Comments on: Can somebody explain this to me. Is this a hoax?

By: GCE

GCE — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 04:17:32 +0000

Just check for multiple sources and apply a little common sense to any story. Do you really think ONE news bureau is going to be the ONLY one to carry a story like this?
Prediction: Mel will go through the American “I’m sorry” ritual, time will go by, and he’ll continue to make movies. Some people will just hold a grudge and not see them.

By: dragonsbluechaos

dragonsbluechaos — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 07:32:33 +0000

If you click on ‘printable version’ and scroll to the bottom it states “This article is fake. Please remember to check the facts.”
So yeah, it’s fake.

By: Nakia

Nakia — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 07:11:08 +0000

But we can dream, can’t we? Actually, Mel just needs to be put away- somewhere where:
1. He can’t make any more friggin movies!
2. He can get the therapy and possibly meds, that he needs.
3. He can’t make any more friggin movies! After watching “The Passion of the Jew”, I got the idea to demand that Mel pay punitive damages for pissing me off, but then I might have to lay eyes on him. Better to avoid the whole thing, and pray he becomes a monk.

By: MikeHess

MikeHess — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:55:39 +0000

Yes, it was a spoof/hoax article.

bbclosangeles....

By: Chuck the Lucky

Chuck the Lucky — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:49:27 +0000

This hoax is perfect because the brain is focusing on two equally probable scenarios: that this was more proof that Mel is an anti-semitic nut or that this is more proof that the BBC never prints anything that is true. While trying to determine which is true you overlook details like the web address. It’s just like the way magicians and news media use distraction, misdirection and simple psychology to make you think you are seeing something you are not.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:05:33 +0000

The big give away was if their was a BBC Los Angeles it would most likely be a sub domain. Example losangeles.bbc.com.

By: Ephraim

Ephraim — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 06:00:21 +0000

You mean it’s not true?

Dammit.

By: SN

SN — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:06:45 +0000

Wow- whoever did that is good! I would have been totally fooled.

Also, because the material is so believable. Brilliant

By: M. Pellow

M. Pellow — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 07:29:06 +0000

Actually, folks, I read about this one on CNN. The Wash Post carried Gibson’s ‘apology’ statement credited to the AP, The UK Guardian has already opined on the issue, and Christopher Hitchens has given his two cents about it on Slate. I’m not sure what to make of the ‘faux news story’ link on that site, but here’s a story on the standard BBC URL. If it was a hoax, they hoaxed an awful lot of people. Looks legit to me.

By: davidf

davidf — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 02:06:42 +0000

In a light grey text at bottom

This is a faux news article, please remember to check multiple sources and facts.

The adj faux from WordNet

1. fake, false, faux, imitation, simulated — (not genuine or real; being an imitation of the genuine article; “it isn’t fake anything; it’s real synthetic fur”; “faux pearls”; “false teeth”; “decorated with imitation palm leaves”; “a purse of simulated alligator hide”)

and the BBC copyright symbol is missing…

only a matter of hours before the server is found…

thanks for Jewlicious!