Snopes call 'FALSE' that CNN faked their video after London atrocity and give their reasons.
Here's another fine illustration of how the establishment backs up one of it's many tentacles when
they are accidentally exposed for misleading the public. To succeed in such battles for the minds of
the Blue-Pilled, one has to remember that answering an accusation head-on must only be done on
one's own turf.
And only within a chosen narrative.
Some people on the internet comment that the CNN video of a group of Muslim women, men
and children have been brought in by the film crew to create a false narrative and others have
stated that the whole scene looks staged due to the preparation being fimed by a third party.
before the CNN footage was actually broadcast.
So is it both, one or the other or neither? Snopes is supposed to be your guide to truth and
lies in the media world, so let's see why they judged the accusations as false.
...................................................
SNOPES:
From a Markantro Tweet
''Note the white police officers leaving before the CNN shot & the Asian officers coming in.
They then left after they went off air!''
'The claims spread widely from there, with right-leaning American blog Gateway Pundit leading
the charge in presenting it as an example of “fake news” in the making...'
Okay... straight out of the gate, Snopes is using the word 'claims' which means they can now
force the reader into an area where their own chosen 'claim' can be used. They should answer
each of the multiple claims to prove the whole incident true or false, but when you can pick your
weapon, you stand a better chance to win your particular battle.
'...According to multiple versions of the rumor, the Twitter user (@Markantro) happened across the
scene of CNN’s staging or fabricating a report on Muslims’ protesting the attacks in London.
But nothing suggested that CNN “staged” the demonstrations to any extent greater than engaging
protesters, directing their positions, and asking them questions as part of a news segment...'
Now Snopes is condensing several claims and apart from diluting the claims by using the word 'rumour'
(I used the English version!), they're implying that this 'Markantro' just happened to be record the incident
because he was passing by.
Yet, the footage is taken from a position from within another film-crew which I believe from recall, is
either the BBC or Sky News.
So in my opinion, that implication is debatable. Tut-tut, Snopes, your narrative is dripping from the
corners!
Apparently, there's no suggestion of a staged incident because asking protestors and Police to be
positioned behind a Police-cordoned area, arranging the people to stand in a line and having a
crew-member in the group set-up a centralling for the camera isn't 'staging'!
The actions of the woman from another film-crew requesting that a young girl to move out of another
company's camera-shot shows that this isn't spontaneous. If a group of people had just happened to
cross a line of a prohibited area to protest peacefully or otherwise, would have been a news item in
itself!
If it's done with an agreement with the Police and seemingly only for the CNN crew, then by definition,
it's artificial and on the here on the mainland, we call it staged.
'...Those spreading the rumor claimed that the same person appeared in different videos wearing the
same unique pink trousers, a dead giveaway that the person was a “paid protester.”
However, rumor-mongers did not elaborate as to why multiple photographs of the same protester
indicated perfidy rather than multi-outlet coverage of the same protest....'
(Perfidy means the state of being deceitful and untrustworthy)
Then they must be liars and this is enough to cancel out all of the claims?
Yes, after that weak section of Snopes' narrative above, this could certainly help by calling one's
oppostion 'rumour-mongers' and pushing that the claim is false based on a supposed rational
alternative.
If the same protesters were filmed in another location by a different news-outlet, then this would
validate them as genuine protesters because... what? They move...? They cannot remain behind
the cordoned-off area?!
Did these alleged rumour-mongers really not elaborate or did you not investigate further...?
Are CNN so morally beyond approach that you just accept what they say at face-value?!
All questions that the established media ride rough-shod over because of their assumption that
everything you see and hear from them you will accept as the truth. It's the same with 'unnamed
sources' and please, don't get me going on that malarkey!
'...The Daily Wire similarly speculated that the demonstrations were wholly falsified by CNN rather
than simply reported on:
"CNN International (CNNi) staged a backdrop of persons — presumably Muslims, including women
in hijabs — during a Sunday news segment in London regarding the previous evening’s mass murder
Islamic terrorist attack in the U.K. capital.
CNNi likely sought to hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition to the Islamic State (ISIS) and
Islamic terrorism, more broadly.
