Top Gear seeks to recover cars from controversial Argentina episode

[Xaromir]

It's not like it's a flat out lie, electric cars do have a limited range and charging can be bothersome, it's one of the drawbacks of the technology. They have greatly exaggerated the whole matter, which technically ISN'T okay in journalism, but for them it isn't that unusual to set up a scenario and exaggerate. It's kind of representative of what TopGear is: At it's core it's a factual program, but with a really fat bushing of entertainment wrapped around it. They've taken it up to 11 for shits and giggles. Far more serious names in journalism have done worse.

Yes - it's generally not okay to do these things (they may indeed owe the manufacturer an apology), but then I don't think it's quite right either to treat TopGear the same way you would treat the Nine O'Clock News. I suppose how bad you think it is, does depend on what you expect TopGear to be.

 

[kunedog]

What I disagree with is the question of the attack being faked because of the lack of raw footage. To be honest, I'd be crying foul if the whole attack from beginning to end had been filmed.

And maybe I'd agree. But I'm not requiring the whole attack be filmed. I'm complaining that there's one vital component that's missing from all (not just some) of the footage: the attackers themselves. And the attackers just happen to be the hardest thing to fake. To fake attackers, you'd have to hire actors with identifiable faces who could be tracked down and interviewed later, even if you showed them clearly just once. If you film non-actors' faces and then claim they later attacked you off-camera (say, during your "radio show"), then they can also be tracked down (probably pursuant to a defamation lawsuit). So no attackers are ever shown clearly for even a second, not even fake ones.

What's the one thing always missing from "Ghost Hunter" type shows?

With regards to the security cameras not picking up on the attack: Do we know this is true, I just question the source if it just came from the lady at the gas station.

To be honest, I would need to see news articles or reports from a reliable source before I am to believe the attack was faked

Only now you want a source? I mean, you were willing to believe the attack was real without any reliable source.

Top Gear is the one claiming the attack happened, so the burden of proof is entirely on them. This is exactly what I was talking about above:

Think about everything that's happened around the Argentinian incident . . . police called, authorities involved, news stations reporting on the story in a timely manner while it can still be fact-checked, third party and unedited video of the attackers available . . . that is what the Alabama incident would have looked like had it really happened.

In contrast to the Argentinian incident, the Alabama attack had zero "news articles or reports from a reliable source" . . . it just popped up out of nowhere in an episode, months after the fact. Top Gear themselves have always been the sole (and obviously unreliable) source of information supporting the idea they were attacked in Alabama.

P.S. I don't know anything about the State Dept investigation or other forum members Spectre cited. IMO there's plenty else that overwhelmingly shows the attack to be fake (again, the burden of proof is on TG).

 

[kunedog]

As a veteran crew member with over ten years of experience in film and TV production, I can assure you that yes, these people are trained to keep their cameras rolling and pointed in the right direction no matter what.

Let's play a game. It's called "Which of these is not like the others?"

A

Spoiler

B

Spoiler

C

Spoiler

D

Spoiler

E

Spoiler

F

Spoiler

If it was faked, wouldn't 60 Minutes have picked up on that or at least questioned it when they did their piece on Top Gear a few years ago?

QUESTION: Was any part of that staged or was that exactly as it happened?

ANSWER: No, that wasn't, that was not staged. I think, partly, you can tell because the coverage is not great. You hear rocks hitting vans.

That's enough to cover 60 Minute's asses, and it's the very clip they would air to defend themselves if the truth ever became widely known and they got some blowback from it. They stuck the question on youtube but didn't air it (wise, considering the quality of Wilman's answer).

IMO Kroft knew how fishy the attack segment looked, but 60 Minutes chose to stick to their fluff piece rather than alter the tone (and widen the scope) with investigative journalism into a side issue, especially one that would anger a lot of people.

 

[ladyblue]

And maybe I'd agree. But I'm not requiring the whole attack be filmed. I'm complaining that there's one vital component that's missing from all (not just some) of the footage: the attackers themselves. And the attackers just happen to be the hardest thing to fake. To fake attackers, you'd have to hire actors with identifiable faces who could be tracked down and interviewed later, even if you showed them clearly just once. If you film non-actors' faces and then claim they later attacked you off-camera (say, during your "radio show"), then they can also be tracked down (probably pursuant to a defamation lawsuit). So no attackers are ever shown clearly for even a second, not even fake ones.

What's the one thing always missing from "Ghost Hunter" type shows?




Only now you want a source? I mean, you were willing to believe the attack was real without any reliable source.

Top Gear is the one claiming the attack happened, so the burden of proof is entirely on

them. This is exactly what I was talking about above:



In contrast to the Argentinian incident, the Alabama attack had zero "news articles or reports from a reliable source" . . . it just popped up out of nowhere in an episode, months after the fact. Top Gear themselves have always been the sole (and obviously unreliable) source of information supporting the idea they were attacked in Alabama.

