• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Newsmax fooled by a fake Paul Wolfowitz. Twice. Live on air

shemp

a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
shemp
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
69,425
Location
The U.S., a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Credit to Fark for this:

Newsmax fooled by a fake Paul Wolfowitz. Twice. Live on air

It’s embarrassing for a news channel to get tricked by pranksters. It’s really embarrassing when the pranksters run pretty much the exact same prank and the news channel falls for it all over again.

That’s exactly what happened to Newsmax, when they told their viewers they were interviewing Paul Wolfowitz, who served as Deputy Secretary of Defense for George W. Bush, being a part of the former president’s Cabinet on September 11, 2001.
Click to expand...

You have to read it to believe it. Newsmax was fooled twice by a man pretending to be Wolfowitz. They interviewed "Wolfowitz" on August 21, then, not realizing they'd been fooled, called him back for another interview for September 11. The second time, he decided to launch into Newsmax, and this is what happened:

Bichlbaum wasted little time once he was live on air, launching into a rant about how “new master terrorists” had arisen that made the 9/1 (sic) hijackers look like “rank amateurs.”

“I’ve got to tell you, Newsmax is a much bigger threat to America than the hijackers of 9/11,” said Bichlbaum right before they cut him off.
Click to expand...

You'd think they'd by now realize they'd been had. NO, THEY DIDN'T:

The Newsmax panel were all shocked by Bichlbaum’s remarks but, somehow, incredibly, still seemed to have not one darn clue that this was not actually Wolfowitz who was making these stunning comments.

Watch the clip above starting around the 1:25 mark when they drop his call; they cut him off with “thank you for your service!” and then there are multiple comments about how this was “embarrassing” and “unfortunate” from a former Deputy Secretary of Defense, on a day that was supposed to be about “unity and bringing people together.”

“He was at the Pentagon that day and you would think that he wouldn’t chose this moment to be, frankly, hateful and intolerant,” said Basile — who, again, does actually know the real Wolfowitz in real life.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of morons!

:dl:

The clips of both interviews are embedded in the link above.
 
Last edited:
I'm not fond of spoofing news organizations, as biased as they may be. I'd think there'd be some legal repercussions here, like fraud or something.
 
alfaniner said:
I'm not fond of spoofing news organizations, as biased as they may be. I'd think there'd be some legal repercussions here, like fraud or something.
Click to expand...
Doesn't fraud in the USA require the alleged victim to establish injury or material loss?
 
catsmate said:
Doesn't fraud in the USA require the alleged victim to establish injury or material loss?
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
If this is rhetorical, please just save us all some time and get on with your rhetoric. If this is honest ignorance, Google is your friend where I am not.
Click to expand...

Google is my friend, and apparently it is also catsmate's friend!

https://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/common-law-fraud

In the United States, common law generally identifies nine elements needed to establish fraud:

(1) a representation of fact;
(2) its falsity;
(3) its materiality;(4) the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth;
(5) the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated;
(6) the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity;
(7) the injured party’s reliance on its truth;
(8) the injured party’s right to rely thereon;
(9) the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury
 
Last edited:
Didn't the Yes Men do something similar on BBC? With one of them posing as a representative of Dow Chemicals, Jude Finestarra, and expressing how sorry they were and accepting responsibility for the Bhopa gas leak? Dow Chemicals literally had to mobilize their entire PR team to counter that without being seen as callous capitalists seeking profits at any cost.
 
In any organization where it is less important to be competent than it is to be ideologically "sound* this kind of ◊◊◊◊◊◊ will happen.
 
smartcooky said:
Google is my friend, and apparently it is also catsmate's friend!

https://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/common-law-fraud

In the United States, common law generally identifies nine elements needed to establish fraud:

(1) a representation of fact;
(2) its falsity;
(3) its materiality;(4) the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth;
(5) the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated;
(6) the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity;
(7) the injured party’s reliance on its truth;
(8) the injured party’s right to rely thereon;
(9) the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury
Click to expand...
So basically no chance of successful civil or criminal action. I can't see those idiots demonstrating injury from this.
 
catsmate said:
So basically no chance of successful civil or criminal action. I can't see those idiots demonstrating injury from this.
Click to expand...

The proverbial ice-cube's chance of remaining unmelted in hell I would think.

They have been well and truly punked... twice, by the same guy. Stupid is as stupid does!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom