Palestinian movie making?

[This Guy]

Found this on Break.com.

I don't know how to do the box with the disclaimer, so click at your own risk, yada yada yada ;)

http://www.break.com/index/what_really_happens_pallywood.html

Interesting.

Comments?

I'll start by saying I have mixed emotions about both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian issue. But I don't see how this can help but make matters worse, if it's true. It certainly stands little chance of bringing a peaceful resolution to the problems, IMHO.

[Darth Rotor]

Found this on Break.com.

I don't know how to do the box with the disclaimer, so click at your own risk, yada yada yada ;)

http://www.break.com/index/what_really_happens_pallywood.html

Interesting.

Comments?

I'll start by saying I have mixed emotions about both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian issue. But I don't see how this can help but make matters worse, if it's true. It certainly stands little chance of bringing a peaceful resolution to the problems, IMHO.
Staged news isn't new. Another technique that is used to mislead the viewing audience is the close cropping of small groups of people to create the impression of a large crowd.

It's part of the propaganda war, which makes one ask two question:

1. Is this film clip from 60 minutes also part of the propaganda war as well? I'd say yes, rather like an artillerist's counter battery fire.

2. Why do major news agencies pander to this style of news footage collection and production? What editorial discretion lurks behind the decisions on what to air, and what quality of footage makes it to the broadcast?

DR

[Ziggurat]

But I don't see how this can help but make matters worse, if it's true.

1. Is this film clip from 60 minutes also part of the propaganda war as well?

DR, I'm surprised that you brushed right past the even more obvious question, given the original post: is it true? Because it can be true and be propaganda at the same time. My estimation is that it is true.

And This Guy, your statement is confusing. If "this" refers to the video, then it is not responsible for doing damage, but merely reveals damage that was already done but which was not (and still is not) widely understood. If "this" refers to lies told by palestinian reporters and the gullible repetition of those lies by the press, then your verb tense is wrong, since the damage has already been done.

2. Why do major news agencies pander to this style of news footage collection and production?

Because it gets viewers and it's cheap to produce. What's NOT to like about it, from their point of view?

[Pardalis]

I have great reservations about that video, it looks too much "conspiracy theory-like".

First of all, the narrator doesn't sound like he's from 60 minutes, but that's my own perception.

The bit about the man being shot in the leg uses alot of speculative arguments, no basis in fact. Just because the man isn't bleeding doesn't mean he hasn't been shot, bullet wounds don't necesseraly bleed right-away.

The other bit about the man shooting through a hole isn't convincing either. Again the narrator is speculating on what the people are doing, instead of proving it, and there is no way we can determine which part of the footage came first, since there are no time codes. It could be that they shot through the hole first, and assembled around the hole and even entered it after, once it was safe.

I could be wrong of course, but I wouldn't buy that video so quickly. Is there any source that this is a genuine 60 minutes show?

[Ziggurat]

I have great reservations about that video, it looks too much "conspiracy theory-like".

First of all, the narrator doesn't sound like he's from 60 minutes, but that's my own perception.

Which narrator? The "narrator" who first comes on is from 60 minutes, because that initial footage is from a 60 minutes broadcast, but much of the footage is not from that broadcast. At about 50 seconds into the film, the narrator for "Pallywood" comes on, and he is NOT from 60 minutes. The documentary as a whole is not from 60 minutes, and it was clear to me, at any rate, that it wasn't pretending or claiming to be.

The bit about the man being shot in the leg uses alot of speculative arguments, no basis in fact. Just because the man isn't bleeding doesn't mean he hasn't been shot, bullet wounds don't necesseraly bleed right-away.

I don't think you understood what their argument actually was. Let me quote (emphasis mine):
"Could this scene [the man shot in the leg] have been staged? Could the immediate appearance of the ambulance have come on cue? This case is not clear. It could be real, it could be staged. The media, however, assumed it was real and made it news."

