Fake beheading video hoax

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sun Aug 08, 2004 11:20 pm

I know the people behind this...I wrote their latest press release (by their approval, standing over my shoulder). Here is a link to that:
http://videohoax.ctyme.com/

Here is a link to the story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 83I3U1.DTL

What do you guys think? I wasn't there or a part of it. Knowing them, they never intended for this to become national news. Do they in your opinion, deserve jail? They just made the video at their house, never expecting less than 1% of the coverage received. They're sorry for any pain caused to the families.

The news media really dropped the ball on this one because Ben Vanderford's home address was listed in the video. All AP and Reuters had to do was knock on his door (I'm sure they have plenty of reporters in San Francisco) to verify the story before it ran. Ben's phone number was also listed on his website. The instant he was asked he explained it was a hoax.

It's amazing how many of their comments were distorted, changed, made up, etc. when you were actually there. I barely believe the media at all anymore after this.

What do you think?

Birds

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:22 am

News reporting is business. It often happens that consistency of purpose is altered in order to maximize profit. So yeah, it goes to show how easily the media can be manipulated.

This said, it was not an intelligent thing to make such a video. It's like saying at the airport to the official checking your luggage "there's a bomb in there". You can explain all you want about it being a hoax afterwards, you shouldn't have said it in the first place. These are no laughing matters.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:52 am

No surprise to me, in all honesty. I don't understand as to why someone would make a hoax like that? I mean, people make UFO hoaxes and stuff for attention, but a hoax of a beheading...thats pretty f'd up. I'd definitely say they deserve jail time for it.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 4:47 am

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 4:52 am

If what they said was true, their experiment proved exactly what they sought to prove though. Even though it trivializes the deaths of those men who've died that way. I can't think off the top of my head if they broke any laws though, so jail time would be pointless. On a moral level, I do think it was wrong but you don't get jail time for breaking moralities

Sure, the content was in bad taste. However you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet and in this day and age of sensationalisms just tossing a rock at someone doesn't get their attention anymore. You have to drop a house on them.

In a way a part of me wishes this type of stuff happend more often because in the long run it would force the mainstream media outlets to actually do something called "research" *gasp* before running with a story. It always makes me laugh to hear how little they do to verify before they print or air things anymore.

"Hmmm...this arab website who has terrorist connections aired the video, it must be real!. Run it!"

Sometimes the correct information can pay off just as much or more then half the crap they put out anymore. Even if it takes just a little bit longer to get all the facts.

The irony of it is whichever outfit broke the hoax made money by revealing the truth about a story that made money for another outfit which was false. Got to respect the wheels in motion sometimes

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 5:03 am

I don't think they should be sent to jail. There are movies made by Hollywood that show much more violence than what such an amateur vid could ever show. They aren't doing prison time, are they?

You can do what you want with your cam, your friends and your home. Their mistake was not to make that vid, but to spread it. Even if it was only on Kazaa or something.

None of us has the whole picture here, but it seems to me that they didn't send this vid to a press agency to get attention. However, it is clear they *did* spread it to get attention, only it was much more than they had expected.

So the blame lies just as much with the press agencies that picked it up.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:08 am

I think the press owes them an apology! I would be pissed off to find out I was beheaded by watching the news

Bad taste and all that yea, but then there is no provision for protection from someones bad taste in the law thankfully otherwise we wouldn't have Rock&Roll music...Horror movies...etc.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:52 am

jailtime for showing what a beast the media can really be?

no.

IMO this is a wake-up call to the media that they'd better get their act together. enough with the sensationalist crap. now AP and Reuters are on the same level with the National Enquirer and weekly world news.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 12:09 pm

Jail time..wtf, what is wrong with you two?

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 12:38 pm

^^

lack of reading the articles?

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:00 pm

It's rather insensitive and stupid for them to make a video like that, but it illustrates an excellent point about our sensationalist press. This wasn't a huge story until the media attempted to capitalize on it, and subsequently wound up with egg on its collective face. Don't blame the guy who made the movie, blame the press for not investigating the truth of what it reports.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:05 pm

I think it illustrated stupidity on both ends, but not nearly worthy of Jail time. I would advise that next time someone makes something like this they include something in the video to let them know its a fake. Maybe a big flashing banner at the top of it.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:13 pm

Wouldn't stop Al Jazeera from running it.

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 3:10 pm

FWIW, Fox has a video of the guy explaining his motivations. I don't believe him. I believe he came up with this *exposing the media's sloppiness* excuse after he realized what a mess he was in.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 3:19 pm

I'd say the media got owned on this one. Baba booey!

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 3:30 pm

IIRC the day the story ran it had alot of caveats connected to it. Yes, it was publicized, but the version I read indicated that it was unverified and there were certain aspects that called it's authenticity into question, notably the blood (or lack of free-flowing blood) and the fact that it was missing the *money shot* of the knife decapitating the body. Perhaps even the caveats aren't enough to salvage the media's desire for professionalism but it didn't swallow it as deeply as is now being suggested.

As far as jail time, I doubt they'll get any. Most likely they'll be bullied with that possibility because the authorities want to put the fear of God into any would-be copycats, but ultimately I'm guessing they'll get off with a fine and apology.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 7:48 pm

bash wrote:As far as jail time, I doubt they'll get any. Most likely they'll be bullied with that possibility because the authorities want to put the fear of God into any would-be copycats, but ultimately I'm guessing they'll get off with a fine and apology.

