The cameraman didn't react. This indicates that he knew the fellow firing blanks was going to walk into the room.
Debunked: CNNs Fake News Broadcasts - Charles Jaco and the Fake Live Gulf War Reports
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
External Quote:
EASTERN SAUDI ARABIA — The drill has become familiar--first the sirens, then reporters in gas masks, followed by flashes in the sky. But some journalists here are becoming increasingly apprehensive that instantaneous media coverage of Iraq's Scud missile attacks are distorting public perception of the war and perhaps even aiding the cause of Saddam Hussein.
Militarily, the Scud attacks are not particularly significant, authorities from the allied forces keep suggesting. But because they are happening where reporters are located, they tend to dominate what the public sees of the war.
As a result, some reporters worry, the constant coverage of journalists obviously frightened by Scud attacks that in fact have done little damage may be boosting the morale of Iraqi army officers at Scud batteries, where gunners can see that they are stirring up anxiety. Perhaps the reports and television pictures of recognizable features of Saudi cities might assist the Iraqis in targeting the missiles.
And they may be playing into the hands of Hussein's larger military strategy, in which the Scud is more an instrument of political terror than physical destruction.
"That logic carried to its conclusion would not have us report much of anything that could be seen as negative for the allied coalition," countered Ed Turner, executive vice president of Cable News Network.
...
The issue came to a head Tuesday morning after yet another air raid warning in Dhahran. CNN turned to a live report from Charles Jaco, who, over the scream of the air raid sirens, informed viewers that he knew only that an alarm had gone off and that under new Saudi restrictions, his cameras could not show anything other than the wall behind him.
Despite the lack of either information or pictures, the CNN anchor continued to shoot questions at the obviously nervous Jaco as he stood in the open, repeatedly mopping his brow and occasionally twitching. At one point, as Jaco apparently caught a whiff of jet exhaust, he suddenly dove and slammed a gas mask over his face, handing the microphone to a colleague who, without gas mask, talked about how nervous people were and tried to reassure Jaco that his anxiety was understandable.
Interviewed later, Jaco said he had heard criticism from colleagues and acknowledged that "there were times I've blown it. . . . It disturbs me a lot, those that think I'm increasing the fear. I've got a family back home, too."
At the same time, though, Jaco said CNN received "hundreds, hundreds of calls" from residents of Saudi Arabia and journalists themselves who said they had come to rely on the live broadcasts of a threatened attack for keeping them informed in a city with otherwise spotty air raid warnings.
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-01-23/news/mn-763_1_scud-attack
No. I just watched it again...and Jaco doesn't react to the sirens in any way. They go off at 1:10 and don't startle him at all. He starts explaining what they are and someone crudely cuts him out.
The alarms go off again at 1:50. Again Jaco isn't phased whatsover. Not a flinch.
His fake reaction to the non scud attack is at 2:15.
Quoting CNN's own whitewash apology for the garbage broadcast doesn't much value. It seems they took heat for this at the time...so that's good.
Do you have any evidence that the report is fake? Based on previous postings the evidence supports it was a real broadcast. If you don't have any new evidence you should really stop posting.
Do you have any evidence that the report is real? Based on previous postings the evidence supports that it was a real broadcast of fake news. If you don't have any new evidence that it was real then you shouldn't tell me to stop saying it was fake.
Multiple sources say the same story. Nobody says otherwise.
AluminumTheory
Senior Member.
So apparently you missed this post by soulfly.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/scud_info/scud_info_s04.htm
That's called evidence. And we're still waiting to see yours. Having opinions and stating them as facts is not evidence.
So is the camera man supposed to start shaking his tripod during a scud attack to meet your standards of journalism?
There WAS NO SCUD ATTACK! That's the point. None. At all. The only SCUD attack was 20 minutes earlier and miles away. The alarms went off a minute prior to the purported reaction to the alarms, and he said "Oh that's just the (cut off). Then the same sound went off again 16 seconds prior to the purported reaction to the same alarms. And then voila! The "reaction" out of no-where. While nothing was actually happening. That's the thing. The reaction was in response to nothing at all. At best, it was a reaction to the repeated promptings of the woman interviewing him to put his gas mask on. LOL! I can't believe we are still debating this.
I'll give you guys this, you are good and stubborn
But it doesn't change what happened.I actually like CNN's apology that Pete posted. It speaks to the issue that this event didn't occur.
deirdre
Senior Member.
you've got me completely confused. He explains where the reaction came from right there in the report. I see nothing abnormal in the footage.
