical. There are plenty of things that could factually prove that this was in Saudi Arabia, that I do not have access to, but you haven't posted any. These might include plane tickets, cross recordings of the reporter made by other networks, local eyewitness accounts or physical evidence of something occurring in that video being verified with real life (place where something is done in the video that can be verified physically). Your arguments are, to my mind, exactly equivalent to the "concipiracy theorists." Neither of you have proven anything and you both think you are absolutely right.

This video has always been one of those rare things on the internet that I scratch my head at and can't come up with a completely cogent opinion. CNN has every interest in drumming up excitement in their coverage by massively overstating the danger of SCUD attacks, and the video recording seems dubious to say the least, but I never had any reason to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that they weren't where they said they were. I still have the exact same opinion of the video as when I started, there probably isn't anything out of the ball park crazy here but something isn't quite right. Not all "conspiracy theories" are as simple as bunk or true. Sometimes, like in this case, the bulk of online rumors are false but there is still something dubious and interesting at play which made everyone look in the first place. Even taking your evidence into account this video still looks unbelievably fake, millions have watched it and I'd wager a majority would say this looks fakerer than a $3 bill. Are you really saying that this is an Officer Barbrady situation (nothing to see here move along people)? At the very least I think CNN staged the whole gas mask part. If they were really under SCUD attack the Saudi military would have forced them to cover as they did in 100s of other documented cases during the Persian Gulf War. Secondly if you actually are attacked why would you continue the recording, this is not a recording documenting what happened but a commentary that adds very little value by occuring while an attack happens. There are some huge problems with this behavior. Either this guy is an atypical hero reporter who loves reporting more than his sense of self preservation or he knew they weren't really under attack and badly over acted.

I posted this not to contend with you on this issue but to ask you to cool it with the Bill O'Really school of debating. We are stuck on the one point here, move forward don't just yell your opinion again and again until your opponent doesn't want to talk to you anymore. Even if you are representing the truth, you won't win anyone to your side like this (and btw I am kinda on your side on this I do believe it happened in Saudi Arabia). Your debunk was an interesting argument I just don't get why you are so obsessed with wining. Why not try to explain the video recording quality, the whole gas mask part, or the lack of Pan shots throughout the entire interview? Rather than just continue to try to prove that you are right why not help educate others on the internet, I bet you will start learning things.

 

[AluminumTheory]

It appears that the creator of this video was being rather deceptive. The parts that were made to look like 2 separate takes are actually the same exact clip right down to the audio wave form.

[video=youtube_share;FexSPYYwAJY]

 

[LoriQ]

In the video below, starting at 5:11, Jaco talks with CNN Center, presumably in Atlanta. There is clearly no satellite audio delay - when the anchor at CNN Center finishes speaking, Jaco responds immediately.

​

I'm sure there is a perfectly good explanation for this-besides the theory that they weren't 7000 miles apart, I just don't know what it is. Surely if they were going to fake the whole segment, they would have faked a time delay. SO what technology were these people using to communicate?

I heard what you were saying about the time delay. I also wonder why Jaco has a gas mask and the other guy has a helmet? Is CNN so cheap they couldn't afford 2 gas masks and 2 helmets? I mean if there was a chemical attack Jaco would survive and the other guy would die. If there was a missle attack Jaco would die and the other guy would survive lol

 

[LoriQ]

I'm pretty skeptical but I can't see the big deal in the video.

Mick did a really good job of debunking the location IMO. The video has lots of 'takes'... 'outtakes'... horsing around in it. I doubt if it was 'live' literally due to the number of takes and the caption saying it was 'approved by Saudi Gov' etc but other than that it seems legit.

There is evidence of Scud attacks in the area at that time which prove nothing except 'that was what was going on at the time and place' and is consistent with the video.


[SIZE=-1]By William Claiborne
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, February 26, 1991; Page A01[/SIZE]
[TABLE="width: 100, align: right"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #663300, align: center"]
[TABLE="width: 96, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: left"] [SIZE=-1]Post time line
[/SIZE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
DHAHRAN, Saudi Arabia, Feb. 26—An Iraqi Scud missile hit a makeshift U.S. barracks Monday night, killing 27 American personnel and wounding 98, a U.S. military official said today.



Would be interesting to know the source of the outtakes and the purpose behind yting them.

