# ABC news used video of Knob Creek "Machine Gun Night" demonstration as Turkey attacking Kurds



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2019)

The term "Fake news" gets thrown around but it doesn't get much more plain than this. The "Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot" is a bi-annual event at the Knob Creek Gun Range in Kentucky. Class III firearm dealers, collectors, and registered Class III automatic weapon owners put on demonstrations, there are dealer displays, cookout, music, general law-abidin' redneck type stuff. Yeehaw.

That only has something to do with this post, because ABC News has used footage from the 2016 "night shoot" at Knob Creek and represented it as a 'slaughter' of Kurd civilians by Turkish troops. Here's the original 2016 Knob Creek video:




Now watch this. As you can see, the video is darkened and cropped at the bottom so you don't see all the hillbilly heads. But it's the same video.

https://streamable.com/p9nod


And they didn't show it just once, either:



From some googling it seems the claim that this video shows a Turkish attack originated on twitter out of France. But ABC clearly didn't put enough effort into confirming the authenticity of the footage. They just ran with it.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...age-appears-to-come-from-a-kentucky-gun-range


----------



## Jiehfeng (Oct 14, 2019)

Thought it would be evidence of clear fake news that cannot be justified by opinion, but I guess it's just another one of those media is ignorant on what they posted things...


----------



## billapong (Oct 15, 2019)

Jiehfeng said:


> Thought it would be evidence of clear fake news that cannot be justified by opinion, but I guess it's just another one of those media is ignorant on what they posted things...



Or their defense of posting the fake news is ignorance. You realize how playing dumb fools a lot of people. Apparently, even if it was an honest mistake it is a mistake and just goes to show the quality control at some of these news outlets. ABC does run a lot of Liberal content, but unlike CNN it's usually fairly accurate journalism, it's just one sided as they have an agenda and it's not simply "being a news organization". They clearly want people to vote against Conservative issues.

Back to ignorance. Take Trump. He'll play dumb sometimes which fools masses on the Left, who are equally as dumb (as all they see is what he wants them to see and only hear what he wants them to hear), but the entire time he's playing them for fools and then in turn gets what's he's after. Underestimating your opponent usually leads to losses regardless of what you're competing for.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 15, 2019)

It's lousy journalism, absolutely. The only thing in their defense is that they've removed it from the air and issued an apology.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 15, 2019)

I don't know whats more scary, the fake news or you can buy this stuff  in the USA


----------



## notimp (Oct 15, 2019)

If true, good example of the limits of journalism. You get a video. From a source. Subject matter "fireworks at night". How can you verify that it is what its supposed to be?

Way back when, this established the 'two sources have to verify it independently' principle, which afair even started out as a marketing play for 'our journalism is better'. In the end, this never was a guarantee for anything - but it made it less likely for stupid mistakes to occur.

In the internet age this is long gone. Partly because sources can now 'broadcast' themselves and influence other sources, partly because of economic pressures, partly because of social media and google which are designed to weigh 'first one with the story' heavier.

So stuff like this happens. You trust a source. It turns out to be BS: Or - you arent sure, but decide to play it because of economic benefits ('Attention grab').

Afair the last bigger excample of this we discussed was the german Der Spiegel journalist (award winning) that made up his human interest stories for important geopolitical events on his own and then won journalism awards for his fiction. 

That was almost a year ago. So if you filter it through the perception of this forum, this actually isnt that bad of a rate. Debunked, stupidly false stories in bigger mainstream news outlets at a rate of 'one a year - worldwide, that we remember'. 

If verifiably phony - this is a good example of 'real fake news' - as in the one that always has been out there and always will be.

But 'fake news' has taken on its own life as a 'don't trust mainstream media' movement. And that was rather odd, and not that clever. Because in the end, people in that line of thinking mostly told you to read something from a georgian blog, they found  on facebook, listen  to a radio shock jock, or visit infowars - if, when we get down to it - didn't serve to explain the world to them 'better'.

So in the end, its still mostly news corporations with higher expenses paid and more staff on the  payroll, that you can trust producing the better news. (And news agencies.) The next thing is to read a few of those, from different political fields or countries preferably.

If you are more tuned in on a topic, you can also go down the rabbit hole of 'snowball' journalism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_sampling ) f.e. on Twitter, and get into a few sources another person you think of as interesting, uses.