I guess he/they could be an EXCEPTIONAL actor/s (since facial expression and body language are dead on), but what would be the point of that?
Your theory is very weak.
AluminumTheory
Senior Member.
You seem to be deliberately ignoring facts. We know that there were SCUD attacks in Dhaharan that night. It would be helpful if you could post a link or at least show us what you are referencing here so we can discuss it (if that's what you're here to do). None of the CNN footage has a time code of any kind so what makes you so sure that the attack was 20 minutes earlier.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/scud_info/scud_info_s04.htm
Again, it would be helpful if you would provide a reference as to what you're talking about.
I'm left to assume that it would be this @ 7:00
If you listen carefully. Jaco is asked "What did you see", later when he realizes there is no imminent danger he explains that he caught a whiff of something which he likely though was a sign of a gas attack. And the fast oscillating siren you hear in the CNN videos is said to be the hotel's siren. Not the one used by Saudi Civil Defense.
@ 2:54, a missile had been launched very near to the hotel that the reporters were staying at.
I'll give you guys this, you are good and stubborn
I actually like CNN's apology that Pete posted. It speaks to the issue that this event didn't occur.
confirmation bias
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
I can't believe some people's insistence on maintaining this key CT myth in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
*****
So an article talking about the idea that there's some concern that maybe the media should be CENSORING this exact sort of coverage, becomes to your thinking process support for the idea that CNN was FAKING it with the blessing of the US administration.
Un***believable.
*****
So an article talking about the idea that there's some concern that maybe the media should be CENSORING this exact sort of coverage, becomes to your thinking process support for the idea that CNN was FAKING it with the blessing of the US administration.
Un***believable.
TEEJ
Senior Member.
Incorrect. I presume that your "19-20 minute" time is an error and should state 10-20 minutes?
Try narrowing it down to a 10 minute window and then in the case of Jaco a 5 minute window from 0715? Also consider that the following times were launch indicator times.
Missile launch times 0709 and 0710. Now factor in the flight times and the reports from the journalists reporting on it and the times of the Scud alerts?
http://www.history.army.mil/CHRONOS/16jan91.htmExternal Quote:
07:10 in following report. Again this indicates launch time.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/scud_info/scud_info_s04.htm
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/army/19970403/970313_sep96_decls13_0021.htmlExternal Quote:
http://www.scudwatch.org/cwaareportExternal Quote:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-01-22/news/1991022113_1_missiles-saudi-arabia-iraqExternal Quote:
So in reality Jaco looking at his watch and stating "at approximately 20 after 7 in the morning Saudi Arabian time" fits in with the events. 0715 Scud Alert with the sounds of Patriots being noted and Jaco reporting 2 mins and 36s later that the time is approximately 0720. Approximately being the key word here two and a half minutes after the 0715 Scud Alert.
Now take into consideration that the 0715 Scud Alert resulted in
Now watch the piece again and see how the timeline fits in with events from the Scud Alert at 0715 and Jaco reporting the time as approximately 0720.External Quote:
[/EX]
I know this thread is a bit old..Sorry if I opened up old wounds on this but Thank you for taking the time in looking into it. I read everything. Remember people..some actually edit videos on youtube. Some pictures get altered etc. Have an open mind..but be weary. I seen one video of them off camera and the laugh was the same in a couple parts of it...also you can tell it cuts off in parts when he laughs in the video. I was actually watching this one.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98JDKB-Qmxs
doing some research of my own because of the hype still and came across your site. It's based on perspective..Anyways, I do however still believe CNN is biased on their news reports. Plus they tend to interrupt people a lot if they don't conform to their views. They do not discuss it like adults. They act like children. FOX..MSNBC..and a few others are the same way..It doesn't mean their news is fake or even this particular one is fake. It's one sided. We were not there and the ones who were know better than anyone. Anyways I hope you have a great day.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98JDKB-Qmxs
doing some research of my own because of the hype still and came across your site. It's based on perspective..Anyways, I do however still believe CNN is biased on their news reports. Plus they tend to interrupt people a lot if they don't conform to their views. They do not discuss it like adults. They act like children. FOX..MSNBC..and a few others are the same way..It doesn't mean their news is fake or even this particular one is fake. It's one sided. We were not there and the ones who were know better than anyone. Anyways I hope you have a great day.
Whitebeard
Senior Member.
