September 21, 2001

6:42 PM

Let Me Get Flamed for a DayPoor Ramon Stoppelenburg. All he does is say that CNN is an American propaganda device and he gets flamed (“you freeloading little wimp,” “the freeloading adventures of the bald-headed little Ramon,” &c). Response from the Dutch vagabond? “Maybe [he] should just change his wallpaper? Too bad he isn’t visiting this Web site anymore. He might learn from others' opinions.”
posted by joeclark (40 comments total)

He has a point, but aren't national TV networks meant to act as propoganda devices, in a way? What good would a US channel arguing the finer points of 'did the US deserve the attacks' be, even if the argument is valid?

Many relevant facts were overlooked in the early 90s about Iraq and the Desert Storm operation, so as to continue with the pro-Western propoganda on both CNN -and- the BBC. While good reporting is always desirable, isn't it the job of a national network to promote their own country's point of view?

(Note: I don't actually believe that.. but that seems to be the most liberal and 'sensitive' way of looking at it)
posted by wackybrit at 7:04 PM on September 21, 2001

Of course, it must also be noted that the vast majority of CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBCs staff, managers, owners, producers, reporters, etc, are American; many also are based in (or have lived in) New York City and Washington DC. The magnitude of this nightmare, and their all-too-natural reactions & feelings, are reflected in their reports.

And it must be pointed out that they are also covering "less popular" points of view, too. Just a few minutes ago, they did segment on CNN (during primetime) of some anti-war protesters, including discussion about their goals (muddled and confused as they are) and tactics. In this very tense time, and with events unfolding so quickly and dramatically, I'm inclined to give the media (reporters, pundits, etc) a little more slack than, say, when the Chandra Levy (who??) story was daily fodder.

Bravo to Ramon for having an opinion. I disagree with him, but so what? He doesn't care about my opinion, I don't really care about his, but we are aware that differences exist...and so it goes.
posted by davidmsc at 7:35 PM on September 21, 2001

Davidmsc: it ain't where they work but who owns them.
You can make some distinction where there is some attempt tobe professional and report facts. And then there are the talk meister, for which yo have to ask how many representing the Right or the Left perspective. Such things have been studied by media-savvy folks.
I try to get views from other countries too. After a while it all seems almost like Rashomon: the truth is relative to the truth sayer.
posted by Postroad at 8:41 PM on September 21, 2001

While good reporting is always desirable, isn't it the job of a national network to promote their own country's point of view?

No it's not, although unfortunately it does often turn out that way. CNN's job (and that of other media outlets) is to report the news, not advance the American cause. I read an interview the other day with CNN anchor Aaron Brown, who pointed out that CNN tries to stay objective. For example, his bosses told him not to refer to the U.S. as "we" or "us." It's a small thing, but it's important.

In a similar vein, the newspaper I work for has decided not to start printing an American flag as part of our Page One banner, even though at least one of the higher-ups likes the idea. It'd smack of jingoism, and besides, what would people say when we decided to remove the flag because the "war" was over?
posted by diddlegnome at 8:59 PM on September 21, 2001

what would people say when we decided to remove the flag because the "war" was over?

If they thought it was ever going to end, they wouldn't have named it "Infinite Justice".
posted by Optamystic at 9:59 PM on September 21, 2001

CNN's job (and that of other media outlets) is to report the news, not advance the American cause.

Theoretically their job is to report news, but in reality they sell a product (the audience) to buyers (advertising). On top of that they do behind the scenes favors to stay in favor with the government, remember the 5 PSYOP army sergeants that played intern until CNN "discovered" them in Atlanta.

CNN is a propaganda machine, it doesn't stray too far from public policy and does nothing to rock the advertising dollar boat. Its good business, but it isn't exactly the critical media a democracy could truly benefit from. A simple way to avoid some of this is to read alternative weeklys and foreign newspapers. Not that you wont find more of the same, espeially in foreign media but at least you can broaden your media picture. You'll be amazed at all the interesting stories the US media won't touch.
posted by skallas at 10:12 PM on September 21, 2001

Optamystic: Apparently that name is on its way out, since Muslims point out that only Allah can deliver infinite justice.

skallas: You have a point, which is why I said it sometimes turns out that CNN is a propaganda outlet. It never pays to check just one media source, or even several from the same country.