Video captured by Twitter user @markantro shows CNNi’s Becky Anderson directing the ostensibly
anti-jihad Muslims to appear as backdrops for a live segment."...'
The footage does bear this out and any rational person would not naturally assume that just because
a horse as black-and-white stripes on it's skin that it's a zebra! So why would a sceptical person naturally
assume these people were Muslims...?
Is it that the narrative must be maintained that CNN is an established information outlet that cannot be
doubted?
Any suggestion on what 'directing' means when placed against the word 'staged'?
Maybe Becky Anderson knows.
But... if Snopes can kill this claim off, then surely the question of uncertainty regarding the whole incident
can be quashed.
So Snopes went for the 'Let-you-know-a-behind-the-scenes-secret' approach.
If a person is on the outside and is suspicious of something, then the best way to get them to accept one's
narrative is to bring them within the circle of an assumed secrecy.
This involves half-trues, rational sentencing and an over-all feeling of 'well, everyone knows this and accepts
it as normal, so as not to be an outsider, you have to accept it too'
It creates empowerment and if structured carefully, it can take someone who was dubious and make them
a willing ally who can respond in a debate with confidence due to the action of weaponising them with your
own arms!
So we get this:
'...For those not familiar with live news production, it is actually not that uncommon for hosts
and producers to arrange protesters or pedestrians behind reporter to provide a varied
background.
Sources familiar with this live shoot tell Mediaite that the protesters (“Muslim Mothers”) were
already very near the location and the Police simply allowed them to move behind Ms.
Anderson and crew.
That said, there is reason to fairly critique this as “editorializing” the shoot and not just reporting
the news. And in a climate where CNN is feeling a lot of criticism -most of which is unfounded
-from the conservative corners of the Internet, this footage won’t help their cause...'
There's the 'this is how the magician does it' explanation that CNN could have offered at the beginning of their
London Killing footage and yet.... didn't. And there's also a couple of half-truths thrown in to make sure Snopes
is seen to come-off as fair.
To make sure the required response is accepted, the victor in a debate can lay the groundwork for future acts
of convincement by posing as a 'fellow-loser'... a case of 'Oh I know what it feels like, we're very much the same'
With the use of this tactic, the persons who believed CNN were evil story-twisters has not only been persuaded
that the claim is false, they have become aligned by condescending benevolence and the reinforcement of the
'you're part of the in-group' mentality is echoed to indicate the wanted narrative prevails.
'...CNN also provided a statement about the rumors terming them to be “nonsense”:
''This story is nonsense. The group of demonstrators that was at the police cordon was being
allowed through by officers so they could show their signs to the gathered media.
The CNN crew along with other media present simply filmed them doing so...''
(Please note CNN: the wording is were' when referring to a group and not 'was')
They denied it!
I would have been more agreeable with CNN if they had admitted to the staging in
the name of assisting in healing wounds in societies through this action.
But that would've meant showing that they manipulate information for their reasons.
'...A source at CNN said that the reporters and equipment seen in the third-party video represented
several news organizations, not just CNN, situated in front of a police cordon near London Bridge.
The small group of Muslims at the demonstration (actually a vigil, according to the participants,
who were there of their own volition) asked police for permission to cross the police barrier to be
photographed.
The police assented and escorted them into position.
The shot was “arranged” only to the extent necessary to fit the group into the camera frame...'
Well, I'm not going for the low-fruit that by stating the Police escorting them into position shows an arrangement
of some-sort. Was it the Police who asked the protesters to pass under the ribbon?!
But the people holding the banners were requested to move into the scene by someone who didn't wear a police
uniform and the act of another 'third party' crew member to ask the protesing group to move out of their own camera
shot implies not all the news organisations were in on the controlled scene.
Finally...
'...A CNN source told us:
We were in the middle of a live show when they appeared, and they moved in front of us so we could see their signs
-for people to suggest that the protest was staged by the media is ludicrous...'
So the Police didn't ask the protesters to come beyond the restriction barrier and the protesters didn't ask to stand
where they could be seen... then how did this occur and who benefitted by having their cameras directly positioned in
front of the group of vigil participants?
A guess anyone...? It begins with 'C'!