Yes, they're speculating, and they make that quite clear. Their point is not that this particular case was FAKE, but that the media made no effort to determine that it was REAL. And they're right.

Is there any source that this is a genuine 60 minutes show?

Just to make this clear once again, the initial video clip is FROM a 60 minutes show. The entire video is not, and does not pretend to be.

[Pardalis]

Which narrator? The "narrator" who first comes on is from 60 minutes, because that initial footage is from a 60 minutes broadcast, but much of the footage is not from that broadcast. At about 50 seconds into the film, the narrator for "Pallywood" comes on, and he is NOT from 60 minutes. The documentary as a whole is not from 60 minutes, and it was clear to me, at any rate, that it wasn't pretending or claiming to be.

I don't understand, this is a video of 60 minutes showing an independant video (not made by 60 minutes)?

I thought 60 minutes usually made their own reporting?

I don't think you understood what their argument actually was. Let me quote (emphasis mine):
"Could this scene [the man shot in the leg] have been staged? Could the immediate appearance of the ambulance have come on cue? This case is not clear. It could be real, it could be staged. The media, however, assumed it was real and made it news."

Yes, they're speculating, and they make that quite clear. Their point is not that this particular case was FAKE, but that the media made no effort to determine that it was REAL. And they're right.

You should know that asking questions isn't proof of anything.

Here is part two of that video:

WARNING, graphic content
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOwZ8wgV7I4&mode=related&search=

Again, alot of speculations, alot of "questions". No proof.

[Ziggurat]

I don't understand, this is a video of 60 minutes showing an independant video (not made by 60 minutes)?

I thought 60 minutes usually made their own reporting?

Yes, you definitely do not understand. This video was made by an independent group, and that was made very clear by the group which originally produced it. Within this video, they show a clip from a 60 minutes show in which palestinian claims of Israeli attacks were rebroadcast uncritically by 60 minutes. They use that opening to demonstrate how these claims are taken by the press at face value.

[Pardalis]

Yes, you definitely do not understand. This video was made by an independent group, and that was made very clear by the group which originally produced it. Within this video, they show a clip from a 60 minutes show in which palestinian claims of Israeli attacks were rebroadcast uncritically by 60 minutes. They use that opening to demonstrate how these claims are taken by the press at face value.

Oh, OK.

[This Guy]

DR, I'm surprised that you brushed right past the even more obvious question, given the original post: is it true? Because it can be true and be propaganda at the same time. My estimation is that it is true.

And This Guy, your statement is confusing. If "this" refers to the video, then it is not responsible for doing damage, but merely reveals damage that was already done but which was not (and still is not) widely understood. If "this" refers to lies told by palestinian reporters and the gullible repetition of those lies by the press, then your verb tense is wrong, since the damage has already been done.



Because it gets viewers and it's cheap to produce. What's NOT to like about it, from their point of view?

The point I was going for, though I don't think I did a good job of making, was that actions like this (making matters look worse than they are) aren't likely to foster an atmosphere that will be conducive to resolving the real issues. I understand that with the pent up resentments involved actions like this should be expected (not saying justified, just expected).

I just WISH those folks spent more time discussing the issues, and less time focused on the violence.

Though personally, I don't see an end to the violence in sight, when were talking about two such opposed points of view ("We deserve to live"/"You don't deserve to live")

[Mycroft]

Oh, OK.

When I first saw the video (and I used to carry a link to it in my sig) I thought that was unclear too. While I knew it wasn't produced by 60 Minutes, I think it could have used an introduction to make it clear it wasn't a 60 Minutes video.

[Ziggurat]

When I first saw the video (and I used to carry a link to it in my sig) I thought that was unclear too. While I knew it wasn't produced by 60 Minutes, I think it could have used an introduction to make it clear it wasn't a 60 Minutes video.