Yeah, they'll probably try to get them to react in a way that they can actually punish them. Still, I think it was rather stupid to release such a video. Making it is all fine and good, but sharing it on the damn internet as if it were the real thing.....STUPID.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 7:50 pm

Long live the first amendment.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 7:54 pm

Dedman wrote:Long live the first amendment.

Yeah, ain't it a ★■◆● when it doesn't work for those that disagree with your side?

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 10:47 pm

well, I personally know him bash and I personally heard the reasons 3 months ago when they came up with them and they're the same. I was sitting in the fox control room in SF during that interview today (I actually booked it for him).

Fine? For what? What charge? I talked to the FBI yesterday with robbie, they said no charges probably will be filed.

BTW, the site has a message machine from one newspaper that was 'sorry for the loss' so some people fully bit. I think ben has some of the original screen shots, so I'm not completely sure to what extent people bit. But I do know over an hour after AP published their story, they knocked on ben's door and said 'thank god you're alive'

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:28 pm

If he set out to fool the media, why didn't he e-mail it to any media outlets? Also, I'm sure some news sources ran without qualifying the story but the one I read cast so much doubt on it that no conclusion could be drawn.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:28 pm

bash wrote:As far as jail time, I doubt they'll get any. Most likely they'll be bullied with that possibility because the authorities want to put the fear of God into any would-be copycats, but ultimately I'm guessing they'll get off with a fine and apology.

Why even a fine? Did they break any laws?

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:42 pm

Unclear at this point but I'm sure the authorities are trying very hard to find one. Since their stated motivation was to fool the media--and by logical extension fool the public--there may be something along the lines of intent to consider and any costs due to that deception. If they had made the video solely for self-amusement I'm certain no laws would apply but the law considers all ramifications and an intent to deceive may carry some sort of penalty. I really don't know and AFAIK none of us here are attorneys so we'll just have to see how it plays out. My speculation is that they will find something due to the desire that this sort of stunt has to be seen by the public as having a downside as a means to discourage imitators.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:28 pm

As far as I can tell the authorities have quit. I questioned the FBI and asked them for any remote charge that could be brought. They couldn't name a single one then just tried to scare them by saying "★■◆● could come down from the top..."

I don't think it was necessarily the media specifically but rather the public in general, media inclusive.

"Yes, it was publicized, but the version I read indicated that it was unverified and there were certain aspects that called it's authenticity into question, notably the blood (or lack of free-flowing blood) and the fact that it was missing the *money shot* of the knife decapitating the body. Perhaps even the caveats aren't enough to salvage the media's desire for professionalism but it didn't swallow it as deeply as is now being suggested. "

There was more than one article, too. Reuters, AP, and the arab networks' report. Some were less skeptical than others. Many blogs reported it as real as well. Sounds to me like you just want to bash them rather than focus on the important points brought up.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:47 pm

And what *important* points would those be? That the media shoots first and asks questions later? That's a bit like revealing that a prostitute is promiscuous. Who knew?!! Heh. Dog bites man.

Tell me, Birds, did you think your friends were being clever? Did you approve of the idea three months ago or did you act as a voice of reason? Sounds like one of those bong plots that probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

Note: You dodged a very pertinent question above: If, as you claim, this was designed to fool the media, why did they not send it to the media?

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:53 pm

"That's a bit like revealing that a prostitute is promiscuous. "

Well, I have to agree there.

I think the best point is that if 3 kids can make this in their garage, imagine what kind of hoax well funded terrorists could perpetrate for a goal that's actually negative and harmful. I think it's a legitamate talking point, but all people want to talk about is the emotional argument against making such a video.That's what Ben said on fox news and just got the emotional card played back. I coached him beforehand to counter his single issue argument with his own single issue argument. They were very predictable. I think it went quite well.

Ben let me impersonate him on his phone for awhile on saturday too. My "interview" was aired on the BBC world service. Talking to Simon was quite fun. I'd have to say he was the most polite, that is until I asked him for a copy of the interview and he never replied.

I don't think they were all that clever. Total video time was something like 10 minutes. There was no actual beheading in the video. I think it's more of a lark caused my the media rather than some sort of amazing clever ability.

I saw the video when they finished it...I don't like grusome stuff so I didn't look twice. I didn't necessarily approve or disappove at the time and just thought it was kinda funny that they took the time to make it. None of them expected it to go farther than a few people messaging them on Kazaa saying "is this real"

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:57 pm

Terrorists don't Cry Wolf. That undermines the sense of fear terrorists hope to spread. After a few false alarms, no one pays attention and no one is *terrified*, so the *imagine what kind of hoax well funded terrorosts could perpetrate...* defies logic. But, in a round about way, I guess your friends have inadvertently eased the terror level. Maybe they should switch their story to that and claim to be heroes for relaxing the worried brow of America. Now instead of being anxious we can all settle into cynicism. Yay!

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:00 pm

it's true that "REAL" terrorists probably would just take a real person, but someone without the guts but wanted to effect the world could have drug something like this out for an extended time, wasting US resources. Also realize that there used to be a time when some 'terrorists' were just kidnappers who wanted money. You could have someone use this type of video extortion for financial rather than political gain.

I'd have to say this is the biggest proven event that the media had their pants down in awhile, especially from AP and Reuters that the media's failures deserved a little more press than the emotional argument.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:09 pm

Neither AP nor Al-Reuters has much of a reputation for objectivity or honesty these days anyway. It wouldn't surprise me if Al-Reuters would stage it's own phoney execution during a slow news day.