Thank you Snopes.
Here's another fine illustration of how the establishment backs up one of it's many tentacles when
they are accidentally exposed for misleading the public. To succeed in such battles for the minds of
the Blue-Pilled, one has to remember that answering an accusation head-on must only be done on
one's own turf.
And only within a chosen narrative.
Some people on the internet comment that the CNN video of a group of Muslim women, men
and children have been brought in by the film crew to create a false narrative and others have
stated that the whole scene looks staged due to the preparation being fimed by a third party.
before the CNN footage was actually broadcast.
So is it both, one or the other or neither? Snopes is supposed to be your guide to truth and
lies in the media world, so let's see why they judged the accusations as false.
...................................................
SNOPES:
From a Markantro Tweet
''Note the white police officers leaving before the CNN shot & the Asian officers coming in.
They then left after they went off air!''
'The claims spread widely from there, with right-leaning American blog Gateway Pundit leading
the charge in presenting it as an example of “fake news” in the making...'
Okay... straight out of the gate, Snopes is using the word 'claims' which means they can now
force the reader into an area where their own chosen 'claim' can be used. They should answer
each of the multiple claims to prove the whole incident true or false, but when you can pick your
weapon, you stand a better chance to win your particular battle.
'...According to multiple versions of the rumor, the Twitter user (@Markantro) happened across the
scene of CNN’s staging or fabricating a report on Muslims’ protesting the attacks in London.
But nothing suggested that CNN “staged” the demonstrations to any extent greater than engaging
protesters, directing their positions, and asking them questions as part of a news segment...'
Now Snopes is condensing several claims and apart from diluting the claims by using the word 'rumour'
(I used the English version!), they're implying that this 'Markantro' just happened to be record the incident
because he was passing by.
Yet, the footage is taken from a position from within another film-crew which I believe from recall, is
either the BBC or Sky News.
So in my opinion, that implication is debatable. Tut-tut, Snopes, your narrative is dripping from the
corners!
Apparently, there's no suggestion of a staged incident because asking protestors and Police to be
positioned behind a Police-cordoned area, arranging the people to stand in a line and having a
crew-member in the group set-up a centralling for the camera isn't 'staging'!
The actions of the woman from another film-crew requesting that a young girl to move out of another
company's camera-shot shows that this isn't spontaneous. If a group of people had just happened to
cross a line of a prohibited area to protest peacefully or otherwise, would have been a news item in
itself!
If it's done with an agreement with the Police and seemingly only for the CNN crew, then by definition,
it's artificial and on the here on the mainland, we call it staged.
'...Those spreading the rumor claimed that the same person appeared in different videos wearing the
same unique pink trousers, a dead giveaway that the person was a “paid protester.”
However, rumor-mongers did not elaborate as to why multiple photographs of the same protester
indicated perfidy rather than multi-outlet coverage of the same protest....'
(Perfidy means the state of being deceitful and untrustworthy)
Then they must be liars and this is enough to cancel out all of the claims?
Yes, after that weak section of Snopes' narrative above, this could certainly help by calling one's
oppostion 'rumour-mongers' and pushing that the claim is false based on a supposed rational
alternative.
If the same protesters were filmed in another location by a different news-outlet, then this would
validate them as genuine protesters because... what? They move...? They cannot remain behind
the cordoned-off area?!
Did these alleged rumour-mongers really not elaborate or did you not investigate further...?
Are CNN so morally beyond approach that you just accept what they say at face-value?!
All questions that the established media ride rough-shod over because of their assumption that
everything you see and hear from them you will accept as the truth. It's the same with 'unnamed
sources' and please, don't get me going on that malarkey!
'...The Daily Wire similarly speculated that the demonstrations were wholly falsified by CNN rather
than simply reported on:
"CNN International (CNNi) staged a backdrop of persons — presumably Muslims, including women
in hijabs — during a Sunday news segment in London regarding the previous evening’s mass murder
Islamic terrorist attack in the U.K. capital.
CNNi likely sought to hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition to the Islamic State (ISIS) and
Islamic terrorism, more broadly.
