December 04, 2004

THE MAN FROM DOW

Some guy rocks up to the BBC, says he’s from Dow Chemical, and is immediately broadcast around the planet:

BBC World said yesterday it was duped in an "elaborate deception" by a man who claimed to be a Dow Chemical Co spokesman and said the US company accepted responsibility for India's Bhopal disaster.

The British news channel, after twice running the interview with a man identified as Jude Finisterra, later said the report was wrong.

A spokeswoman for Dow Chemical in Switzerland also confirmed that the report was wrong.

The man's identity could not be confirmed and his motives were not immediately clear. BBC officials were not readily available for comment but the broadcaster said on air it was trying to determine what happened.

CBS MarketWatch has an interesting take on this, especially in light of CBS’s own recent duping debacle:

"If someone is determined to dupe a journalist, even the most responsible news organization in the world can get caught up," said Robert Thompson, a journalism professor at Syracuse University.

"But this example adds fuel to the fire when people express skepticism about the credibility of the big television networks," Thompson said. "What remains to be seen is whether the BBC was duped because of its own negligence."

The BBC, interviewing a person posing as a Dow spokesman, carried its report live on BBC World and subsequently on BBC News 24 and BBC Radio.

The interview, in which the imposter claimed Dow Chemical "admitted"
responsibility for the Dec. 3, 1984 disaster and was setting up a $12 billion
victims' compensation fund, was picked up and cited by other news organizations, including CBS MarketWatch.

"Jude Finisterra" is a weird name. It can be translated as "Jew Land Finished", if you’re creative with your translations.

Posted by Tim Blair at December 4, 2004 11:42 AM
Comments

"Jude Finisterra" is a weird name. It can be translated as "Jew Land Finished", if you’re creative with your translations.

well, that's enough credibility for the bbc, tim.

was the producer of the report named "bebe blüttrinker", perchance?

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at December 4, 2004 at 11:48 AM

So India doesn't have a government? One capable of looking after the interests of its own people?

Mosht Myshterioush.

Posted by: yellerkat at December 4, 2004 at 12:09 PM

"If someone is determined to dupe a journalist"

About as hard to do as convincing my 3-year-old daughter that there is a Santa Claus.

Signed,

"Karlo Granite-Capo"

Posted by: Carl in N.H. at December 4, 2004 at 12:58 PM

"was the producer of the report named "bebe blüttrinker", perchance?"

No, the producers were Ben Dover and Phil McCracken.

Posted by: Arty at December 4, 2004 at 01:03 PM

The intended translation seems to me to be "jew(s) end(s)/put(s) end to Earth". Been a while since I've studied Latin, though.

Posted by: valachus at December 4, 2004 at 01:11 PM

Open season on the media hoaxes! 10 points for anybody who manages to get to talk to Anderson Cooper!

Posted by: Aaron at December 4, 2004 at 01:12 PM

Heywood Jablomy told me today that the french will be sending troops to Irak!

Posted by: chuck at December 4, 2004 at 01:21 PM

I visited Kinkos today. In the CBS inbox had three FAXs proving that Bush lost the election. All the FAXs were from C.P. Flow.

Posted by: perfectsense at December 4, 2004 at 01:45 PM

They believed to because they wanted to believe it. Such people are easy to fool...

Posted by: drs57 at December 4, 2004 at 01:48 PM

It could've been even worse for BBC. They're just lucky they didn't run into the son of the former executive director of Nigeria's Office of Petroleum Management.

Posted by: David Crawford at December 4, 2004 at 01:48 PM

Finisterra could be intended to mean earth’s end or land’s end. There’s a Land’s End in Brooklyn & one in Britain I think. The name also could be taken literally to mean “end’s land.”

It’s not a usual kind of compound. Finis means end, & the root is fin-. The -is is a case ending (it could be nominative or genitive), which would usually be dropped in a compound. It’s like somebody put it together by looking words up in an English-Latin dictionary.

Finis could also be 2nd-person singular present indicative of finio, finire, to bound, enclose, limit, determine, put an end to, finish, conclude.

Posted by: ForNow at December 4, 2004 at 01:49 PM

At the last minute the guy decided that "Jude N. ver Boeten" might arouse the suspicions even of the BBC.

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at December 4, 2004 at 01:49 PM

the broadcaster said on air it was trying to determine what happened.