There appears far stronger evidence in 'fake' reports in other video's on yt. Injured kids being told what to say, fires misrepresented as bombs going off, firing of weapons on cue etc but I really don't understand the problem with this video.

Yeah that's another thing. It said that the video was cleared by Saudi Arabia yet the report was live. How could Saudi Arabia approve it if they didn't know what CNN was going to say or show?

 

[LoriQ]

Another recent fake CNN video claim....(probably is a manipulated claim of location...but not related to the reporting content).

​

Most speculation is that both reporters were in the same parking lot, because the same vehicles are seen passing behind them.

Here's my take on this one...( I may be wrong)
I think neither of them were in that parking lot.
I am guessing they were both in studios, standing in front of blue/green screens, and the Phoenix footage behind them was composted in.
Here's why:
In both reporters....their resolution and quality of light does not fit the background.

Reporter on the right....has an evenly lit back-light...almost too perfect for a location shot. This quality of backlight is usually only found in a studio setting.

Reporter on the left has all the same studio qualities as the other, but in addition (to my thinking), a real dead giveaway...>>> the reflection on the upper rim of her glasses has multiple light sources....like 4 or more.
Typical parking lot locations may have one extra artificial light source. Even if you add the sun, that's 2 sources. (and bounce-cards if used, are usually not overhead)
Plus if the sun is one source....where's the strong shadow from it ?

Better quality images can be seen on The Daily Show (even better in that episode's show, midway through)

Either way, even if I'm wrong, I think it was just poor/stupid choices by the segment's Director and Producers, not some scandal.....though it will be used by media critics/conspiracy believers as "proof of faked CNN" broadcasting to bolster their other suspicions and arguments.

Hope I wasn't hijacking the thread.

EDIT: The Atlantic Wire claims to have the info scoop on this one...
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/05/nancy-grace-ashleigh-banfield-cnn-parking-lot/64965/

To be fair to Grace and Banfield, they are on two different networks (though they share the same parent company and probably wouldn't be talking to each other if they were true competitors), and cable TV news often features "remote" split-screen interviews with hosts and guests, even when they're in the same building. And Grace and Banfield are both in Phoenix to cover another sensational true-crime tale, the Jody Arias murder case. But despite being on sister stations and the fact Grace would literally only need to walk a few brisk steps to join Banfield on the same camera, the two broadcast teams remain hopelessly torn apart.
Later, Banfield would conduct another interview (this time about Arias) with another Headline News host who was in a different location than Grace, but still in the same parking lot; plus a third HLN regular somewhere else in the Phoenix area.

Yeah well, I do see a big deal about this video. Whether it was in a parking lot or a studio CNN wants us to believe they are communicating via satellite and that they are in two different locations. We can see they are not and they are not using a satellite. Unless, one reporter is say in Atlanta and one is in California and they used the same backdrops so technically they did use a satellite.

 

[LoriQ]

sorry but the whole video where the show is off the air. Is clearly a set and they are not worried about anything or any "attack" or "missiles coming in" or any of that and you keep pointing to pictures of the hotel and what not but when you look at the off air video it is clearly a set and is not part of the hotel and they are not set up against the hotel so it would be the backdrop! Its clearly a set display NOT THE HOTEL! Also at 5:30 of the 10 min video the sirens magically turn off when the the lady reporter looks away and tells them to turn off the sirens. And its not from them cutting the mic of Jaco because he still can be heard talking while the sirens fade away. https://socioecohistory.wordpress.c...sted-producing-fake-news-from-first-gulf-war/

Yep and not only that how come they only get word of a missle attack when they are on the air? When they are off the air and they are horsing around there is no word of an attack.

 

[AluminumTheory]

Yep and not only that how come they only get word of a missle attack when they are on the air? When they are off the air and they are horsing around there is no word of an attack.

The video that you watched was clearly taken out of context to make you think that it is something that it is clearly not. At (approx 0:32) Jaco states that the sirens went off 2 hours ago. But later in the video (6:45) is when is when you actually hear the sirens. Furthermore, the author of this video, used the same clip to make it appear as if it were two separate takes as I showed earlier.

Yeah well, I do see a big deal about this video. Whether it was in a parking lot or a studio CNN wants us to believe they are communicating via satellite and that they are in two different locations. We can see they are not and they are not using a satellite. Unless, one reporter is say in Atlanta and one is in California and they used the same backdrops so technically they did use a satellite.

