Today the French court of appeals comes down with its decision. The outcome, whiich we will know in hours is, alas, unpredictable. Were the court’s decision based entirely on the evidence — as it should be — the decision would be clear. Philippe Karsenty had a dozen excellent reasons for accusing France2 and Charles Enderlin of presenting their viewing pulbic with staged footage, whether they knew it at the time or not. But past experience with the French courts suggests that decisions do not necessarily derive from the evidence alone. Hence the uncertainty.
For those who want to examine some of the msjor evidence upon which the court is, in principle, basing its decision, they can conslut here:
1. The 18 minutes of France2 rushes taken by Talal abu Rahmah, the cameraman whose work and testimony created the affair are available.
Note: they have been edited down by at least three, possibly nine minutes. See here for the discussion I posted immediately after the session in which they were shown.
2. France2′s video presentation to the court in which they try to “explain” the footage from Talal (their version of what I did in Pallywood (with other footage from that day) with a different conclusion (surprise!).
This video is chock full of errors and illustrates precisely why Pallywood — no matter how shoddy — works. Because even when a Western news organization is put on notice that they are suspected of running staged footage as real news, they continue to do precisely that.
3. For a first analysis of how France2 made a fool of themselves with this video, see this analysis I recorded for Pajamas Media:
This presentation focuses on the “Molotov Cocktail Kid”. By viewing the same scene taken by two different cameramen, two things become clear: 1) the other cameraman is technically superior: his footage is in focus and sustained and actually permits us to identify the staging. He is a cameraman of Pallywood. 2) Talal’s work is technically awful: the footage is broken into incomprehensible pieces, out of focus, jostled. But that makes it believable as “cinéma vérité.” Talal is a Pallywood cameraman.
4. Later today I will post another analysis of the France2 court video, using the rushes and other evidence. If anyone wants to know what kind of material the court examined in making its decision, this video is one of the better guides.
This will be available at PJMedia at about noon EST. I will make both an English and French script available at that time. (Warm thanks to Menahem Macina of Debriefing.org for the timely French translation.)