I saw this video quite some time ago (it was made in 2005, I think I first saw it early 2006). I believe the original location for this movie is:
http://www.seconddraft.org/movies.php
where they make the attribution quite clear in the link. break.com (the link at the start of the thread) did indeed misattribute the video they were posting, but that's their fault, not the producers of the video. I haven't watched the break.com version, since I downloaded the .divx version a long time ago, but if they're streaming the .wmv version, it's going to be significantly lower quality video than the .divx version available at the link above. They've also got a newer video about the reporting of the al Durah case, which I will probably download soon but haven't watched yet.

[Pardalis]

It all seems like conspiracy theory to me, they seem to take the same patterns and imply the same inuendos as all the other CT videos I've seen, IMHO.

[Merko]

I think this thread would belong more in the Conspiracy Theories forum. The video bears all the CT marks.

Focusing on 'strange' details that would have been even stranger in a fake

Ok, so the shot man doesn't bleed. Anyone outside of Hollywood knows that this is perfectly possible for someone hit by a real bullet. Also, we don't know that it was a direct hit, it could have been a ricochet. It could have been one of those 'less-lethal' bullets. Doesn't mean it won't hurt.

However, if this was a staged scene, why wouldn't they stage a big splash of blood? They build rockets in their garages, but can't rig a simple blood bag?

Arguing that anytime people do not act perfectly rationally, there must be something fishy

So a man gets shot, and instead of gently carrying him to the ambulance in the safest possible way, they pull at his injured leg (which would be possibly 'lethal' according to the CT's voiceover), the ambulance fails to park in the perfect position by a couple of metres, and they hesitate. Evidence of conspiracy? Or what naturally happens in a chaotic situation?

If it was staged - why on Earth did the director miss those obvious things?

Arguing that coincidences are suspicious even though they fill no purpose for a conspiracy

The CT'ers make a lot out of the fact that the ambulance arrives a couple of seconds after the man is shot. This is perhaps not so strange if we realise that these skirmishes had been going on for a while. You don't have to be Sylvia Browne to figure out that people may be injured here.

And why would a conspiracy put in an ambulance? Surely the message of propaganda would be that the guy is shot? Getting helped instantly, or having to endure hours of torment before someone reaches him - which one is the preferred propaganda message?

Arguing why something is faked, which would not serve the interests of a conspiracy

We see a Palestinian man firing through a hole in the wall. They claim that this is staged because they can't figure out what he's firing at. But wait a minute: Why would the Palestinians fake a scene showing a Palestinian man firing a gun, supposedly at Israeli? Makes absolutely no sense. So, they thought there was a sniper in the building, or something? I don't know. But if they wanted to stage some propaganda and ended up with this, then I'm not impressed.

Showing facts of a perfectly normal event and assigning it a meaning that isn't there

They show footage that apparently shows a few people carrying a man on a stretcher. Only they claim it's a staged funeral precession. Yes, if it's a funeral precession, then clearly it is strange that the man crawls back on the stretcher when they drop him. But who says that's what it is? Only the CT'ers voiceover.

But let's assume they saw some of the footage on some real news channel and some real news commenter erroneously mistook the event for a funeral precession. But why would it be staged? The CT'ers really believe there are not enough real funerals in Palestine to film, so that they have to stage them to provide footage?

[Pardalis]

Not to mention that they show absolutely no real evidence.

[Ziggurat]

Focusing on 'strange' details that would have been even stranger in a fake

Ok, so the shot man doesn't bleed. Anyone outside of Hollywood knows that this is perfectly possible for someone hit by a real bullet. Also, we don't know that it was a direct hit, it could have been a ricochet. It could have been one of those 'less-lethal' bullets. Doesn't mean it won't hurt.

However, if this was a staged scene, why wouldn't they stage a big splash of blood? They build rockets in their garages, but can't rig a simple blood bag?