Well that's actually HLN and CNN news. I know that they are of the same parent company and it is not unusual for them to do interviews like that in the same building. Nobody is deceiving anyone here. They very clearly show Phoenix, AZ as the location of the broadcast. Tell me how you are so certain that it was a satellite interview?

Yeah that's another thing. It said that the video was cleared by Saudi Arabia yet the report was live. How could Saudi Arabia approve it if they didn't know what CNN was going to say or show?

Saudi Arabia did impose restrictions in regards to what they would show in the broadcast as Jaco stated here (4:03)

I heard what you were saying about the time delay. I also wonder why Jaco has a gas mask and the other guy has a helmet? Is CNN so cheap they couldn't afford 2 gas masks and 2 helmets? I mean if there was a chemical attack Jaco would survive and the other guy would die. If there was a missle attack Jaco would die and the other guy would survive lol

Maybe he forgot his mask. Who knows.

sorry but the whole video where the show is off the air. Is clearly a set and they are not worried about anything or any "attack" or "missiles coming in" or any of that and you keep pointing to pictures of the hotel and what not but when you look at the off air video it is clearly a set and is not part of the hotel and they are not set up against the hotel so it would be the backdrop! Its clearly a set display NOT THE HOTEL!

Also at 5:30 of the 10 min video the sirens magically turn off when the the lady reporter looks away and tells them to turn off the sirens. And its not from them cutting the mic of Jaco because he still can be heard talking while the sirens fade away. https://socioecohistory.wordpress.c...sted-producing-fake-news-from-first-gulf-war/

When did the lady reporter ask Jaco to turn the sirens off?


This has been very thoroughly debunked. It's a very well documented fact that the reporters were at the Dhahran Int'l Hotel. This is confirmed by newspaper articles at the time along with books written about the subject.

 

[Marcus Mudd]

this was a great debunking. these reporters are obviously in the area the proposed to be. BUT what is alarming is the over dramatization of the entire event. I am a vet and there is a considerable difference between real and fake danger. This was fake danger promoted as real. For what end I cannot say, but even though the video is actual reporting, it is extremely misleading and that could have a great effect on public sentiment on the war

 

[Mick West]

I disagree, if they were told there was a possibility of an incoming missile attack, and sirens were going off, then I think their responses were quite reasonable. And there were actual scud attacks on bases in Saudi Arabia. The danger was not fake.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/26/w...ud-missile-hits-a-us-barracks-killing-27.html

In the most devastating Iraqi stroke of the Persian Gulf war, an Iraqi missile demolished a barracks housing more than 100 American troops on Monday night, killing 27 and wounding 98, the American military command in Riyadh said early today.
...
Another missile was fired at the island nation of Bahrain, which is almost visible from Al Khobar. It was knocked from the sky by a Patriot, according to the American command, which presumably had official reports from the Patriot batteries. Scuds are notoriously inaccurate, particularly at long range, so the two may have been pointed at the same target. Attacks on Saudis Have Failed

Repeated Scud firings at Dhahran, Riyadh, King Khalid Military City and other places in Saudi Arabia have been largely ineffective, killing 1 person and wounding 85.

A total of 39 Scud missiles fired at Israel, in 18 separate air raids since Jan. 18, have killed 2 and seriously wounded hundreds. Three elderly Israelis died of heart attacks after their homes were hit. Twelve Israelis have suffocated or died of other causes resulting from the misuse of gas masks or other equipment.

 

[Marcus Mudd]

Very quick! The broadcast is valid and can be logically accounted for. However by admission in your own article the rest of the year resulted in one fatality. My unit was a field artillery patrolling force in Ramadi Iraq and Geraldo even came out for an 'on the ground' report in our area. Some of the over-dramatization and sensationalism may have been more apparent to me based on me being accustomed to the war, but a siren blasting, combat scenario recreation complete with gas masks and helmets is way overdoing it in this situation, which is an obviously controlled environment.

I was stationed at bagdad international airport for a short time, which would routinely get mortered and attacked. It still was a very lax environment, however on patrol it was a lot different

Of course different wars dictate different reporting scenarios, but this particular incident, though not a complete fake, is still a true example of a subtle media technique of inducing a fear that may be less real and more imagined. But still very quick and thoughtful, a welcomed change from other sites!