Another big U.S. media outlet, NPR, has been pretty good about reporting things like the reasons behind Europe's less-than-enthusiastic response to Bush's Big Plan (e.g., the Bush administration seemed more than willing to forget about the rest of the world until Sept. 11). But yeah, it makes me cringe when I read the annual list of the top 10 stories the mainstream U.S. media ignore (no time to find a link now; I've got a paper to put out :)
posted by diddlegnome at 10:50 PM on September 21, 2001

First of all, what Ramon wrote was indeed insulting to Americans. To write that "Americans probably won’t even notice this propagandizing of their media" carries with it the clear implications that 1) Americans are too stupid to realize this propagandizing is occuring; and 2) Ramon, the European that DOES realize it, is thus automatically smarter that Americans. He deserved to get a few barbed responses for that one.

Anyway, Not being overseas, I can't say for certain, but having worked for CNN, I can at least hypothesize about what happened. People outside the US generally don't get CNN. They get CNN International, a completely different news channel. While it too is largely based out of Atlanta, it has its own anchors and produces 90% fresh programming intended for the international English-speaking audience (the other 10% is Larry King and Moneyline, I think). This is probably what Ramon has been watching all alone and is what "CNN" is to him.

Now, both networks are aware of each others' strengths. So when a big story breaks outside the US, CNN will usually simulcast CNN International's breaking news coverage. And, likewise, when something big breaks in the US, CNN International will simulcast the domestic CNN channel. And since there has been no story bigger than this in eons, CNN International probably aired domestic CNN for several days solid. (Even here in the US, most AOL Time Warner cable channels dumped all their programming for the first couple of days and went all CNN all the time.) And they've probably been airing unusually large chunks of domestic CNN ever since. So of course to Ramon, it's going to look to him like CNN International has become an "all-US network," since he is watching the US network.

As for Ramon's comments about CNN being a "propaganda machine for the US," it's impossible to respond to because the charge is so vague as to be unintelligible. Why does he think this, because they're talking about the US too much and not enough about news in other countries? Because his own pet political beliefs are not being parroted by CNN anchors? Impossible to say, so why bother even trying to argue the point.
posted by aaron at 11:01 PM on September 21, 2001

aaron, it is true that CNN could have been a bit more skeptical during the Gulf War. I mean, they went to great lengths at some naval pier to stage a fake story designed as disinformation to throw off the evil leaders of the United Islamic Repub ... oh, wait, that was a Tom Clancy novel. Never mind. Carry on.
posted by diddlegnome at 11:07 PM on September 21, 2001

Good post aaron. (Obligatory disclaimer: I work for CNN, but I don't speak for them...nor do they speak for me.) For pretty much the first solid week after the attacks, the various CNN networks shared the production duties and simulcast each other. F'r instance, CNNI (CNN International) would produce the coverage for 6-8 hours, which would be simulcast on Headline News and CNN/U.S. Then the CNN/U.S. production team would take over and produce the coverage for another 6-8 hours, which would be simulcast on HLN and CNNI. Then the same deal with HLN producing coverage -- since there's really only one story being covered, it gave the staff a bit of a break and made things more efficient.

Now, CNN/U.S. simulcasts CNNI several hours a day, usually in the middle of the night. I'm not sure if CNNI is simulcasting CNN/U.S. at all. HLN produces its own coverage for some hours during the day and either simulcasts CNN/U.S., CNNI, or re-runs older CNN shows like Larry King Live from the previous evening.

As far as CNN being a propaganda machine? Hmmmm. I'm admittedly biased, given where my paycheck comes from, but I honestly don't think they are. Our writers and producers seem to be taking a LOT of care not to imply any particular slant on events, and you'll hear comments like "our forces" or "we" or "us" (used to refer to the US) very rarely if ever. (i.e., they're not supposed to use phraseology like that.) Most, if not all folks here try to bend over backwards to produce fair news.

Incidentally, the big three CNN networks share one newsgathering apparatus. There's only one national desk, international desk, affiliate desk, and so on, and they supply all the networks. It's up to the individual networks' production staffs to decide the mix of news that their particular network airs.

But, aaron raises a good point: this story is so US-centered -- and it was so especially US-centered before we knew more about the bin Laden connections in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the rest of the world -- that I can see why an international viewer might think that the network has a US slant.

Since we don't make widgets here, but rather words and electrons, all we have to recommend our product is our reputation and our credibility. I don't think any employee here in their right mind would willingly do anything that might harm that credibility. It's not good for the company, and it's not good for us.
posted by Vidiot at 2:19 AM on September 22, 2001

by the way, if you want to see CNN International in the US, the digital satellite signal is available on Galaxy 1R TR-15. If you can't get it, your local cable operator probably can.

If you get CNNfn, you can see CNNI between midnight and 6am.

