Could we not scream "FAKE" without some evidence to that effect? May 31, 2012 6:05 PM   Subscribe

FAKE!!! Wait, maybe not. Could we consider not derailing a post with screams of FIRE errr... FAKE, without a bit of evidence that points to that? Could we especially not do it when there seems to be evidence that it ISN'T fake?
posted by HuronBob to Etiquette/Policy at 6:05 PM (81 comments total)

The post has been up for 20-ish minutes and you appear to be complaining about two comments out of the eight in the thread. Maybe this would be something better handled via MeMail or flagging? I thought your comment in the thread was fine. I'm not entirely sure this is a problem that needs to be handled in MetaTalk. Is it a common problem?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:09 PM on May 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


Well, it's a problem in posts about things that people think are fake. Or else it's a fake problem, one or the other.
posted by box at 6:13 PM on May 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


Perhaps a combination of not reading the links, casting an incorrect light on the topic and the possible derail, seemed unnecessary to me.

Yes , it was handled in thread and that particular FPP doesn't need fixing. It just seemed worth while to remind folks that, if in fact they feel that it is necessary to call something "fake", it would be nice to at least do a little due diligence prior to hitting the post button..especially when the OP made it so easy to do so.
posted by HuronBob at 6:15 PM on May 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


I'm distressed that I posted something some might think was a fake. I hadn't thought it was and wouldn't have if I had found any evidence that it was a fake.
posted by jamaro at 6:16 PM on May 31, 2012 [2 favorites]


Yo momma so fake.
posted by special-k at 6:25 PM on May 31, 2012


Maybe this would be something better handled via MeMail or flagging?

My monitor is a TV and the text isn't very big and I'm sitting kind of far away and all of this makes the text look a little fuzzy and I totally thought that said "via MeMail or a flogging." I read it at least three times the same way thinking, man, jessamyn must be having a rough day, until it occurred to me to ctrl+.

That is all.
posted by phunniemee at 6:27 PM on May 31, 2012 [16 favorites]


I think it's a fairly shitty viral ad for a shitty reality show, and that the fact that they really endangered an actual dog makes the post worse, not better.

I flagged it and I hope it gets deleted.
posted by empath at 6:29 PM on May 31, 2012 [4 favorites]


I read the links and watched the video and am still skeptical it really happened. The video screams super fake and if it was all cooked up to advertise a animal TV show or act as a PSA for the fire dept, then I'll be doubly pissed.

The fire looks like the cheap effect, their reaction doesn't seem nearly as psychotic off-the-handle most people would be if their kitchen just exploded into flames.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:31 PM on May 31, 2012 [3 favorites]


No, sorry, pretty sure some of us humans are going to continue to call bullshit on things when we think we smell it, to the annoyance of the viral marketeers, forwarders of emails, and 419 spammers for ever and ever. If a thing is genuine, it will stand up to accusations of fakeness. Personally I see this as a feature, not a bug.
posted by Edogy at 6:33 PM on May 31, 2012 [3 favorites]


I thought for sure this was going to be about the "Shakespeare was really Christopher Marlowe" post.
posted by dfan at 6:36 PM on May 31, 2012 [3 favorites]


their reaction doesn't seem nearly as psychotic off-the-handle most people would be if their kitchen just exploded into flames.

People can be surprisingly calm in real life when that kind of thing happens. My dad actually set himself on fire in a grilling incident (left the gas running in the grill with the lid closed, cracked it open, looked inside, and hit ignite), and I was in the living room and didn't even know anything happened until he came back downstairs with his face beet-red and no eyebrows.
posted by empath at 6:39 PM on May 31, 2012


I'm sorry, why did you need "evidence" that the video where someone (neither the husband nor the wife, but...who exactly?) keeps videoing (for some reason in the first place) not only after the dog spray paints himself but the house also catches fire (somehow) is fake?

It's like...how much more fake can it be? None. None more fake.
posted by DU at 6:41 PM on May 31, 2012 [2 favorites]


DU -- it was filmed for a reality TV show. The cameraman was filming, because it was his job to film.
posted by empath at 6:42 PM on May 31, 2012 [3 favorites]


Ah, so I get the supposed reason for the filming in the first place. So I guess that reduces the likelihood of fakery from 99% to 70% but increases the lameness from 30% to 80%.
posted by DU at 6:43 PM on May 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


I think it's a fairly shitty viral ad for a shitty reality show, and that the fact that they really endangered an actual dog makes the post worse, not better.