P.S. I don't know anything about the State Dept investigation or other forum members Spectre cited. IMO there's plenty else that overwhelmingly shows the attack to be fake (again, the burden of proof is on TG).

I guess I didn't make myself as clear as I should have.

Without evidence to suggest otherwise, my opinion is that the attack happened.

You say that in your opinion there is plenty evidence to suggest the Alabama attack was faked, fair enough. I'd rather agree to disagree on the matter.

 

[Tzarrim]

You have only to look at the absolutely sh**ty treatment of Ben Collins (former Stig) to realize that yes, they would do exactly that.

Not only would they do it, they already have in other matters. The lies about Teslas, for example. And then again about the Leaf: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/aug/05/top-gear-bbc

So when Jezza tells you that some exotic car does a million billion miles an hour, you write an angry letter about how he's lying?

And in case of the Leaf they're not there to tell you numbers, they're there to show you how it drives and how well you can live with it. Unless you can prove to me that every time you want to use your Leaf it'll be fully 100% charged then situations like they described "I need the car right now" will happen. Because of that problem electric cars as we know them right now are inherently flawed, as such their segment makes full sense and it's their duty (yes) to show you a different picture from all the tree hugging lying marketing bullshit you hear about Ecars. It's not about "can you get from A to B on a full charge", it's about "can you live with such a car on a day to day basis where you might not be able to plan every route and take enough time between trip for it to charge again".


And yes, Teslas aren't exactly super reliable. If someone reports on it they get "attacked" by the CEO of Tesla, even if that customer is someone well known who will easily be able to make his statements stick.

 

[Xaromir]

Don't we have any members somewhere around Alabama who could find and interview that station owner?

 

[dase90]

Excellent timing from Mr. Clarkson in his column today. It's about Argentina, and how no one believes the plate was a coincidence, even though it was. The pertinent section:

"Oh, and then we were accused of faking after the incident in Alabama when a small army of burly locals decided that because we?d driven through their state in cars bearing messages such as ?Nascar sucks? and ?I?m bi?, it?d be best if were murdered. It definitely wasn?t faked, I can assure you of that. From a personal point of view, I would say it was even more scary than what happened in Argentina, because in the Southern states the missiles tend to come from the end of a Remington pump-action shotgun."

And to the point of it not making international news at the time, Top Gear was not an international phenomenon when it was filmed, so why would anyone have reported on it?

 

[Dr_Grip]

 

[Tzarrim]

Again proof that someone at TG reads these forums

 

[hajolaser]

Seriously, who cares? Do you want your money back because it was fake? This thread is exactly like one of those "I'm gonna write an angry letter and I don't care if nobody reads it". Even though, apparently, possibly, someone does. If you really want to find out what's real and what isn't, why not go there yourself and see what happens? It's television. There should always be something intriguing, entertaining, mysterious, unsure about it. Take it as it comes. If you don't want that, watch a documentary where you know it is all real.
I wonder, would the majority here be happier knowing some parts are real/fake or would it not really matter because the point of these specials is the journey, not the destination?
5 more days and we get the new special (and loads of threads...). Can't wait.

 

[kunedog]

Sans evidence to suggest otherwise, I say the Alabama attack was carried out by witches.

Excellent timing from Mr. Clarkson in his column today. It's about Argentina, and how no one believes the plate was a coincidence, even though it was. The pertinent section:

"Oh, and then we were accused of faking after the incident in Alabama when a small army of burly locals decided that because we?d driven through their state in cars bearing messages such as ?Nascar sucks? and ?I?m bi?, it?d be best if were murdered. It definitely wasn?t faked, I can assure you of that. From a personal point of view, I would say it was even more scary than what happened in Argentina, because in the Southern states the missiles tend to come from the end of a Remington pump-action shotgun."

Without even reading the column, I'm guessing he cited several sources and/or verifiable facts backing up his argument about Argentina, and absolutely none regarding Alabama. Right?

And to the point of it not making international news at the time, Top Gear was not an international phenomenon when it was filmed, so why would anyone have reported on it?

It (conveniently) appeared to result in neither international nor local news in any outlet whatsoever, nor records of any kind at the police department or anywhere else (except the cited surveillance video at the gas station, which apparently only added more confirmation that Top Gear lied).

Seriously, who cares?

Probably the people who bring it up when they think it is relevant. Are you saying they shouldn't do that?

 

[Xaromir]

Not really holding it against them if they just want to keep the myth of Alabama if it's indeed staged. Entertainment. *shrug*

 

[kunedog]

I'm sure a lot of people agree with you. But that attitude can have nasty consequences (and it already has in Top Gear's case).

Every time I'm linked an "outrageous prank" video on youtube, half the time it's obviously fake. Commenters will point out the "victim" who is obviously in on it, or the poor acting, or insane liability (i.e. risk of injury), and then invariably there will be several strange comments that say something like "Even if this is fake, it's still a funny/cool video."