But never go 'opinion pundit' hunting in an effort to make it easier for you, because you could just copy an informed opinion, or something that sounds like that. 

The odd thing is, writing this, I just came from a political podium discussion on an 'edgy' topic, that was held by a reputable organization, and I'm fairly sure, that one of the panel speakers was a little over the line. As in, had political opinions, that where a little out there. Its still interesting  to hear, because they obviously were into their topic and up to date on certain developments - but the actual judgement comes from the fine line of knowing where the mainstream spectrum  on a topic sits. From left to right.

If you don't and you are shouting fake news, chances are, that you might shout that - because of a feeling. (On the internet, on facebook I read things, that I never saw in the evening news > mainstream media be fake news kind of logic.)

But thats not a huge problem. Never was.

Of course there is the other side of PR people trying to get manufactured stories into circulation. That also has been the case for  a long time.

John Oliver recently surfaced two examples of chinese propaganda:


You can learn something from that as well. 

And in the end, all that propaganda always is, is creating a maybe not that universally informed consensus with 'many people' thats also something thats basically core to the human experience.  We all want to take shortcuts. We all want to belong.

Even if that in the end means standing out there in groups, havent learned much, but shouting take down fake news. 

Now that the hype around that concept (fake news) has died down a little - its easier to conceptualize it as 'maybe it really was people not understanding how facebook algorithms, and gaming facebook algorithms, worked'. 

And for that you can always read:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13542853-trust-me-i-m-lying
For example.


----------



## billapong (Oct 16, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> It's lousy journalism, absolutely. The only thing in their defense is that they've removed it from the air and issued an apology.



That's why I hold ABC in much of a higher regard to CNN or MSNBC. ABC usually follows proper journalistic standards (up until not picking a side of the issue). ABC is clearly pro-Liberal and anti-Conservative, but at least they will admit when they made a mistake. It's not like they are CNN trying to pass the shit they publish as actual news.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 16, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> I don't know whats more scary, the fake news or you can buy this stuff  in the USA




The hurdle to legally purchase anything full auto is VERY HIGH.

1) Nothing allowed if it wasn't already civilian owned by 1986. That means no post-1986 full auto weapons imported, manufactured, or converted, except for government/law enforcement. So the supply is finite.

2) Have to apply and pass the BATFE Class III personal investigation. This isn't a gun buy "instant background check." They actually look up your skirt. Visit neighbors. Come in your house and check for appropriate storage accommodation.

3) Cost. Even if you pass BATFE's investigation and you find an eligible full-auto firearm for sale, expect to pay at least $15,000 for it. And that's for small arms stuff. The kind of weapons being exhibited in that video are in the hundreds of thousands price range.

4) Pain in the ass. Keeping your Class III status legal after purchase means keeping records, and agreeing/submitting to unannounced BATFE home visits.


Most people who are into this are either in it as a business, or they're in high-end collecting. I read once that there's only been one instance of a crime being committed in the USA since 1934 with a legally-owned full-auto weapon. And it was a cop who did it.


Edit: should be added ... Class III covers full-auto, short-barrel rifles (but still semi-auto), and suppressors (some say silencers). Obtaining Class III approval for the latter two is not as difficult as it is for full-auto, but it's still a long process, usually over a year, and an extra $200 on top of the price of whatever it is you've applied to buy.


----------



## notimp (Oct 16, 2019)

So most domestic acts of terror in the US are not caused by automatic weapons. Or to circumvent background checks people sell semi automatic weapons that can easily be modified to become full auto? Or because of the saturation, there is a large grey market for used weapons, where no one asks too thoroughly?

Or all of the above?

Also 'high end collectors' then get together in 'playing war' shows, that can fool news media into believing that this is war footage? Or is this part of a reenactment therapy for GIs. 


To get back on topic - here is the confirmation and apology from abc:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/business/media/turkey-syria-kentucky-gun-range.html

edit: Oh and btw. verifying such a video (if f.e. it would have resulted from a crop) via reverse image search is not that as easy as the right wing blog with an agenda want tp make it sound. Thats bull. But then again  if the entire journalistic process turned out to be searching twitter for keywords, thats  worse.