The dog was in a normal house with normal things stored in normal places. A million billion dogs the world over are more "endangered" than that. It bit a spraycan. I don't think they were planning on getting paint on the dog and setting the house on fire.
posted by Hoopo at 6:46 PM on May 31, 2012 [2 favorites]


To me, the fact that this was filmed for a reality TV show is proof that it's fake.

Reality TV being fake and all.
posted by subversiveasset at 6:47 PM on May 31, 2012 [11 favorites]


Wait, if it was filmed for a reality show that means it's fake! As in, this isn't a real thing happening to real people, but something they set up for a reality show... or are things they set up for reality shows now considered real?

If this is reality, someone take me back to Cloud-cuckooland. I've had enough.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 6:48 PM on May 31, 2012


The LAFD says "As mentioned above - and hopefully clarified by watching the videos, this was a real life event that happened to be caught on video. Your Los Angeles Fire Department did respond to investigate the "fire out", and can affirm there were no injuries."

if it was all cooked up to advertise a animal TV show or act as a PSA for the fire dept

I see what you did there

posted by gingerest at 6:48 PM on May 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


I like the part at the end where a third person suddenly takes control of the camera while 'boyfriend' does whatever he's doing at the end.
posted by rhizome at 6:53 PM on May 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


The dog's love/fear (it's hard to tell which it is in the article and video) of cleaning supplies does, however, seem to be real, and probably the dog's charging the kitchen sink. So it seems kind of irrelevant to me whether the fire was staged or not--isn't the point that the dog is weird and attracted to cleaning agents?
posted by nonmerci at 6:54 PM on May 31, 2012


What I do find it fascinating, however, is the brain's tremendous ability to grant immediate credulity towards something that provokes a certain kind of pleasant emotional response from it. We see it all the time in viral video discussions here and elsewhere, where someone posts some animal video of dubious legitimacy or questionable content, but since they are a cat-person (or dog-person or whatever) and the video touched them emotionally, they will defend it vigorously from those who question the veracity, sometimes labeling them as "haters" or even psychopaths, for not sharing the same emotional response to the item in question. You know, like, a minute ago you and I were on the same team but now that I'm wondering out loud if some random cat video is real I've moved from Fellowship to Otherhood in less time than it took to watch the video.

HuronBob hasn't Othered anyone in this post, let me be clear. I just find the phenomenon interesting.
posted by Edogy at 6:55 PM on May 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


Nothing in that LAFD statement obviates fakeitude. To wit: a fake fire will indeed register as a "fire out." The chief confirmed it!

nonmerci: or it's attracted to stuff that smells like peanut butter.
posted by rhizome at 6:55 PM on May 31, 2012


I like the part at the end where a third person suddenly takes control of the camera while 'boyfriend' does whatever he's doing at the end.

I like the part where a poster doesn't bother reading the article or comments in threads. If you did, you would know that the person filming is a camera man for a show, not the boyfriend. Right after the dog bites the paint can, you see the girlfriend and boyfriend in the same shot with third person filming. It isn't just at the end.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 6:59 PM on May 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


...isn't the point that the dog is weird and attracted to cleaning agents?

If the video consisted solely of a dog scrabbling unremarkably under the sink this video would have maybe 15 views.
posted by DU at 7:01 PM on May 31, 2012


No, I think people are referring to the dog when they say it's fake. Did you see how stubby its legs are? Totally fake dog.
posted by heyho at 7:03 PM on May 31, 2012 [17 favorites]


It's a video of a cute dog doing a dangerously stupid thing, supposedly to teach something about pet behavior. Does it really matter whether the video is fake or not? Why does it change your enjoyment of the video if parts of the video are staged? Do you really think this is a fake dog, a fake owner, and a faked pet-owner relationship (see the follow-up video)? That seems like more reaching than what the people in the thread and here in MeTa, who haven't found or been given a compelling reason to believe it is 100% fake, are doing.

Because really. It's a silly SLYT.
posted by nonmerci at 7:03 PM on May 31, 2012


If it's filmed for a tv reality show, then isn't the fake/real question discussion just kind of pointless? It's neither, just somewhere in some kind of dumb dissonant gap between the two.
posted by carter at 7:06 PM on May 31, 2012


No, I think people are referring to the dog when they say it's fake. Did you see how stubby its legs are? Totally fake dog.

It SHOULD be fake. Dang ol' tiny dogs.
posted by curious nu at 7:06 PM on May 31, 2012


If the video consisted solely of a dog scrabbling unremarkably under the sink this video would have maybe 15 views.
posted by DU at 19:01 on May 31 [+] [!]