Video captured by Twitter user @markantro shows CNNi’s Becky Anderson directing the ostensibly
anti-jihad Muslims to appear as backdrops for a live segment."...'
The footage does bear this out and any rational person would not naturally assume that just because
a horse as black-and-white stripes on it's skin that it's a zebra! So why would a sceptical person naturally
assume these people were Muslims...?
Is it that the narrative must be maintained that CNN is an established information outlet that cannot be
doubted?
Any suggestion on what 'directing' means when placed against the word 'staged'?
Maybe Becky Anderson knows.
But... if Snopes can kill this claim off, then surely the question of uncertainty regarding the whole incident
can be quashed.
So Snopes went for the 'Let-you-know-a-behind-the-scenes-secret' approach.
If a person is on the outside and is suspicious of something, then the best way to get them to accept one's
narrative is to bring them within the circle of an assumed secrecy.
This involves half-trues, rational sentencing and an over-all feeling of 'well, everyone knows this and accepts
it as normal, so as not to be an outsider, you have to accept it too'
It creates empowerment and if structured carefully, it can take someone who was dubious and make them
a willing ally who can respond in a debate with confidence due to the action of weaponising them with your
own arms!
So we get this:
'...For those not familiar with live news production, it is actually not that uncommon for hosts
and producers to arrange protesters or pedestrians behind reporter to provide a varied
background.
Sources familiar with this live shoot tell Mediaite that the protesters (“Muslim Mothers”) were
already very near the location and the Police simply allowed them to move behind Ms.
Anderson and crew.
That said, there is reason to fairly critique this as “editorializing” the shoot and not just reporting
the news. And in a climate where CNN is feeling a lot of criticism -most of which is unfounded
-from the conservative corners of the Internet, this footage won’t help their cause...'
There's the 'this is how the magician does it' explanation that CNN could have offered at the beginning of their
London Killing footage and yet.... didn't. And there's also a couple of half-truths thrown in to make sure Snopes
is seen to come-off as fair.
To make sure the required response is accepted, the victor in a debate can lay the groundwork for future acts
of convincement by posing as a 'fellow-loser'... a case of 'Oh I know what it feels like, we're very much the same'
With the use of this tactic, the persons who believed CNN were evil story-twisters has not only been persuaded
that the claim is false, they have become aligned by condescending benevolence and the reinforcement of the
'you're part of the in-group' mentality is echoed to indicate the wanted narrative prevails.
'...CNN also provided a statement about the rumors terming them to be “nonsense”:
''This story is nonsense. The group of demonstrators that was at the police cordon was being
allowed through by officers so they could show their signs to the gathered media.
The CNN crew along with other media present simply filmed them doing so...''
(Please note CNN: the wording is were' when referring to a group and not 'was')
They denied it!
I would have been more agreeable with CNN if they had admitted to the staging in
the name of assisting in healing wounds in societies through this action.
But that would've meant showing that they manipulate information for their reasons.
'...A source at CNN said that the reporters and equipment seen in the third-party video represented
several news organizations, not just CNN, situated in front of a police cordon near London Bridge.
The small group of Muslims at the demonstration (actually a vigil, according to the participants,
who were there of their own volition) asked police for permission to cross the police barrier to be
photographed.
The police assented and escorted them into position.
The shot was “arranged” only to the extent necessary to fit the group into the camera frame...'
Well, I'm not going for the low-fruit that by stating the Police escorting them into position shows an arrangement
of some-sort. Was it the Police who asked the protesters to pass under the ribbon?!
But the people holding the banners were requested to move into the scene by someone who didn't wear a police
uniform and the act of another 'third party' crew member to ask the protesing group to move out of their own camera
shot implies not all the news organisations were in on the controlled scene.
Finally...
'...A CNN source told us:
We were in the middle of a live show when they appeared, and they moved in front of us so we could see their signs
-for people to suggest that the protest was staged by the media is ludicrous...'
So the Police didn't ask the protesters to come beyond the restriction barrier and the protesters didn't ask to stand
where they could be seen... then how did this occur and who benefitted by having their cameras directly positioned in
front of the group of vigil participants?
A guess anyone...? It begins with 'C'!
Thank you Snopes.
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.