----------



## notimp (Oct 16, 2019)

Also, no one interested in the attacks on kurds in here, just to spread right wing propaganda to divert from the fact, that the US provoked another international crisis here.

Fun.

Someone rename this forum to 'certainly not world news', 'current events in right wing propaganda' and 'I believe its all about the faces and  tweets' politics already.

edit: Oh, and if you were interested, Erdoğan just provoked with a statement, that there never will be a seize fire, and there also wont be sanctions for Turkey, so non of the people in turkey has to worry. Which means - US is in on it, and the force that defeated ISIS for them in the region now is only a nuisance to them because of the potential power imbalance it produces in the region. So lets decimate them now. Managing loose ends.


----------



## barronwaffles (Oct 16, 2019)

You don't even need to validate the video by reverse searching (and that's not a difficult job as you seem to be implying) - it's fucking obvious that it's not from a warzone.


----------



## notimp (Oct 16, 2019)

It is.

Subject matter are streaks of light on a black background. If you reverse image search that you probably get 'not enough detail for fingerprinting'. If the video was cropped, reverse image search algos would fail as well.

Hashing is also out of the question.

This literally is a situation where very likely none of those techniques would work. And where the 'having been there' crowd intelligence trumps anything a room full of editorial staff and fact checkers at a news outlet could do.

Of course abc didn't comment on how it was possible, that such a video made its way into 'Good morning america' which probably means that 'one journalist did a twitter search, and the head of production didnt check against it. Thats a fail.

Also - if you've ever worked in a TV newsroom you know that they don't have much research staff to begin with, and are heavily reliant on newspapers / agencies for stories and always on the hunt for 'good images'. If they now start to supplement newsspapers for twitter 'because its less effort' stuff like this happens.

Also - the blogosphere is really the issue of all this. News media is in direct competition to a form of media, that only does hearsay 'reporting'. If you read the book linked to above, you get the PR guy persspective of 'if I seed a story in 5 blogs' and it gets picked up by a more reputable news source, I've circumvented all journalistic dilligence/care procedures. Because they have multiple sources, the story is in rotation. It probably pops up in peoples facebook feeds already (facebook doesnt care (or didn't) about news integrity), ... And it spirals up to more reputable sources within minutes.

Thats the issue here.

Not FAKE NEWS, fake news, fake news media. Thats just the chant you guys follow for no reason. You are still uninformed, but now you have found something to supplement for educating yourself. Mass chants trying to dengrate the outgroup. Fitting avatar, btw.

Stop wrapping yourself up in the notion that  'pointing this out' is so important, after initially doing it. (And the news source has issued a rebuttal.) Its human error. Its idiot took easy bait, instead of doing real journalistic work.

Happens in all fields of work. If it happens in journalism, for part of the right it becomes confirmation, that the 'more educated' are out to get them.

Because you only have to memorize one sentence - and you have all debates covered. That was what 'fake news' served as a concept. Produce uncertainty and doubt. Make the political edges look more appealing. Because mainstream news reporting also fails.

Get it? Good. 

Doing this stuff, and finding oddities in news reporting fascinating is fine - but you have to understand the ramification as well. If you dont't its just an excuse, that you don't want to learn stuff.

And on a more basic level. If everytime you read  such a story you get an endorphine 'reward' because "ha, the more intelligent people are stupid a as well" triggers. All of a sudden you are hunting just for that stuff. Look at this forum.


----------



## barronwaffles (Oct 16, 2019)

It doesn't excuse the ineptitude of modern mass media just because situations like this 'happen in all fields of work' - the vast majority of other 'fields of work' don't have anything that could come close to resembling an impact on public discourse. It should, and needs to, be held to a higher standard.

You genuinely think _they_ don't understand the ramifications that an absolute lack of source/content verification has in situations like this? This isn't how you compete with your supposed direct competition - this is how you discredit those around you and hand the audience over on a fucking platter.

Friendly note - not everyone who recognizes that corporate media is an industry cutting its own head off is a fake-news hurling retard.


----------



## notimp (Oct 16, 2019)

barronwaffles said:


> It doesn't excuse the ineptitude of modern mass media just because situations like this 'happen in all fields of work' - the vast majority of other 'fields of work' don't have anything


Media was the first business model that was thoroughly digitally disrupted.