...and these are the people who say that bloggers shouldn't be taken seriously because they don't rigorously fact-check what they say?

ROFL!

Posted by: rosignol at December 4, 2004 at 02:07 PM

How many stories like this will it take before it becomes a sport. Then the bookies can set odds and we can bet on them: true or false.

"If someone is determined to dupe a journalist, even the most responsible news organization in the world can get caught up"

He's missing the point. Getting duped is something that is suppose to be caught before you publish or air it. Figuring it out afterwards is death to credibility.

Posted by: Tej at December 4, 2004 at 02:26 PM

Looks to me like an awesome way to manipulate the market in the short term.

Posted by: drscroogemcduck at December 4, 2004 at 02:29 PM

"If someone is determined to dupe a journalist, even the most responsible news organization in the world can get caught up"

And it takes such a determined effort, too. You have to either claim to be someone else, or hand the newsman some "evidence" you whipped out on your word processor.

What did that dick from CBS say about checks and balances in the "professional" media? Wow.

"Hey, Bill, this dude says he's from Dow Chemical!"

"Cool!"

"And he's got some memos here! They're typed and everything!"

"Awesome!"

"Should we go with it?"

"Fuck, yeah!"

I wish chicks were as gullible as MSM reporters. I would have gotten beaucoup tail.

Posted by: Dave S. at December 4, 2004 at 02:35 PM

"If someone is determined to dupe a journalist, even the most responsible news organization in the world can get caught up"

Bullpats!

If the NRA guy came to them with a perfectly legit study about how guns lower crime (or whatever) they'd stop him at the front desk.

But tell them you've got the dirt on Dubya and you could sign the affidavit "I. P. Freely" and they'd still hump your leg like the filthy cur mongrel dogs they are.

It's not their stupidity, it's their bias.

And stupidity.

It's their bias and stupidity.

Posted by: Brian at December 4, 2004 at 02:39 PM

The two most disgusting things about the MSM are their bias and their stupidity. And their laziness.

Three. The three most disgusting things about the legacy media are their bias, their stupidity, their laziness, and their arrogance.

Their arrogance ... okay. Okay. The four most disgusting things about the old media are their bias, their stupidity, their laziness, their arrogance, and their greed ...

Posted by: Evil Pundit at December 4, 2004 at 03:15 PM

Evil Pundit... start over!

Posted by: slayerdaddy:bravo at December 4, 2004 at 03:26 PM

But seriously, folks ... I wonder if Jude Finisterra had anything to do with these guys? Not as one of the site's owners, but perhaps an enthusiastic reader?

Posted by: Evil Pundit at December 4, 2004 at 04:03 PM

"...their bias, their stupidity, their laziness, their arrogance, and their greed ..." And their red starry-eyed gullibility

Posted by: monkey fan at December 4, 2004 at 04:36 PM

From an interesting writeup on con men:

"The truth is, con artists prefer intelligent people. … smart people are easier to fool precisely because they think they're too smart to get scammed. .... The easiest people to deceive are those who think that they are immune to deception."
(http://fraudtech.bizland.com/fast_company_magazine.htm)

I offer this is an adequate explanation of why Big Media is so easy to fool

Posted by: Person of Choler at December 4, 2004 at 06:18 PM

This is so pathetic. ONE PHONE CALL to Dow Chemical is all it would have taken to stop this liar in his tracks. But, apparently, the mere suggestion that big, evil Dow Chemical was going to roll over in perhaps the biggest historical "cause celebre" of the anti-corporate, anti-prosperity, anti-progress Left was enough to set these BBC weenies' hearts all a-flutter -- so much so that prudence and rational thought flew out the window. Unfortunately for the BBC, credibility, dignity, and professional reputation soon followed.

May God grant merciful speed to the demise of the Old Media ...

Posted by: Me at December 4, 2004 at 07:41 PM

>"I wish chicks were as gullible as MSM reporters."

Dave, what a great idea! Getting a date with a MSM reporter-chick must be real *easy*. She would believe whatever you say!

Posted by: jorgen at December 4, 2004 at 08:01 PM

Was that Dow Chemical or D'Oh! Chemical?
None so devout as the newly converted, and none so gullible as those who are told what they want to hear. The Red Cross and Amnesty have plenty of bedtime stories to convince them that the big bad democracies are out to get everybody, and it seems the BBC are reading from the same Grim Fairy Tales.

