Just damn.
If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
Posted on 08/08/2004 3:43:36 PM PDT by mhking
Press Release - Robert F. Martin 8/8/2004
I would like to clear some issues up regarding the video I co-produced. First, the video we produced should not be viewed in a partisan light. This video is not meant to be a pro or anti war commentary. The comments of Ben in the movie regarding ending the occupation were simply emphasize realism in what someone being held hostage would have potentially said while pleading for their life. How the video should be viewed is that it exposes problems in the media. We rely much too heavily on Reuters and Associated Press for our media coverage. After the Middle Eastern networks aired the videos obtained via the internet--not posted on any websites by us as reported by fox news, AP and Reuters picked it up. Then plenty of news organizations began playing it as fact. Stop and think how a similar, but much more harmful hoax could be conducted. Physical evidence should be the new standard in the modern digital age, rather than grainy videos.
It is not like we purposefully dragged this hoax out in any manner, or ever sent the video to any news or law enforcement saying it was true. To the contrary, as soon as the story broke Benjamin Vanderford immediately confirmed that it was a hoax. Perhaps if they had attempted to contact Ben before publishing the story as true, none of this "hoax" business would have ever occured--after all his home address is in the video. Shortly after the video was made we forgot about it, until Ben was woken up last Saturday.
Media organizations are increasingly relying upon sensationalism rather than a code of ethics of journalism. We must ask ourself the question, are we susceptable to another William Randolph Hearst? Our media is getting homogenized when individual papers and networks stop doing their own investigations and rely upon one or two sources, frequently Associated Press and Reuters. For example: in the 2000 election as soon as Fox News called the election for Bush, the other networks followed before all the votes had been counted. This is another case of the media being caught with its pants down because it failed to find complete physical evidence before breaking a story, and they are attempting to shift the blame from themselves and onto us.
I also find it ironic that we are being lambasted on on Fox and other networks for our video. We are criticized for belitting the real beheadings; however this was not our intent, nor do we think that we are responsible for any pain caused to the families. The media's sensationalism is the cause of this pain; had they spent 20 or 30 minutes checking into the name Ben Vanderford, or his home address which is said in the video (which many of the reporters we have talked to had actually not seen!) they could have easily found out the video was fake, and given it the amount of coverage it originally deserved--none. Now that it's been shown how easily the media can be duped, it's certainly newsworthy--but before it really wasn't much of a story. If you check Kazaa, there are other faked death videos being shared. We never envisioned the scale our video would be published--this scope is thanks to lazy organizations such as AP and Reuters who published it, and Fox News who continues to run the story of the "hoax" more than any other network.
If Fox and a few other TV networks really are sensitive to the families they would have done as other networks have largely done--which is to not air the story on tv. Or perhaps AP and Reuters could have just done responsible journalism in the first place and this never would have happened. But it's easier to blame Ben and the video producers rather than take on the worldwide problem we have in news reporting.
We are also shocked by the reaction of some educated people. For example, from Crystal Carreon's Mercury News article: "``It's a cheap shot,'' said Theodore Glasser, Stanford University professor of communications. ``It's like bombing a building to see if security measures are in place. . . . You don't demonstrate something like that at the public's expense.''
I would like to ask Mr. Glasser how the two events are analagous. Bombing a building is an act that involves damage physical things, such as buildings and lives--none of which the video caused. We do not understand this type of blatantly intellectually dishonest commentary, especially from a Stanford professor.
I also ask, how does Geraldo's aggressive threats towards Ben accomplish anything? Does Geraldo think more violence would somehow solve something? As far as I can tell, if you compare Geraldo and Ben and who put the troops in danger more, I would say it was Geraldo, because he made the error of giving up sensitive troop positions while reporting in Iraq. Geraldo directly put the troops in harms way, we did not.
Our hearts go out not only to the families of those who have died as a result of international terrorism, but to the soldiers who have also bravely died for my right to speak freely.
Thank you,
Robert F. Martin, co-producer
Laurie Kirchner, co-producer
8/8/2004
925-484-9351
videohoax@hotmail.com
Additional comments can be viewed at our interview with The San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/08/08/MNGBN83I3U1.DTL
Just damn.
If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
I don't find this funny at all. What were these geniuses thinking? I wish Geraldo would beat the shite out of them. Good for him!
It's almost amusing to watch them try to come up with high-minded motivations after the fact for what was a juvenile, idiotic, reprehensible stunt.
I'm neither impressed nor amused, though. Anyone who participated in making this video is an a**hole.
"For example: in the 2000 election as soon as Fox News called the election for Bush, the other networks followed before all the votes had been counted. This is another case of the media being caught with its pants down because it failed to find complete physical evidence before breaking a story, and they are attempting to shift the blame from themselves and onto us. "
Lets guess the politics of these two loverlies?
A hoax like that should certainly get them something - a little jail time, perhaps, if anybody can think of something to charge them with.
What this cretin did is no different than crying fire in a crowded theater. He must be indicted for causing public alarm or what ever charge covers this type of insanity.
Having said that, this piece seems to be suggesting the following sequence of events:
I find this scenario to be entirely credible.
As much as I hate Hollywood, there are 2 movies from the 1990s which get my unoffical 'at least they're scratching the surface' award: Primary Colors and Wag The Dog. The missive above fits in with the Wag The Dog situation, and I tend to enjoy anything that shows the Presstitutes for the unethical opportunistic sensationalists that they are.
Again, I am not defending Mr. Martin, his actions, or the veracity of his statements. I chose not to discuss him at this time, and their would be plenty to be said there.
There is some FReeper suspicion that a banned poster named Beheadings1 who posted the story here but had no other history on his mid-July registered account was the same guy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.