Now if I could just get Sky News and BBC World at home...
posted by Vidiot at 2:26 AM on September 22, 2001

I don't think any employee here in their right mind would willingly do anything that might harm that credibility. It's not good for the company, and it's not good for us.

Guess you haven't yet noticed that you were caught with your pants down in the "palestinian celebrations" incident...

(Media bias test question: Does any american here know what I'm talking about? ;-)
posted by effbot at 3:35 AM on September 22, 2001

well, first of all, I'm not CNN. I just work for them. As I've noted above, I don't speak for them, and they don't speak for me.

Second of all, I'm an American, and I know what you're talking about. I also resent the implication that because I'm an American, I'm somehow less well-informed than you. Both of your comments posted disparage Americans for their global news awareness or supposed lack thereof. Where's your proof? I refer you to Aaron's comment above; you're automatically smarter because you're non-American? (looks like Swedish to me.) Granted, I'd say that in general, Americans are probably less well-informed than Europeans in non-American current events. But to make such a broad generalization is both insulting and off base.

Third, and most importantly, you're wrong. These claims were withdrawn, and apologies have been posted.

Why would CNN feel the need to go to the effort of faking something like this?

My personal experience with working at CNN the past few days is that we simply haven't had time to pull file video of this nature. Doing so would require an effort -- not a huge one, to be sure, since this sort of thing is most likely in our circulation files as well as our HUGE library. But a producer would have to make a request for it, an associate producer would have to find the video, a video supervisor would get the request and hand it to an editor, an editor would have to pull the file tape, edit it, and put it in the system, a fonter would have to review the records to get the date and location and source right, and of course the executive producer and supervising producer of the show in question would have to not notice what's going on. All of these people would have to collude in such a falsification, and anyone could blow the whistle at any time.

Of course, this process doesn't make it impossible for mistakes to be made or the wrong video to get on air, as our shelf full of blooper reels attests. But, it certainly makes it pretty difficult for someone to willfully mislead the audience in this manner.

Furthermore, a couple of statments about this issue were posted on CNN's website Thursday. Here are the links:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/cnn.statement/index.html
(the statement from CNN and UNICAMP, the Brazilian university where the claim originated)

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/reuters.statement/index.html

(the statement from Reuters, provider of the video in question.)

Anyway, I don't want to be the chief MeFi defender of CNN. (I'd rather write about media issues in general.) But it'd be nice if you'd check out your allegations more thoroughly before you make them. As I learned in my Critical Journalism class in college, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
posted by Vidiot at 5:51 AM on September 22, 2001

Here in Seattle, I've been watching US cable TV news, C-SPAN, and CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company)...and spending many hours with MeFi and its links. The more sources of information we seek out, the better off we are.
posted by Carol Anne at 6:47 AM on September 22, 2001

you're wrong. These claims were withdrawn, and apologies have been posted.

No, I'm not talking about the internet rumours about CNN using 10-year old footage. I usually don't trust anonymous mails where someone says that he's heard that someone heard from someone else that someone else (etc etc).

The truth is more interesting, as usual. Look carefully at the Reuters statement: it implies that the video "illustrates Palestinians celebrating in the wake of the September 11 tragedies in the United States."

Technically, this is correct: The people in the video are Palestinians, they appear to be celebrating something, and the video is shot in Jerusalem after the attack.

But why do they say "illustrate" instead of "show"? Possibly because they know that the whole event was staged by the camera crew. The people in the pictures (mostly kids) didn't know about the attack; they were asked to jump around a little, and were offered kanafe (arabic sweets) in return.

This is pretty obvious if you watch the unedited video clip (I've seen it), and is supported by an interview with the kanafe-eating lady who appears in the video.

(my sources are several usually highly reliable European news outlets. Have you seen anything of this in US media yet? I haven't)
posted by effbot at 7:59 AM on September 22, 2001

Uh fredrik, maybe you should stick to python (love your book). Since this is the web; maybe you can provide a link to one of those 'highly reliable' news outlets.

This sounds to me like people caught in a lie telling a bigger one to try to cover the original.
posted by boaz at 8:13 AM on September 22, 2001

As for Ramon's comments about CNN being a "propaganda machine for the US," it's impossible to respond to because the charge is so vague as to be unintelligible. Why does he think this, because they're talking about the US too much and not enough about news in other countries?

Aaron, how does this square with your "Americans are too stupid to realize this propagandizing is occuring?" Are Europeans then too stupid to realize what you've said about CNN International a) being an international version of b) a channel originating from the US? Pot calling kettle, sweetie.