Right. I don't think I suggested that was what was appealing about the video. The action and movement of the dog, and the unexpected paint explosion (which clearly happened, whether staged or not), clearly contributed. But as far as people reacting emotionally or however else to the video, I don't think it's delight that there is an unimpressive fire or a dog in danger, but rather the antics of the crazy dog. The antics of the crazy dog remain, whether the scene was staged or scripted. I still fail to see how the supposed veracity of the video changes this.
posted by nonmerci at 7:06 PM on May 31, 2012


Why does it change your enjoyment of the video if parts of the video are staged?

Ummm...because "wow, life sure is funny and weird sometimes" is a completely different thing than "did they really just possibly harm a dog for a stupid setup 'joke'"?

I remember once in college there was some kind of assembly where they brought out this enormous cake and set it on the stage and then the Registrar or someone came out to tell us something and we were all "are they really going to do the 'guy falls into the cake' joke" and then he fell in. Grim faces all around and complaints about wasted food in the school paper the next day.

Had it been a genuine accident it would have been funny. As an obviously fake setup it was the opposite.
posted by DU at 7:09 PM on May 31, 2012


Well, the antics of the crazy dog are situated in contexts that we do not have access to. For instance, they could have rubbed bacon on the paint can before putting it in the cupboard. Maybe the dog had been trained in fetching paint cans for rewards for a week before this was shot. Maybe it is just a crazy dog.

But as of now it exists (for Metafilter) in both states. There isn't enough available information for us to collapse the dog's wave function one way or the other, and there probably will never be.
posted by carter at 7:16 PM on May 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


But as of now it exists (for Metafilter) in both states.

Schrödinger's Corgi
posted by HuronBob at 7:20 PM on May 31, 2012 [3 favorites]


It seems pretty clear they wouldn't intentionally harm the dog--I think the Humane Society would be all over this if so. I highly doubt a reality show centered on pets and appealing to pet lovers and owners as a primary demographic would stage scenes which could intentionally harm an animal.

I don't have a dog in this fight either way (heh), but I think those decrying this as fake and essentially accusing others of being gullible are overreacting, to say the least.
posted by nonmerci at 7:22 PM on May 31, 2012 [4 favorites]


This thread is FAKE!

googdle rom paul.
posted by a shrill fucking shitstripe at 7:22 PM on May 31, 2012


I didn't like that video when I saw it on another site a few days ago [looks fake, paint on the dog...] and it hasn't improved with age.
posted by Trurl at 7:39 PM on May 31, 2012


I thought the video was gross and it made me angry that it was a) pet endangerment and b) obviously fake. So I moved on.

Corgis will do lots of things for liver bits. The way the lady rubs the dog's face after she drags him out looks hella like post treat rubbing to me. Also, I can't picture how a corgi could bite a can strongly enough to cause that reaction. They're scrappy little dogs, but they don't have the jaw power of giants.
posted by winna at 7:40 PM on May 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


Fakeness or not of this video aside, what do we think about being more cautious in general about calling out the subject of a post as a hoax? Personally I think it'd be a Good Thing if people didn't just scream "FAKE!" right at the beginning of a thread, but I don't think that happens too often.

Actually, posts often become more interesting to me when the community becomes suspicious as to the subject's veracity, because then it goes from being just a Funny Video or whatever to being a genuine Puzzle, and a Puzzle beats a Funny Video any day.
posted by Scientist at 7:44 PM on May 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


I highly doubt a reality show centered on pets and appealing to pet lovers and owners as a primary demographic would stage scenes which could intentionally harm an animal.

Wouldn't it be less harmful to the animal if it were fake? If it's real, that means the show starting filming a scene where they knew a dog was going to attack cleaning supplies, which are generally unsafe to ingest, and didn't bother to first check the supplies for anything dangerous. That seems pretty bad.
posted by scottreynen at 7:47 PM on May 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


"Actually, posts often become more interesting to me when the community becomes suspicious as to the subject's veracity, "... I agree 100% with that... and love it when someone comes into a thread with a "I found evidence that this may not be all it seems, what do you think?", which feels a lot more substantial than a "FAKE, I can tell!" statement.... which sometimes devolves into a "no it's not!" "yes it is!" "no it's not" type of thing...

