Egyptian police arrest five people for using children to stage fake 'Aleppo' footage

[Sue Sponte]

Again, no.

One arrest is not evidence of anything being "routinely staged." Its an accusation by the egyptians, to date unproven, of a single instance. And no one on this board knows whether it was the videos that were staged or the accusations relating thereto.

You are serious?

Why wouldn't I be?

You don't draw broad conclusions from a single data point.

But unfortunately, thats the way people "think" now. They seek out an anecdotal event which confiims their view and use it to draw a far broader conclusion

Thats why the Breitbart's of the world exist. To post single events and let the confirmation bias scream "See! I told you so!"

Alas, the reality is it is but a single data point.

But let's get back to drawing wildly unsupported broader conclusions from a single anecdote. Tis way more fun!

- - - Updated - - -

This thread is about western propaganda,
But if you must know, russian propaganda is much less concerned with justification of invasion than western one. So there is really no point in atrocity propaganda.

No. This thread is not about "westen propaganda". Its a about specific case of alleged staged news.

Yep

 

[Underseer]

Egyptian police arrest five people for using children to stage fake 'Aleppo' footage

Five people in Port Said allegedly making fake videos purporting to show the wreckage of air strikes in the Syrian city of Aleppo have been arrested, the Egyptian Interior Ministry has said.

The videographer, his assistants and the parents of two children who appear in the footage were detained after police managed to trail the would-be camera crew to a building site awaiting demolition, a statement on Monday said.

Let me guess: therefore there are no suffering civilians in Aleppo?

 

[barbos]

Egyptian police arrest five people for using children to stage fake 'Aleppo' footage

Let me guess: therefore there are no suffering civilians in Aleppo?

There are, but "thanks" to fake news we don't really know about them.

 

[Axulus]

No.

I knew there myst be a logical fallacy in play here.

The point is THAT GUY apparently was making a false video.

It is not evidence that any other videos are inaccurate. Or anything beyond that guy.

It's evidence of the fact that these videos are routinely staged. And yes, a lot of these videos which western media shows are lame fakes.

A data point of one tells you nothing about the frequency. Thus your claim of "routinely" is irrational.

Furthermore, no source has been provided for this video being claimed as real in any western media source.

You seem to suffer an extreme version of confirmation bias and jumping to conclusions based on the flimsiest of reasons.

 

[Axulus]

Let me guess: therefore there are no suffering civilians in Aleppo?

There are, but "thanks" to fake news we don't really know about them.

Human rights watch and amnesty international are pretty good at documenting human rights abuses and obtaining evidence to corroborate the incidents.

No, you pointing to one or two pieces of data where they got it wrong doesn't invalidate the source. You have to actually demonstrate the frequency, i.e. the number of bad reports vs. the number of good reports. If you cherry pick three bad reports from a thousand, while the actual fact of the matter is that the other 997 are good, then the odds that any given report is reliable, picked at random, is 99.7%.

This is one thing I notice that you and Will Wiley avoid like the plague, actually demonstrating the frequency of good reports vs. bad reports from various sources, such as CNN, Guardian, RT, etc. You think one cherry picked report, and then distorting what it is actually saying, means the whole source on any article is suspect. Or I've seen even more egregious and spurious claims: some random video or photo described on a non-mainstream site being shown to be fake or suspect, and then proclaiming "western media" as being unreliable, despite no evidence whatsoever that the photo or video was claimed as true or even ever used in any reliable "western media" source. Or even if it has been used, whether or not the organization retracted it as such upon being shown the error.

 

[barbos]

It's evidence of the fact that these videos are routinely staged. And yes, a lot of these videos which western media shows are lame fakes.

A data point of one tells you nothing about the frequency. Thus your claim of "routinely" is irrational.

Furthermore, no source has been provided for this video being claimed as real in any western media source.

You seem to suffer an extreme version of confirmation bias and jumping to conclusions based on the flimsiest of reasons.

If it were "one" I would not have said "routinely"

 

[barbos]

There are, but "thanks" to fake news we don't really know about them.

Human rights watch and amnesty international are pretty good at documenting human rights abuses and obtaining evidence to corroborate the incidents.

No, you pointing to one or two pieces of data where they got it wrong doesn't invalidate the source. You have to actually demonstrate the frequency, i.e. the number of bad reports vs. the number of good reports. If you cherry pick three bad reports from a thousand, while the actual fact of the matter is that the other 997 are good, then the odds that any given report is reliable, picked at random, is 99.7%.

This is one thing I notice that you and Will Wiley avoid like the plague, actually demonstrating the frequency of good reports vs. bad reports from various sources, such as CNN, Guardian, RT, etc. You think one cherry picked report, and then distorting what it is actually saying, means the whole source on any article is suspect. Or I've seen even more egregious and spurious claims: some random video or photo described on a non-mainstream site being shown to be fake or suspect, and then proclaiming "western media" as being unreliable, despite no evidence whatsoever that the photo or video was claimed as true or even ever used in any reliable "western media" source. Or even if it has been used, whether or not the organization retracted it as such upon being shown the error.

Frequency my ass. It has been demonstrated countless number of times. Palestinians have made it their whole point of their existence out of it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are, but "thanks" to fake news we don't really know about them.

Human rights watch and amnesty international are pretty good at documenting human rights abuses and obtaining evidence to corroborate the incidents.

Sorry, but neither of these is credible.

The basic problem is they basically have to take the word of the people on the scene, almost never are they actually able to verify the information. They can check for errors but it's basically impossible for them to check for carefully done deception. Hence they are routinely played by those who want to use them to push an agenda.

While it's probably the best data we have on the stuff they are trying to document that doesn't mean it's good enough to be of value.