Also, have you ever actually watched CNN International and compared it with the coverage from BBC World, or even german or french news on the same day? One example: I know I've seen much, much more coverage of Palestinian kids being shot by Israeli soldiers over the last few years on BBC World than on CNN International. How do you explain that?
posted by lia at 8:20 AM on September 22, 2001

Granted, I'd say that in general, Americans are probably less well-informed than Europeans in non-American current events. But to make such a broad generalization is both insulting and off base.

Vidiot, let me get this right -- it's "insulting and off base" if a non-American makes the generalization that Americans are less well-informed than Europeans, but perfectly alright if an American (such as yourself) says the exact same thing, like you just did.

Nice.
posted by lia at 8:24 AM on September 22, 2001

(You can normally tell when CNNI takes over, because that's when the Australian anchors kick in. And without cable or satellite, I get all my impressions of CNN from the audio/video streams: I'd certainly recommend dispensing with the pictures ;) I think Ramon has possibly misread "insularity" as "propagandising", which to be honest, is what I thought of most reporting in the US until I realised that it was just plain ol' shallow News Product.)
posted by holgate at 8:29 AM on September 22, 2001

Since this is the web; maybe you can provide a link to one of those 'highly reliable' news outlets

here's one (note that I said "usually highly reliable" ;-):

Nathan Shachar: Palestinsk glädje var en bluff.

There are of course lots of open questions here: did a German journalist really find the right lady (Stern isn't exactly "highly reliable"), and did she really tell him the truth? Did Reuters distribute the full video (probably not, since everyone seems to have used the same snippet)? And who created the short clip, cut to make it look like the street is full of celebrating Palestinians (instead of a small crowd on one side of the street), and where you don't see much of the cheerleading guy in the white tshirt? Did the camera team work for Reuters or for the palestinian television? Why was it so important to western media to show this clip over and over again? (etc etc)

But the fact remains: if you've seen the full video, it's clear that the short clip doesn't show you the true story. It's merely an "illustration", as Reuters put it. But did anyone tell you that?
posted by effbot at 9:20 AM on September 22, 2001

The Palestinian celebration footage being incredibly uncredible is viewed by many as just a wild ghastly rumour Effbot, but not by some. So what? It's a theory - not headline news. The fact that you've stumbled across sources that state otherwise, noticed them sources having not been given a platform in American media, and thus drew a few conclusions of your own is hardly proof of media conspiracy. If, for example, reporters in Japan, Malaysia and Singapore decided to delve deep and come up with a few unproven theories on something and then publish it in their region would that mean everything reported elsewhere is corrupt?. Also, the fact that people are reading your 'Media Bias test question' in Metafilter means that they obviously don't just get their info about their media, or their news in general, from regional media itself.

'Now if I could just get Sky News and BBC World at home...'

Vidiot, up until last week BBC World was available as a Real Player feed here but its gone dead. There is this however. (Not sure as to its status as that'd mean having to install Quicktime). and a Real Player 'BBC News24' feed here (not a rolling feed, unfortunately, but a 15 minute one/updated every 15).

I think it's a bit shit that BBC World isn't available on satellite OR cable in the UK seems as it's our money that made its existence possible (80 years of compulsory funding from UK residents - currently @ $150 a year for each person who owns a colour TV set).

'I can at least hypothesize about what happened..'

Aarons spot on about this letmestayatyourhouse geeza. Those of us who get CNN in its International incarnation are obviously more used to CNN programming from a more global perspective. The complete switch to domestic CNN for a half week solid during a national tragedy must have led Stoppelenburg to perceive the stations coverage/perspective/slant as being that of one which had severely drifted - one that is tailored to American audiences tastes and generally more suited to their needs. Regardless of objectivity levels in general and its commercial agenda as a company, CNN's domestic programming is bound to make an international viewer feel somewhat ignored, if not plain irrelevant, especially if he doesn't realise that's what he's watching.

Perhaps this travelling guy doesn't generally watch much CNN and the big story forced him to check in more often than usual and wham bang wallop.. he suddenly noticed this huge 'drift' having seemingly occurred, all the while oblivious to the fact that he was watching an entirely different channel to his previously beloved (or not) CNN International. Poor Ramon must have thought Aaron Brown had suddenly landed in his life carrying with him an infectious-output-agenda-virus intent on emotionalising CNN's worldwide concerns with the ultimate mission of replacing its fanfares with jazzed-out Star spangled banner renditions and Old Glory backdrops, with the fact of the matter being that the nation was just in utter shock and severe mourning, and of course its news stations had to reflect that (and appeal to it).