Posted by: Geoff at December 4, 2004 at 08:10 PM

Yep I saw it on BBC world and imediatly thought how strange a big company rolling over.But hey what the hell do I know.Those BBc dudes they are so smart.

Posted by: Le clerc at December 4, 2004 at 08:51 PM

Speaking of the gullible, Phillip Adams in today's Weekend Australian recycles the "suspicious Republican wins in traditional Democrat counties" story (as well as taking the standard lefty cheap shots).

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know someone will), but didn't the Miami Herald recount some of these counties where they optically scanned ballot papers and found that the system worked perfectly?

Posted by: Art Vandelay at December 4, 2004 at 09:04 PM

It's even stupider than you think. UNION CARBIDE owned the Bhopal plant. Dow had nothing to do with it.

Posted by: Bill R at December 4, 2004 at 10:37 PM

Does it matter much whether they make the news up themselves or get some fake news from an outside source? It is a nuance.

Posted by: jorgen at December 4, 2004 at 10:39 PM

No matter what the BBC says, this is pathetic. Forget the phone call to Dow. Just Google "Jude Finisterra". The name doesn't exist. But then do a search for Jude + Finisterra (no quote marks), and you get 4 pages of listings that have things like Jude Law and Finisterra blah blah blah. Don't these guys Google?

Bill R: Ummm, Dow bought Union Carbide a couple of year ago; that's why they cop all the criticism now. Dow maintained that when they took over UC all matters between UC and the Indian government were settled and thus it's not an isuse any more.

Posted by: Hanyu at December 4, 2004 at 11:15 PM

Nobody expects the BBC inquistion.

Playing with dumb animals is neither entertaining or enlightening. Besides tricking a member of the medio is so easy.

Posted by: bc at December 4, 2004 at 11:35 PM

Speaking of stupid journalists, here's Tom Friedman of the New York Times wondering who the deputy treasury secretary of the US is. Well, that's easy, Tom, he's named in the Washington Post article you reference in the first sentence of your piece (and thoughtfully hyperlinked by the NYT.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/02/opinion/02friedman.html?ex=1259730000&en=eb8db6d0b7779f1c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

What did they do with all of the editors, anyway?

(Lifted from OpinionJournal's Best of the Web)

Posted by: Rob C. at December 5, 2004 at 01:17 AM

Hey, I stayed at a hotel in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico named La Finisterra. Now it has just dawned on me that it means "The land's end" or something close to that anyway. Quite appropriate due to the location of the hotel at the very tip of the pennisula. The hotel had a bar called "The Whale Watch Bar" which was also named appropriately because one could sit there and watch the grey whales swimming in the ocean certain months of the year (I saw thousands of them the February we stayed there). Interestingly, Keith Richards had just gotten married at that bar a few days before we arrived. One could also see one of Sylvester Stalone's homes from that vantage point.

The point to my post? None really.

I did read an interesting take on this "BBC Was Deceived!" story over at Powerline. He made the quite reasonable point that these sorts of stories always seem to lean one way. That is, if he had called the BBC and claimed that he worked for the Al Gore campaign in 2000 and that he had documents that proved that Gore had tried to steal the election, it is somewhat likely that the BBC would have been highly skeptical and looked into his story quite closely before putting him on.

Posted by: Brent at December 5, 2004 at 01:47 AM

Leftist gullibility of the MSM aside, the Union Carbide disaster at Bohphal was utterly horrific and, as I understand it, the people responsible got off Scott free.

Sure, it's been used as a vehicle for the hate technology eco-left, but that dosn't mean the corporate criminals who allowed it to happen then dodged responsibility don't deserve death by the most painful method of execution imaginable, and even that wouldn't atone for the slow murder of thousands of innocent people by poison and cancer.

If there's a hell, those fucks will be burning in it on fires made with stacks of hundred dollar notes. So, while justifyably abusing the dumbo journos at the BBC, let's not forget the face of real criminality and evil.

Yes, I know no one here has tried to excuse UC, I'm just saying that any good intentioned person might get a little over-eager to get a chance to nail those pricks, you don't have to be a dopey BBC comunard.