Actually, no, they can't. Or more precisely, most of them can't, just like most people in the US can't. And they don't need to - the video got aired anyways. Furthermore, there aren't ANY shots of ANY victims where you can actually see a wound, and not just blood. And this is an event where the Palestinians claimed thirty people were killed and hundreds wounded. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Where are all the horrific injuries, the exposed gore? Nowhere, because there is none.

Arguing that anytime people do not act perfectly rationally, there must be something fishy

So a man gets shot, and instead of gently carrying him to the ambulance in the safest possible way, they pull at his injured leg (which would be possibly 'lethal' according to the CT's voiceover),

You missed the point. The point is not that they pull at his injured leg (or more specifically, that they lie him on his injured leg), it's that this causes no apparent reaction of pain in the victim. And not just that guy: this rough treatment is inflicted regularly without protest on "victims" throughout the whole event.

If it was staged - why on Earth did the director miss those obvious things?

Because it's largely improv, and because it didn't MATTER that there were all these apparent errors, the media broadcast it anyways without trying to figure out whether or not any of it was true. You seem to be overlooking one of the most basic aspects of fakeries: people generally don't make them better than they need to be, and these are amateurish because they didn't need to be any better than that to make the news.

And why would a conspiracy put in an ambulance?

Because it makes for dramatic footage, and they've got plenty of ambulances on hand (you know, for carrying weapons and smuggling terrorists - and no, I'm not being flippant, they do indeed use ambulances for that).

Surely the message of propaganda would be that the guy is shot?

That's THEIR message. But their audience isn't just us, it's also the media editors, who decide which footage to show based in no small part on how exciting it is to watch. The ambulance adds drama.

Getting helped instantly, or having to endure hours of torment before someone reaches him - which one is the preferred propaganda message?

The presentation of the footage on the news does not allow for such nuance, and the particular injuries are never discussed in any detail anyways. This question is irrelevant next to how dramatic the ten-second clip they're going to broadcast will be.

[/B]We see a Palestinian man firing through a hole in the wall. They claim that this is staged because they can't figure out what he's firing at. But wait a minute: Why would the Palestinians fake a scene showing a Palestinian man firing a gun, supposedly at Israeli? Makes absolutely no sense.

Wrong. It shows how brave the Palestinians are to stand up against the Israelis, despite the Isreali superiority in firepower. They imagine themselves as heroes as much as victims, they do not consider that to be any kind of contradiction (just listen to their propaganda on memri.org sometime if you don't believe me), and they want to display their heroism to the world as well. That YOU might find some contradiction there is quite irrelevant to them.

But if they wanted to stage some propaganda and ended up with this, then I'm not impressed.

So you're not impressed. Have you EVER been impressed with anything the Palestinians have done? I know I haven't. This is the group which famously "never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity" - why would their incompetence in this matter surprise you?

They show footage that apparently shows a few people carrying a man on a stretcher. Only they claim it's a staged funeral precession. Yes, if it's a funeral precession, then clearly it is strange that the man crawls back on the stretcher when they drop him. But who says that's what it is? Only the CT'ers voiceover.

No, actually, that attribution originated with the Israelis. And it's fairly obvious they're correct, and this isn't just an injured person being carried by a stretcher, because the wrapping for the body (that green cloth) are what they use in a funeral procession, NOT how you transport the wounded (who, by the way, doesn't move like he's wounded badly when he gets back on the bier).

But let's assume they saw some of the footage on some real news channel and some real news commenter erroneously mistook the event for a funeral precession.

This didn't come from some news channel. It came from the Isreali government, who released the footage to show what the Palestinians were doing.

But why would it be staged? The CT'ers really believe there are not enough real funerals in Palestine to film, so that they have to stage them to provide footage?

Because if you want to have a funeral in just the right place at just the right time for your propaganda, then yes, you need to stage it. Dead bodies, even real ones, don't appear on demand (unless you start killing people), and the purpose of staging this was as part of an effort to portray events in Jennin as a massacre when they were not. Or did you forget about the context involved? Time and place matter for that, filming any old funeral at any old time and place won't do.