That's all I'm saying.
posted by HuronBob at 7:50 PM on May 31, 2012 [5 favorites]


I agree with you HuronBob, and I think people in general should avoid calling fake without giving a bit of evidence, but I don't think it's a huge problem generally and I don't think it's enforceable or anything. Still, I agree that it'd be nice if we could mostly-agree, as a community, that it's not cool to just yell "FAKE!" without giving any more for the community to work with. It's better to say "I'm not sure this is real, and here's why...". So we're in agreement there.
posted by Scientist at 8:09 PM on May 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


I hope Greg Nog's story is real, cause it created the most hilarious mental image.
posted by The Whelk at 8:28 PM on May 31, 2012


jessamyn: " Is it a common problem?"

Yes, absolutely. It's common enough that as someone who posts frequently here, I not only expect them to show up on posts like this, -- and predictably, they did, but I've actually started making a private game out of it: How many comments will go by before someone feels obligated to call a posted video out as fake, staged or stealth advertising.
posted by zarq at 8:47 PM on May 31, 2012 [3 favorites]


They're scrappy little dogs, but they don't have the jaw power of giants.

Tell that to the Queen.

I have no way of knowing whether or not the video is precisely a fake, but it sure looks like it is has been released as promotion for a reality show. I guess I'd rather it was a creative fake, done just for the fun of it, than be "real" and merely show promo material.
posted by Forktine at 9:51 PM on May 31, 2012


I like how she continuously yells at the guy to fix the things that she has just FUBARed, while never actually helping at all, herself.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 9:58 PM on May 31, 2012


hi
posted by fake at 10:13 PM on May 31, 2012 [15 favorites]


I like how she continuously yells at the guy to fix the things that she has just FUBARed...

... like her untrained Corgi?

I don't think the video is fake or staged, but I was expecting a cute animal video. Instead, I saw the poor thing bite into toxic chemicals and then an explosion. If it was advertising, then it has backfired. I never want to see anything like that again... especially not when I'm expecting cute animal videos.
posted by juliplease at 10:17 PM on May 31, 2012 [3 favorites]


I thought for sure this was going to be about the "Shakespeare was really Christopher Marlowe" post.

I thought it was going to be the DOMA thing. I mean let's face it, it doesn't SOUND believable.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:33 PM on May 31, 2012


Could we consider not derailing a post with screams of FIRE errr... FAKE, without a bit of evidence that points to that? Could we especially not do it when there seems to be evidence that it ISN'T fake?

I hate to break it to you, but after Kaycee Nicole there is not enough evidence in the entire world to prove veracity around here. Once you've seen a hoax on that scale, the little ones don't seem particularly surprising.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:44 PM on May 31, 2012


Either it's staged (fake) or she's a criminally negligent pet owner who should have her pets taken away and at the very least be fined (along with everyone else involved who allowed this to happen, assuming it actually happened as shown in the video).

As usual, it's "reality" TV showing us an execrable example of humanity.
posted by dirigibleman at 11:00 PM on May 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


Either it's staged (fake) or she's a criminally negligent pet owner who should have her pets taken away and at the very least be fined

She should be fined and have her pets taken away because she keeps cleaning supplies and paint under the sink, huh?
posted by Hoopo at 11:10 PM on May 31, 2012


She should be fined and have her pets taken away because she keeps cleaning supplies and paint under the sink, huh?

If I understand the situation, she allowed her dog access to chemicals that were dangerous, knowing that the dog would freak out. She did this for a reality show. If she really wanted to figure out how to better train her dog, the right approach is to ask a professional "My dog does X, which is dangerous to us and the dog. What can we do about it?" Actually putting the dog in the dangerous situation is negligent at best.
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 1:58 AM on June 1, 2012 [1 favorite]


If I understand the situation, that was the point of the show: "My dog does X, which is dangerous to us and the dog. Help me, 'Animal Communicator!'"

It might be worth noting that in the final version of the episode, they didn't show or mention the explosion, though they did include the paint spray and vet visit.
posted by Gator at 4:32 AM on June 1, 2012


If I understand the situation, that was the point of the show: "My dog does X, which is dangerous to us and the dog. Help me, 'Animal Communicator!'"

My point was that it is unnecessary to actually put the dog in the dangerous situation. One can use, you know, words to describe the situation rather than video. But that's not nearly as entertaining, is it?
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 4:40 AM on June 1, 2012 [1 favorite]


If it's real, that means the show starting filming a scene where they knew a dog was going to attack cleaning supplies, which are generally unsafe to ingest, and didn't bother to first check the supplies for anything dangerous. That seems pretty bad.

At least they were thoughtful enough to put some electrical tape on the bottle of 409 so our eyes weren't poisoned by illicit branding.

