Staged video? No problem! CNN says it’s “genuine”

UPDATED
Please scroll down
Here’s the video:Everything in it is staged:
The CPR
The blood stain that looks like someone spilled 2 tablespoons of cranberry juice
The undamaged roof where supposedly the IDF dropped a bomb, complete with undamaged plastic chairs
and on and on.

Charles has posted the three versions of the video; the one here is the full report posted at CNN’s website report posted by the UK’s Channel 4.

CNN had taken it down and now reposted it, claiming that “Journalists SAY” it is genuine. What journalists are those? CNN’s Palestinian stringers.

Gaza video genuine, journalists say
(CNN) — There’s no truth to accusations by bloggers that a Palestinian camera crew staged a video showing the death of the videographer’s brother after an Israeli rocket attack, said the team’s employer.

“It’s absolute nonsense,” Paul Martin, co-owner of World News and Features, said of accusations leveled by bloggers at videographer Ashraf Mashharawi.

“He’s a man of enormous integrity and would never get involved with any sort of manipulation of images, let alone when the person dying is his own brother,” Martin said. “I know the whole family. I know them very well. … [Mashharawi] is upset and angry that anyone would think of him having done anything like this. … This is ridiculous. He’s independent.”

Leave it to the bloggers to point out,
Charles:

According to Internet Haganah’s database of terror website hosts, in 2004 nepras.net, which lists Mashharawi as general manager, was the operator of the main Hamas website and the website of Hamas’ radio station Voice of Al Aqsa.

A doctor commenting at Charles’s website

I’m no military expert, but I am a doctor, and this video is bullsh-t. The chest compressions that were being performed at the beginning of this video were absolutely, positively fake. The large man in the white coat was NOT performing CPR on that child. He was just sort of tapping on the child’s sternum a little bit with his fingers. You can’t make blood flow like that. Furthermore, there’s no point in doing chest compressions if you’re not also ventilating the patient somehow. In this video, I can’t tell for sure if the patient has an endotracheal tube in place, but you can see that there is nobody bag-ventilating him (a bag is actually hanging by the head of the bed), and there is no ventilator attached to the patient. In a hospital, during a code on a ventilated patient, somebody would probably be bagging the patient during the chest compressions. And they also would have moved the bed away from the wall, so that somebody could get back there to intubate the patient and/or bag him. In short, the “resuscitation scene” at the beginning is fake, and it’s a pretty lame fake at that.

So the question is, were they re-enacting the resuscitation scene by repeating their actions on a corpse, because the child had died earlier? It’s likely that the answer is no, that child is still alive, and is just an actor pretending to be a child who was killed. Why do I say that? Because the big guy in the white coat, if he’s really a doctor, nurse, nurse’s aid, EMT, or any sort of health care provider at all would be entirely aware that tickling the boy’s sternum doesn’t really look like actual chest compressions. If the boy was dead, the man would have done a more convincing job in compressing the chest. The taps on the chest that he’s doing are the sort of thing you see in bad TV dramas, when you don’t want to make the poor actor playing the victim uncomfortable by really pushing on his chest. I think the man in the white coat knows this child is actually alive, and is making the simulated chest compressions gentle so as not to hurt the child. My guess is that he assumed the videographer, like those on better TV shows, would have been smart enough not to film as far down as the man’s hands on the chest.

Confederate Yankee: Anatomy of a media hoax

There is no evidence of any penetration or contact with into the roof surface itself at that point or anywhere else shown— not a single mark, despite the fact that drone-class warheads typically have impact-dependent fuses that means they would have detonated on impact, or if delayed, would have penetrated into the home before exploding.

Newsbusters

Also, note the non-denial denial in the text accompanying the video:

The cameraman isn’t accused of “manipulating images.” He and others are accused of staging the video.

Ed has the YouTube version of the video:

Won’t be the first time a major news service willingly gets manipulated by their Palestinian stringers.

Post corrected; I had first incorrectly named the Channel 4 video

UPDATE
The return of Pallywood? Yes.

Update 2
Dan asks, Why The Inconsistencies In Controversial CNN Videos?

At the very least it seems it might be an attempt by someone to alter the time-line of events and that a Channel 4 report actually pointed out that the family stayed home for some time and waited for the camera man / brother before taking the boy to the hospital.

In the third video (bottom) – of CNN’s full report – it claims the boy was taken home after the hospital – see 47 seconds in.

But in the second version posted from the UK’s channel 4, they use the same footage to suggest the boy “might” already be dead. That would mean the living room video was shot before taking the boy to the hospital – see 55 seconds in of that video. And at 2:20 in, the video actually says they drove from the hospital directly to the cemetery. That supports the living room video being shot after waiting for the cameraman to come off the road to the home. Why wouldn’t they have taken the boy to the hospital immediately?

Go read the rest.

UPDATE, Sunday 11 December
Commenter Brian,

1. :08 into the Youtube video, what kind of card or paperwork could the Norwegian doctor be bothering to move or “straighten up” while the Palestinian doctor is furiously tickling the patient’s chest? In my experience, anything that wasn’t priority during a trauma situation was summarily tossed on the floor and dealt with later.

2. What are those clear IV fluids shown running into the patients left arm? Are any of them as vital as plasma? Is plasma usually run into the arm, or into a larger vein/artery? My experience showed that prepping an IV line was a needle insertion process that took a couple of critical minutes. Would there have been time to prepare an IV process for clear fluids before a CPR process was even concluded?

3. Sound and visuals indicate that the EKG monitoring system was on and functioning, however at :20 into the Youtube video, the Norwegian doctor appears to then be applying some EKG stickers to the patient’s chest. Is this consistent or out of sequence in regards to EKG procedure?

4. :16 into the Youtube video, the Palestinian doctor, still applying the tickling method to the patient’s chest, appears to ask the Norwegian doctor a question, to which the Norwegian doctor prominently points to the EKG screen to explain something. In a month’s time of witnessing doctors in an ER and an ICU environment, I never once saw a doctor point to and explain monitor information to another doctor. Information that was visual was simply available and understood by all. (To me this would be like a professional NASCAR driver pointing to his speedometer to explain to another professional NASCAR driver how fast he is going.) Between professionals, isn’t vital information simply understood?

5. Why is there blood on the orderly’s gloves, but none on the Norwegian doctor’s gloves, nor on the Palestinian doctor’s gloves who is actually touching the patient?

Share on Facebook