I love it when i get a chance to watch American version CNN, obviously Ramon doesn't (Although, i do miss CNN international in such circumstances). Granted - It did get a little syrupy at times but that's to be expected. For pure unwatchable, overblown, hysteria inciting mush we've only gotta rewind a few years to British news coverage in the weeks after Diana and Dodie expired.

Overall -- As Vidiot points out -- CNN's response was instinctive, not manufactured, calculated, pre-meditated.. in this situation CNN staff had no choice but to act how they did, as humans they were VERY deeply affected by it. On the whole they reported honestly, and from the heart. Displays of emotion in news reporting isn't necessarily a bad thing - despite what Dan Rather thinks. Sure, it can be abused, but so can anything. People give all kinds of hyperbole about media monopolies (i do it myself regularly), but the fact of the matter is CNN's domestic TV output boasts only 320,000 viewers a day and is up against rapidly growing competition in an ever exploding market. I despise Time Warner, and i don't trust them one iota, but all said and done - it's in their interests for CNN to retain it's credibility and that can't be done without objectivity, as Vidiot put it 'Since we don't make widgets here, but rather words and electrons, all we have to recommend our product is our reputation and our credibility'. As television news markets grow along with it will come more and more diversity, we're sure to see a tabloidation of the form. Niche stations catering to bodies of people and demographics with varying tastes and political stances. CNN will never be such a station. It wont be the one to become biased in the extreme, and to be defined and marketed according to that bias. At the opposite extreme, it may be huge, with a big pervasive grip on the business of reporting information, but it's hardly Xinhua and never will be.
posted by Kino at 10:13 AM on September 22, 2001

But the fact remains: if you've seen the full video, it's clear that the short clip doesn't show you the true story. It's merely an "illustration", as Reuters put it. But did anyone tell you that?

Uh, there's a slight difference between an illustration and a fabrication. As always, Snopes is much more on the ball than I am on this, although after the first rumor, he only feels a need to give one sentence at the end to the one you posed.
I do not watch a lot of television, so I'm not the best judge of the media's practices here; I saw the short clip only once. I am a little confused how you got a hold of the whole video if Reuters didn't distribute it. I can't seem to find it anywhere.
posted by boaz at 10:19 AM on September 22, 2001

Perhaps this travelling guy doesn't generally watch much CNN and the big story forced him to check in more often than usual and wham bang wallop.. he suddenly noticed this huge 'drift' having seemingly occurred, all the while oblivious to the fact that he was watching an entirely different channel to his previously beloved (or not) CNN International.

That's a big perhaps right there, Kino. Perhaps people who don't agree with you don't have to be described like total idiots?
posted by lia at 11:22 AM on September 22, 2001

Uh, there's a slight difference between an illustration and a fabrication

Well, I'd say that an "illustration" becomes a "fabrication" if you don't tell your viewers.

:::

Btw, the upcoming issue of Stern has interviews with two persons appearing in the video (one Ms. Fatma Hussein, one Mr. Hussem Maraka).

They both claim that they didn't know what had happened when the video was shot.

Quoting Ms. Hussein, who claims she broke down after seeing herself on Israeli television: "I've never been so ashamed in my life. What does the world think of me now? That I am a fanatic Muslim? That I would scream of joy when thousands of humans have died a painful death? That I approve of terror against innocents?"

The article credits a known Israeli journalist for the background research, and an American photographer working for AP/Newsweek for the interview pictures.

I'll post a link as soon as I find one.

But sure, it could still be a hoax. But why would anyone bother?
posted by effbot at 12:20 PM on September 22, 2001

Well, I'd say that an "illustration" becomes a "fabrication" if you don't tell your viewers.

I'll agree insofar that if these people were not celebrating the WTC bombing, then it was a fabrication; if they were celebrating the WTC bombing, then it is not. That's what CNN told its viewers.

But sure, it could still be a hoax. But why would anyone bother?

I have a guess. The Palestinians are desperately trying for damage control right now. Whether they resort to illustration or fabrication remains to be seen.
posted by boaz at 12:53 PM on September 22, 2001

cannot find a direct link, but you can find the Stern article by searching for "Gekaufter Jubel" via this page
posted by effbot at 1:29 PM on September 22, 2001

As for the claims about the US-centricness of American domestic news organizations: Guilty as charged. The simple fact are that America is insulated from the rest of the world to a certain extent. We are physically separated from the entire rest of the planet to the east and west by huge oceans, except for Canada and Mexico. And to the immediate south, Mexico itself is pretty damn big; Central and South America are themselves very far away. And we are ideologically separated from almost the entire rest of the world as well, which is largely socialist where it's at all democratic, and generally autocratic everywhere else. We really ARE alone in the world in a lot of ways.

And compare our situation to that of most of the rest of the world, particularly in Europe and Asia (from which such complaints usually arise). In those places, dozens of countries, each with totally different cultures and languages, are all right next to each other. To you, going a couple of hundred miles in any given direction is to enter a completely different world. To us, going a couple hundred miles in any given direction usually won't even get us out of our own state, and if it does what we see through our car windshield isn't go to be any different at all, except for the color of some of the license plates. You have to deal with dozens of different cultures and languages constantly just as a function of geography, thus your news focus tends to be more "internationally-based." If you lived in a country the size of, say, China, I can assure you the amount of time you spent caring about foreign news coverage would be proportionally smaller.

One more sidenote: I went through a phase a while back where I was spending an inordinate amount of time listening to Australian and New Zealand radio, around the time of the big coup mess in Fiji. And during that time I noticed that American media covered it, but only a tiny bit. The BBC covered it somewhat more comprehensively, but again, Fiji is a former British colony. And the Australian and New Zealand news orgs were all over the damn thing for weeks on end, almost as if it were a crisis in their own countries' governments.

Moral of the story: It's all relative.
posted by aaron at 1:53 PM on September 22, 2001

The Palestinians are desperately trying for damage control right now. Whether they resort to illustration or fabrication remains to be seen.

Note that the DN article claims that it was a Palestinian film team, and that the footage was shown a couple of times in Palestinian television, before they realized the extent of the tragedy.

Sure doesn't sound like *Palestinian* damage control to me...

And according to several sources (including that DN article), there *were* celebrations in the West Bank, among more militant Palestinians (the kind of people who are currently working hard to destroy the ceasefire).

But not in East Jerusalem.

So a fabrication it is. But did Reuters, CNN (and many other major news organizations) know the full story? Should they have known? Do they care?
posted by effbot at 2:16 PM on September 22, 2001

Interesting points. I think I'll shuffle down to the library tonight, pull the raw feed from Reuters, and see what it shows. Stay tuned.
posted by Vidiot at 4:48 PM on September 22, 2001

Vidiot, let me get this right -- it's "insulting and off base" if a non-American makes the generalization that Americans are less well-informed than Europeans, but perfectly alright if an American (such as yourself) says the exact same thing, like you just did.

lia, my issue with effbot's statement was NOT that he made the generalization that Americans are less well-informed about global current events than Americans. (I would agree with that statement, and in fact echoed it as you noted. I simply didn't phrase my comment as well as I could have.)

Rather, what I found to be insulting was the snide tone of effbot's question "Does any american here know what I'm talking about?" effbot wasn't calmly stating a generalization, he was asking a deliberately provocative question (aka trolling, and look how well it worked!), and his implication seemed to me to be that because he's NOT an American, he somehow knows more.

Just because one makes a broad generalization doesn't mean that it's true for everyone that's included. And I continue to resent the implication that just BECAUSE I'm an American that I am NECESSARILY uninformed about non-American news.

F'r instance, most people from Freedonia are IN GENERAL much more likely to be informed about Freedonian politics than most Americans. But such a generalization doesn't automatically mean that you can assume that if you ask an American about Freedonian politics, s/he won't know what the hell you're talking about. And it certainly doesn't mean that NO American knows what's going on in Freedonia, Lower Elbonia, or any place but America.

Thus, to imply that because someone's an American, they're automatically insular and unconcerned about the world beyond their borders is indeed insulting.

All broad sweeping generalizations are wrong. hehe.
posted by Vidiot at 5:11 PM on September 22, 2001

The answer's pretty obvious though: Palestine used to be a British mandate and large number of Britons still live there to this day.

A nice theory, but not really accurate. You could replace "Palestine" with "Israel" in that sentence, to reflect the large number of British Jews with family there, and it would still be a very, very tenuous explanation. Firstly, there's little cultural memory of the holy mess made by the British in the region between the wars, so that it's only the most grizzled of producers and journalists that even remember, say, the Suez crisis of the 50s; secondly, the British mandates don't have anywhere near the kind of "imperal ties" that leads the British media to cover, say, the Indian and Australian elections. (Were it the case, the BBC would be running stories out of Cairo every week, since we held that mandate as well.)