Posted by: Amos at December 5, 2004 at 02:09 AM

Not to detract from the human disaster of Bhopal, while refreshing my memory of the events I stumbled across this little nugget...

"Her parents, traditional Muslims, had selected her husband for her when she was 13. He worked as a tailor, and they lived together in her parents' modest home in the industrial city of Bhopal, in central India. Bee didn't learn to read or write, and she ventured out of the house only when escorted by a male relative. It was nevertheless a full life..."


Posted by: Arty at December 5, 2004 at 02:28 AM

If MSM journalists *cough* are so easy to fool, then why is that we're supposed to trust them and believe what they say?

Posted by: Rebecca at December 5, 2004 at 03:25 AM

Amos: I haven't read anything in this comment thread that makes me think anyone here has a soft spot for Union Carbide or that Bhopal was a minor incident blown way out of proportion, or whatever it is you seem to fear lurks in the minds of the other commenters here. There's a word for a person who sees bad motivations lurking behind every human action, but I can't remember it right now. Anyway, don't be that person.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 5, 2004 at 04:01 AM

[Off-topic comment deleted. The Management.]

Posted by: SabinaSam at December 5, 2004 at 04:24 AM

Amos--oh, and you too, Andrea--
My knowledge of the Bhophal didaster is limited to what I read in the papers (or hear on the BBC or equivalent), so I deem myself ignorant, as the topic of this post would indicate. However, for what appears to be a more knowledgeable discussion, you might try here

Posted by: Alene at December 5, 2004 at 04:45 AM

It would be interesting to see what DOW stock did after the hoax and see who profited. My guess is that the motive was an elaborate stock manipulation.

Posted by: Junkyard God at December 5, 2004 at 04:58 AM

"I'm just saying that any good intentioned person might get a little over-eager to get a chance to nail those pricks"

Amos: What does this have to do with the BBC story? The pricks you speak of were supposedly nailing themselves if you believe the "Good intentioned person".

As I recall UC did not get off scott free so basically you just wasted bandwidth ranting your own "hate technology eco-left" nonesense.

Posted by: Tej at December 5, 2004 at 05:00 AM

Further to the comment on Phillip Adams's piece on the alleged irregularities in the Florida polling. It got my attention because I am a native Floridian, and the article pegged my bullshit meter. Phillip Adams has a way of doing that.

The allegation has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere, but seems to be taking on a life of its own, like the plastic turkey story.

There is an aspect of the story that has been widely ignored, relating to the reason for the apparent anomaly. I am registered as a Democrat, and voted Republican for national offices in the last several elections, so I am in a position to shed some light on this question. According to Florida election law, party primaries, which decide who is to be on the ballot in the general election, are restricted to registered party members. No "crossover voting" is allowed. In many of the smaller counties, the Democratic Party has traditionally dominated the local "courthouse gang," and the Democratic nomination to a local office is tantamount to election. Thus, if one wants to have a say in the makeup of the Board of County Commissioners, or the Tax Assessor, or any other local office, one votes in the Democratic Primary, because that's where the action is.

Times are changing, and Republicans are becoming active at the local level to a greater extent. I first registered to vote in 1960, as a Democrat, and I'll be changing my party affiliation before the next election.

Posted by: Ernie G at December 5, 2004 at 05:17 AM

Finisterre (aka Fisterra) is a town in Galicia, Spain. It is (approximately) the eastern-most point in Europe, and thus the old world. So the best translation would be, as Brent put it, "land's end."

link

I took a bus there from A Coruna. It's a bit of a hike to the actual eastern-most point in Europe, but I enjoyed hiking around the peninsula of Finisterre itself. It's a beautiful place.

Posted by: Fred C at December 5, 2004 at 06:47 AM

>the eastern-most point in Europe

You mean *western-most* point of Europe.

Posted by: jorgen at December 5, 2004 at 06:57 AM

>Getting a date with a MSM reporter-chick must be real *easy*. She would believe whatever you say!

With the caveat that "anything you say" has to be harmful to Bush/capitalism/etc.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 5, 2004 at 07:29 AM

Members of Howard Stern's "Wack Pack" made a career out of duping the gullible Media. "I see OJ and he looks very tensest!" is a line I'll always remember from the OJ chase, as Peter Jennings was esposed as a complete cement head.