Well, that's never made any sense to me. The whole hook is that the victim's reaction is genuine. If it didn't matter, then the pranksters wouldn't have gone to all that trouble to fool you by hiring actors and filming in a public place. Whatever entertainment value the Alabama attack could have had is ruined by the attempt to pass it off as real. TG took themselves too seriously and the show suffered.

The long-term consequences are even worse. Once the producers and hosts have shown they're willing to lie straight to the camera for dramatic effect (and not in a tongue-in-cheek fashion), it puts a similar taint on any tension they attempt from then on. Hell, it affects things they've already done, including their best work.

So the Alabama attack has change from "real" to "myth" for you, and you're OK with that.

What if, hypothetically, you found out they faked the Toyota truck segment by repeatedly replacing the engine, starter, alternator, and a dozen other parts that died, so that its "survival" of their tests was meaningless? What if they did all that repair work off-camera and then outright lied about it (which we now know they're willing to do)? Would you be just as impressed by the manufactured and staged myth of the unkillable Toyota as you were by the reality of it (because it's just entertainment anyway)? Or would you feel betrayed?

Would you be happy if they staged an Indian attack myth or a Vietnam attack myth too?

 

[nzg]

Something that might not have been mentioned before is that you can buy private plates like that now, for example I just searched and found pretty quickly that I could buy H466 ARD, H499 ART or H447 DEN and put them on any cars registered after August 1990. This is because lots of 1990 cars have been scrapped and the registration re-claimed by the DVLA. I still don't buy the idea that it's a coincidence, no matter what anyone including Wilman says.

If nothing else this should teach them to check what they're doing in this world where everyone is offended by anything and not all countries take it as lightly as the UK.

It is not top gears job to bend over backwards to appease the legions of left wing moron professional offence-takers. There sis nothing to learn except that Argentina is a disgusting socialist shithole. They should forget about the cars and instead teach a lesson to Argentines by mocking their country in upcoming episodes. They had a perfect opportunity to build bridges and gain tourism for their dysfunctional bankrupt socialist economy and the fuckwits blew it rioting. Fuck em. I can see why the rest of South America see argies as inbred and stupid.

 

[Tzarrim]

It is not top gears job to bend over backwards to appease the legions of left wing moron professional offence-takers. There sis nothing to learn except that Argentina is a disgusting socialist shithole. They should forget about the cars and instead teach a lesson to Argentines by mocking their country in upcoming episodes. They had a perfect opportunity to build bridges and gain tourism for their dysfunctional bankrupt socialist economy and the fuckwits blew it rioting. Fuck em. I can see why the rest of South America see argies as inbred and stupid.

Having watched the whole Patagonia thing; Argentina can sink in a mudhole, I wouldn't care.

 

[Revelator]

For those who are interested, I've reposted Clarkson's recent column on the Argentinian debacle here: http://forums.finalgear.com/top-gear/the-weekly-times-comment-column-by-jeremy-thread-36243/page-30/#post2252640

 

[Ryoku75]

What if they did all that repair work off-camera and then outright lied about it (which we now know they're willing to do)?

When exactly did they do this? Well aside from the specials where they seem to have a million spare tires\wheels\suspension parts sitting around, don't even get me started on Top Gear US.

Watching the Alabama attack I do agree that it was a bit staged, there was surprisingly little swearing for an "attack" and surprisingly few rocks or anything really happening. Plus if rocks were really thrown you'd see chips on the cars, the dark caddy in particular.

 

[Cavi Mike]

Watching the Alabama attack I do agree that it was a bit staged, there was surprisingly little swearing for an "attack" and surprisingly few rocks or anything really happening.

Cussing seems to be a more northern, liberal thing. In the bible belt, it's frowned upon a lot.

Not really holding it against them if they just want to keep the myth of Alabama if it's indeed staged. Entertainment. *shrug*

There's no "myth" about Alabama, any of the deep-south states or even just very rural areas - people really act like that. The reason why no one on here can vouch for it is because in those types of areas, they think the internet is some kind of left-wing devil sorcery and they don't use it. They're too busy watching Honey Boo Boo anyways.

 

[kunedog]

When exactly did they do this?

To summarize my post, it was a hypothetical scenario and I don't have any particular reason to believe they faked the Toyota segments; I'm asking whether you would care if they had faked it. Because the Alabama segment has proven so egregiously dishonest and hateful that it's hard to take most things they've done (or ever will do) at face value anymore.

There's no "myth" about Alabama, any of the deep-south states or even just very rural areas - people really act like that. The reason why no one on here can vouch for it is because in those types of areas, they think the internet is some kind of left-wing devil sorcery and they don't use it. They're too busy watching Honey Boo Boo anyways.

Didn't you already try this at the beginning of the thread?

 

[Tzarrim]

You seem awfully hung up about this very specific subject, care to enlighten us why that is?