Your point about the necessary dynamics of the American outlook (or "inlook") is quite true, with an addendum: the BBC has always seen part of its remit in terms of Lord Reith's "Empire Service" -- ie, the current World Service, which is busily boosting its shortwave transmitters to serve the Afghan people with all the news that Radio Sharia doesn't broadcast. But it's also able to retain some of the best foreign correspondents in the world, even as those networks such as CNN which attempt to escape the city-state parochialism of affiliate news coverage were calling in their foreign staff. That's why you'll get reports from non-imperial outposts such as Turkmenistan or Mali in From Our Own Correspondent, and they're all the more valuable when there's no "news" happening, because they make the point that foreign countries shouldn't necessarily be defined in terms of their wars, or their disasters, or their coups.

Even beyond the BBC, and looking at the national press, you'll see a commitment to foreign coverage that's only matched by the big-city papers in the US. (As long as that big city isn't Atlanta, which has some of the worst newspapers and TV stations I've encountered.) And that's not necessarily because the Brits have to "deal with dozens of different cultures and languages constantly just as a function of geography": as an island nation of 60 million closely-packed people, the UK is consistently shamed when it comes to learning foreign languages and, um, liking Europeans. (That's why we're not in the Euro, have an aversion to metric measurements, and generally take our holidays in Orlando or the parts of Spain and France where English has become a second language.)

Paternalistic? To an extent. But dear me, it's more educative than CNN's Hollywood hour. And it's almost paradoxical (although understandable) how an immigrant nation can insulate itself from its points of departure. Anyway, John Power's piece on "Media Fundamentalism" says all this and more:

When George W. Bush ran for president, it was a joke that he couldn't name the president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf. Well, he knows it now. And so, at long last, will we.
posted by holgate at 5:14 PM on September 22, 2001

Note that the DN article claims that it was a Palestinian film team, and that the footage was shown a couple of times in Palestinian television, before they realized the extent of the tragedy.

Note that in Reuters' response to the original rumor, available through the Snopes link above, they directly state that it was a Reuters film crew in East Jerusalem that took the footage in question; either DN is lying, Reuters is lying or we're talking about 2 separate film crews.

But not in East Jerusalem.

We still have one very good source, video nonetheless, showing there was.
posted by boaz at 5:27 PM on September 22, 2001

Sure doesn't sound like *Palestinian* damage control to me...

The link I proffered was actually to demonstrate that the Palestinian Authority doesn't really have the hang of this damage control concept yet.

So a fabrication it is. But did Reuters, CNN (and many other major news organizations) know the full story? Should they have known? Do they care?

Not so fast there. After the first false rumor, most American media are understandably waiting for some sort of counter-evidence before muddying the waters. If the articles you quote don't even know the employers of the film crew, they are obviously not close enough to make judgments to the veracity of the footage.
posted by boaz at 5:39 PM on September 22, 2001

'I think I'll shuffle down to the library tonight, pull the raw feed from Reuters, and see what it shows'

I don't have that luxury, but i've seen enough of the footage to know that the triumphant expressions on the faces of the guys in the truck can't be staged by offering sweets, Vidiot. And that it'd be unusual to find a crowd of Palestinians with such a collectively enthusiastic sweet-tooth that they'd all so energetically stomp around for Western media and look so damn happy in their celebrations of chancing upon the filmcrew equivalent of the Easter bunny. If the woman in the footage is self-conscience enough to declare "What does the world think of me now? That I am a fanatic Muslim? That I would scream of joy when thousands of humans have died a painful death?" are we expected to submit to the belief that she'd 'scream of joy' for a dessert? Most dogs wont even go that far.. and they LOVE puddings! More than any human ever could! So what are we to make of this?. "I've never been so ashamed in my life. What does the world think of me now?" Um, that you and your friends are rather extreme in your fondness for sweets?

Is it really that hard for people to fathom the notion that those celebrating in the footage may have seen the WTC bombings as being a major victory?

But did Reuters, CNN (and many other major news organisations) know the full story? Should they have known? Do they care?

Effbott, of course they care. But go on deceiving yourself with statements like 'So a fabrication it is'. Oh how i envy the bubblafied bliss of ardent self-denial. Such a transcendent state. Don't let the nasty media hypnotists break through that trusty forcefield though as it's not always apparent who exactly is hypnotizing who, even if it is sometimes convenient to decide. It's even been known for it to turn out to be a persons own inherent inner-ideals, likes, dislikes, pre-conceived notions, etc. that cast the deceiving illusions. We can all be victim to that. Shades of grey old bean. Welcome to reality.

'Perhaps this travelling guy doesn't generally watch much CNN...'