So whats your point here, that its pretending to be a 'live as it happens' news cast. In broadcast news, be it CNN, BBC, Fox, RT or whatever that rarely happens. Takes are rehearsed even they are going to be live linked, some times multiple takes are done, pre-sent to the video uplink for broadcast later (or multiple times), sometimes the live link up is redone as afterwards for use in later bulletins and round ups. TV crews waiting to send the dispatch will mug around, and the humour found among front line news crews is a bit rough and at times risque; after all if your reporting from a war zone where the next bullet or bomb could have your name on it. Its a normal human reaction,
I see nothing in that video that is any different to that. What you have there is sections of 'raw feed' prior to broadcast, and then the live broadcast footage, with one point where someone, I guess the person who owned the VCR switching channels.
As for bias, ALL news is bias. All news outlets, print, broadcast or otherwise, are competing with each other for viewers, readers, listeners etc, all news outlets spend millions researching their viewers etc and will slant their coverage towards those consumers political views, prejudices and expectations. To go against those views would result in loss of punters, which in turn would mean loss of advertising and therefore loss of revenue. Also consider the stand point of the channels owners and backers. Would Fox News owners, Murdocks News International REALLY be happy if their reporters started coming down on the side of socialist internationalism, or Fox News viewers for that matter. Would Putin and the Russian ministry of information be content if RT became critical of Russia's involvement in the Ukraine? Of course not, he who pay the piper calls the tune.
If you want to REALLY find out what going on in the world, watch the reports of the same incident from multiple sources and pick your way through from there.
I didn't post that video trying to be right. I posted it because it's what i watched and thought the one who posted it on youtube did something with the audio because the same laugh and you can hear it cut off the same way. Perhaps I wanted confirmation of what I heard to be true or not true..Have a second opinion. I know multiple takes are done. I'm not here to argue with anyone.
I think all news should be that..news. They should quit fighting for viewers and report both sides. That's what they are suppose to do anyways. They are not very professional if they only want to do it for viewers. It's not a TV show or a movie. It's real life.
I rather hear both sides and not one side everything to benefit a few Democrat or Republican supporters. But that's just me.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
hi. please be sure to read our posting guidelines and "No click policy". If you want to make a point with a video (esp a long video like yours) be sure to timestamp the sections you want people to listen to.
https://www.metabunk.org/posting-guidelines.t2064/
https://www.metabunk.org/metabunks-no-click-policy.t5158/
Whitebeard
Senior Member.
True, very true, but sadly its a pipe dream. News, TV news in particular is very expensive to gather, and has to be financed. Be it funded by advertisers, rich individuals, governments... there's alway going to be a piper calling the tune. And equally sadly, in todays multi-format mass media age, people can always seek someone telling them what THEY want to hear. Fail to confirm their own stand point, they wont stay to listen to what you have to say, they will bugger off quick sharp to some one else who will. And there will alway be some one willing to oblige.
It's why I bailed out of the news scene myself and got into music radio and journalism. Far less BS all round.
deirdre
Senior Member.
you 'read everything' in a 6 page forum chat, but you cant take 2 secs to ask 'how do i do that?'. ok.
Troop4truH
New Member
The man makes a perfect point Mick. I love a good fashioned spirited debate and I appreciate your emphasis on sticking to evidence but your debating tactics often discourage debate on the very topics you post. I haven't been on metabunk for years because you and your cheerleaders don't really seem to genuinely appreciate the point of the debate.
Now, as for "the facts." As stated previously you haven't really debunked the core contention of the conspiracy with the videos in this post. You have surely supported your argument better than many of those who espouse this particular theory, however you do seem to miss the point. The point isn't so much where it was shot, although you have done a seemingly fair job in supporting the claim it was filmed on location at the hotel, but instead if the situation on the ground was indeed as it was presented.
You did little to refute the contention that they were giving a false impression to their audience. That is the central point of the conspiracy. I have been researching this "fake news" buzz and came across this post. Now we have many more examples of CNN specifically misleading their audience in order to push an agenda. That is the definition of propaganda. Our government legally pairs with news organizations to push agenda based news. I'm sure this clip from 1991 does not predate the practice.
The fact is there is a concerted effort to mislead viewers of "news" organizations such as this every single day on a various range of topics. This is especially the case when the government and the military is involved.
deirdre
Senior Member.
this is a debunking site, not debate club.
the claim being addressed is
External Quote:
You guys moving goal posts is your problem. Your opinions on 'impressions' is just that. Opinions. No point arguing about opinions. Either you have ebtter evidence to support your opinion, or you don't. and you don't.
Similar threads