Wait ten years and you'll see the problem everywhere. 

At the heart of it, it was people pronouncing - I am so intelligent - I don't need to pay for my news - I get it on facebook for free.

So, and in the  end it turned out, most of what they really wanted to read in mass - was clickbait (see thread articles in here) some teenagers  produced at a clickfarm in georgia.

And as facebook didn't discriminate (we just a platform, we don't take sides) people optimized for outrage bait, because the dumb people clicked on it, and the intelligent people clicked on it, and the bored people clicked on it, and the concerned people clicked on it.

Then because it was free (ad financed) - you had to make sure that only very few people got the bulk of the rewards for it ('money  spread thin'), so all of a sudden  it became immensely important to be - 'the first' who had a story - and conventional media, was leveled by the distribution mechanism (think facebook) to be exactly the same as any blog.

Then users were made unaware of who produced the news, to have it show up more 'native' to the facebook ecoystem, so they consumed more, and they trusted an algo to surface whats 'important' - but the algo rather surfaced 'what they liked to click on'.

Now you optimized for people everscrolling in those feeds and click on important sounding stuff, one armed bandid style - and you told them to share it in their personal feeds for more clicks.

And conventional media did what? The didn't own the ecosystem you decided to use (think facebook). You started not to pay them anymore. The ecosystems decided to pay only the first movers (forget double checking) (Apple deciding to pay out revenue for their gaming service per hour played ring a bell?). Blog content got center staged more often, because they optimized faster for the new paradigm (because most of them didn't care about journalistic integrity (read the book I linked)) - and 'use two sources' doesnt work anymore, because any Bilbo and his twitter feed can now influence public discussion.

So in essence - you ruined a concept called 'gatekeepers' (somone else - human and educated though - decides whats important enough to report on), and replaced it with a full market economy that optimized for your daily dopamine fix.

Then there was a backswing, where people desperately looked for 'pundits' they could trust in. But that doesnt solve the 'ecosystem already ruined' issue. If there is no money, if only the fast movers win - have fun in your youtub economies, getting overflown by BS.

Now - some of that was fine for english speaking outlets, because the internet meant, that they could reach more users (ad targets), but nothing scaled like those fake news farms in georgiam, that also were producing in english.

You cant have it both ways. Free and 'twitter' recent.

Reliable and accurate.

What happened to the weekly newsspaper btw? Now run as a potcast by some celeb with a fancy haircut?

Now, there are systems in journalism to reduce the bull, for example other outlets following up on fakes (like the NYT did in the example above), there are retractions, there are mea culpas -- but in an ever scrolling facebook ecosystem, you dont see them. You dont even know the brand of the news source most of the time. So reputation stopped to matter.

So people thought that fact checking services might be a way out of it - but nobody cared about those either. So that didnt work.


If you don't pay for something (and you dont pirate), you are the product.

Now - unintended consequence - forums like these where people want to share their clickbaity high interest stories from facebook to make sense of them. Or to engage in 'my console is better than yours' opinionwars.  Its fine for the first purpose, but if you are into it for the second one - your are grinding down people who are still willing to respond doing breakdowns and analysis for you.

And then you are just posting right wing PR - and no one is opposing, and facebook doesnt make sure you read other stuff as well - and journalism still doesnt get paid, and your favourite blog wants to sell you water filters - and you've won?


Now - online journalism was responsible for devaluing the banner ad for example - but they werent responsible for people to taking to facebook, or instagram, and staying there all day, reading about other people having sex and '5 stories you wouldnt believe' that was just the lowest common denominator. So everyone started serving.

If you nowadays got  journalists that think that clipping from twitter is doing their job, then thats a problem. But then - everyone is  doing it, right?

Hard to get the genie back into the bottle.

You have to develop different methods of gaging if something is true, and how important it is. Just blaming news for not being more better, doesnt  solve this in any way.

Making activism out of it, letting others know that this is an issue - without having know them whats causing it - isnt solving it.

So stop the outrage? Maybe?


----------



## Viri (Oct 16, 2019)

Holy shit, I didn't even know the first video was a thing! That looks like so much fun! It's like fire works and shooting a machine gun! I wish we had something like that here...

This whole situation reminds me of this...


Spoiler


----------