That's a big perhaps right there, Kino.

It's not that overly presumptuous, Lia, considering that the man is five months into trekking his way around the globe without anything much more connected than his mobile phone and frenzied hitchhiking thumb. Unless he's rather adept at lipreading and has a habit of gawping for hours through shop windows i think it's fair to say he isn't a habitual daily hardcore member of the couch-potato-afied CNN user appreciation society - Those of us so addicted to breaking news that we can instantly spot the significance of a CNN logo colour change are not, generally, the types who feel driven to abandon our own comfy armchairs and set off on a lengthy laptop-less hiatus to sleep in other peoples and it's fair to assume that if we did happen to be so possessed as to do so, our TV news viewing habits would suffer dramatically as a consequence. That's not to say i don't respect what he's doing though -- i think it's a great project -- even if i would personally feel the need to arm myself with a well sharpened machete to embark on such a trek.

Perhaps people who don't agree with you don't have to be described like total idiots?

Yes, on the whole, i agree and, well, that would be where the word 'perhaps' comes into the equation. Call it a condensed disclaimer if you like - a handy tool for signalling the onset of a brief hypothesis; In such a sandbox setting nothing is stated as definite and, now you happen to mention it, in that space, for the purpose of variable exploration, the theory could be explored that there's a chance the geeza is infact in possession of traits that could lead to him being defined in some circles as being an 'idiot', even so, in this instance i don't find myself guilty of the ill thought out hypothetical charge of having done that. It would have been an abstract and empty exercise that would have only served to get in the way of the substance of the points i had to make. You know, the ones you categorically ignored in forming a short, content devoid response. Keep on trying though -- you might just get lucky -- I can't always be perfect.

Now i know you adore reading my rambling shit Lia but, please - do try not to dwell too hard on each paragraph; there'll be plenty more where they came from - you don't have to squeeze them like sponges to try and find meanings and intent in things that aren't actually there. Trollface ^__^
posted by Kino at 6:05 PM on September 22, 2001

uh, one brief point, Kino -- I personally don't think the video was staged. That's due to my knowledge of how CNN (and Reuters) operates. But then again, I haven't actually seen the video in question. So that's why I'll look at it when I get to work.

effbot made the claims about the sweets, not me. I happen to disagree with effbot about another issue. Just wanted to make sure that our viewpoints weren't confused with each other. (hey, trying to maintain what meager reputation I may or may not have. *smirk*)
posted by Vidiot at 7:03 PM on September 22, 2001

effbot made the claims about the sweets, not me.

The snopes link actually said the rumor was that the "Israeli Defense Agency", a non-existent agency, had handed out sweets to Palestinians in exchange for celebrating. This fits the classic rumour profile, mutating in response to adversity.
posted by boaz at 7:18 PM on September 22, 2001

'..wanted to make sure..'

Oh yeah - we know Vidiot, congrats on the job btw. Keep us informed; be interesting to know as to what you think of the tape.

[and if you happen to bump into Larry King whilst shuffling through those corridors of media power twang his braces for me and give him a banana wontcha. Oh, and Lou Dobbs, can you pat his back sharply to check if he is infact the Pillsbury doughman. Essentially i'm looking for a small flour filled cloud emanating from his person but a milky coloured handprint on his torso coupled with one of his yeastfilled pastryfaced expressions would be proof enough to confirm my suspicions. Oh, and Femi Oke.. tell her i'll happily raindance naked on a map of the Sahara screaming of joy for a date with her, she can be my own motivational kanafe, long as she promises to join me afterwards for a celebratory game of twister. Claire Smith can come too, if she helps me find her Hotspot.. No wonder Ramon Stoppelenburg was so pissed off about the sweeping Brownification of CNNI.. That travelshow feistress could make a blind man drool. :]... ..
posted by Kino at 12:31 AM on September 23, 2001

I personally don't think the video was staged. That's due to my knowledge of how CNN (and Reuters) operates

Oh, I fully agree. Nobody (well, no reliable source, at least) has ever claimed that CNN (nor Reuters) orchestrated this. Read the articles.

Mutating in response to adversity

I'd say this thread has already mutated out of control. I have no idea what Snopes are referring to. All I know is what Swedish and German media have reported, and what the full video clip showed. If Vidiot or Boaz wants to discuss this further, mail me.
posted by effbot at 3:16 AM on September 23, 2001

Effbot: The accusations were discussed on the letters page of Poynter MediaNews, which is read by hundreds of influential journalists in the U.S.
posted by rcade at 8:34 AM on September 23, 2001