Posted by: Mister Ghost at December 5, 2004 at 11:06 AM

It's often said that you can't con an honest man. The Beeb fell for the hoax because they were too greedy for yet another anti-capitalist, anti-American story. The hoaxters chose their marks very, very well.

Posted by: Irene Adler at December 5, 2004 at 02:38 PM

I call on David Marr (Media Watch) to immediately convene an emergency programme to put this outrageous hoax under his microscope. Aunty should be on fire with righteous indignation and shock horor. I demand that The Media Report also files. We taxpayers want our ABC's 8 cents a day worth.You just GO them David.

Posted by: crash at December 5, 2004 at 04:59 PM

Let me guess: The elaborate deception was a guy in a refrigerator box with a turned upside down five gallon bucket for a chair and a stack of pallets for a desk. Would've fooled me too. Now excuse me while I mail my 500 Bazooka comics and $1.99 in for my x-ray glasses.

Posted by: zefal at December 5, 2004 at 08:15 PM

Jude Finisterra makes saddam hussein's attempt at Weapons of Mass Deception look like a novice. saddam never even thought of putting up a phony website much less throwing out some convincing figures. bbc lied the Indian victims cried.

Posted by: zefal at December 5, 2004 at 08:43 PM

Has the taxpayer-funded BBCs image been damaged by this? Nope, not a dent - the BBC lived up to our expectations.

Posted by: jorgen at December 5, 2004 at 11:03 PM

"We taxpayers want our ABC's 8 cents a day worth."

Looking for your 8 cents?

Posted by: madison at December 6, 2004 at 12:01 AM

"...the BBC lived up to our expectations."

jorgen, don't you mean:


"...the BBC lived down to our expectations."

Posted by: The Real JeffS at December 6, 2004 at 12:57 AM

>jorgen, don't you mean:
>"...the BBC lived down to our expectations."

No, my expections after some 20 years worth of BBC is that they would be uppermost biased and they were. But I suppose it depends on the viewing angle.

Posted by: jorgen at December 6, 2004 at 02:57 AM

If memory serves (and I don't have time to check my facts right now), Dow Chemical now owns Union Carbide. (O.K., I just googled it, and it looks like my memory is correct.) So, that's the sort-of connection between Dow and Bhopal.

Posted by: Sarah at December 6, 2004 at 04:28 AM

Mister Ghost"I see OJ and he looks very tensest!" is a line I'll always remember from the OJ chase, as Peter Jennings was esposed as a complete cement head.

I was watching that! I was too young at the time to know about media bias or anything like that, but this guy - who, unfortunately, mentions Heisenberg - says it was the first crack in the facade of media superiority. "Ba-ba-booey, y'all!" Indeed.

You Australians ever hear of that incident?

Posted by: Brian at December 6, 2004 at 04:56 AM

I don't think anyone else has pointed this out yet:
http://www.theyesmen.org/

They're true culture jamming scientists. They describe method and everything.

Posted by: dk.dk at December 6, 2004 at 07:15 AM

What's the point of all this frothing at the mouth people?
Kinda looks like most of you guys are reacting with glee at the BBC getting duped - (for oh, all of 3 hours - I heard the report and the retractions). The fact that thousands of people died horrible deaths doesn't seem to interest you in the slightest. It's all the BBC getting duped, thus proving their 'bias and stupidity'. Hmm, well I suppose the company that killed all those people was and is American, so we can't be too tough on a fine, upstanding American company now, can we? And what's that you say? - The victims of Dow were Indian? Like, brown, poor, non Christian people?? Well, that's ok then!
Yeah, fuck the BBC.

Posted by: bill at December 7, 2004 at 12:03 AM

Bill, you're a genius. You've just discovered that people are more interested in the small story that happened close to them yesterday than they are in the big story that happened 10,000 miles away 20 years ago.

Holy cow. You're brilliant.

Posted by: Jeff Harrell at December 7, 2004 at 03:57 AM

Well, I guess it's okay with bill if I call the BBC up and claim that he (bill) was responsible for, oh, how about this ferry disaster that happened in 1987. And when he gets all upset at how he is being lied about, I will say "So I guess you don't care about all those people who died." After all, who cares about truth and integrity when you can posture and preen about how much you Care™ about poor dead Third Worlders?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 7, 2004 at 09:50 AM