I was willing to bet it was almost completely staged (using latex spray paint which wouldn't cause a flash like that?) until I saw the damaged can and burnt sponge in the interview footage. Now I'm just gonna say plausible and shoot the hell out of some acetylene tanks.
posted by fleacircus at 4:41 AM on June 1, 2012


I like how she continuously yells at the guy to fix the things that she has just FUBARed, while never actually helping at all, herself.

As a boy Trurl, my parents and I were eating in an Italian restaurant. While cutting into my just-served and extremely hot small pizza with a knife and fork, the cut piece sprung up from the plate, turned over, and landed cheese-side down on the back of my left hand. I couldn't find my napkin, which had fallen to the floor, and I was too busy screaming to go look for it. (I thought I wasn't allowed to wipe it off with the tablecloth.)

Mom yelled at Dad to give me his napkin - which, in the panic of the moment, he was also having trouble with. For some reason, it never occurred to her to give me her own.

This was 35 years ago. If you know exactly where to look - which I do - you can still see a small oval of differently textured skin where the burn was.
posted by Trurl at 5:16 AM on June 1, 2012 [2 favorites]


It's not unusual for production crews on reality shows and some news shows to go through cabinets and closets before filming begins at a location, to remove or white/black out logos from products that may show up on camera. Often, they will also remove signage in stores or salons.

I worked a news shoot on Wednesday where signage had to be taken down in an area where the crew was filming. Not surprising.
posted by zarq at 5:44 AM on June 1, 2012 [1 favorite]


Also, just to clarify my earlier comment.. .

Comments decrying videos posted here as fake, staged or advertising are common. I don't think they're necessarily a problem. Depends on the case, and if they poisonously derail a thread.

As Tell Me No Lies (heh) said above, this is a jaded community for good reasons.
posted by zarq at 5:53 AM on June 1, 2012


This was 35 years ago.

Nathan Thurm was excited "on your behalf" until he got to that part.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:26 AM on June 1, 2012


Ever since the recent unpleasantness with holdkris99, I find myself on guard a lot more often about the possible fakeness of AskMe questions.
posted by deanc at 7:59 AM on June 1, 2012


Why won't the government release the 911 recordings?

Why won't they admit that Dick Cheney ordered the LA Fire Department into an unprecedented stand down half an hour before the explosion?
posted by Naberius at 8:29 AM on June 1, 2012


What's wrong with me that I read "flagging" as "flogging" every single time?
posted by desjardins at 8:34 AM on June 1, 2012


Could we consider not derailing a post with screams of FIRE errr... FAKE, without a bit of evidence that points to that?

Could we consider that someone who says a video looks fake isn't a derail? It's a reaction to watching the video, just as valid as any other.
posted by 23skidoo at 9:02 AM on June 1, 2012


I like how she continuously yells at the guy to fix the things that she has just FUBARed, while never actually helping at all, herself.

I've been in many situations when somethings gone wrong and urgent action is needed, both as a volunteer duty and as part of my job. Some people, a lot of people, have stress reactions they can't control. Blaming them for it is a unproductive as blaming someone for being too tall or not having curly hair. They just are that way. They may recognize it as a personal fault, but self-knowledge doesn't always help them in the instant. Panic and stress sweep away rationality and all that's left is the reaction.

Panic reactions can be mitigated by familiarization and training, but it isn't reasonable to expect everyone to have dozens or hundreds of training hours in response. Some people naturally do keep their heads when things fall apart, but just as there are introverts and extroverts, short and tall, we can't, shouldn't criticize people for being naturally bloody-minded or sensitive.
posted by bonehead at 9:18 AM on June 1, 2012 [3 favorites]


(and she is helping---she's keeping the dog safe and isolated so as not to cause more problems).
posted by bonehead at 9:40 AM on June 1, 2012


Reality TV being fake and all.

It's bad grammar to use "reality" as an adjective anyway, and a dead giveaway that you're being lied to. This should be taught in about Grade Three.
posted by philip-random at 9:57 AM on June 1, 2012


and love it when someone comes into a thread with a "I found evidence that this may not be all it seems, what do you think?", which feels a lot more substantial than a "FAKE, I can tell!" statement.... which sometimes devolves into a "no it's not!" "yes it is!" "no it's not" type of thing...


Well, hypothesis precedes theory, right? I mean, you've got to start somewhere. And I've done it -- first comment in the thread. In that case, I believe I didn't even look at the links first. It was just how the information was presented (awfully BLAIR WITCH-like), coupled with the fact that it reminded me of something I might have done, or as my second comment pointed out ...

it will be interesting to see if it gets any traction. My gut tells me no. Blair Witch is still too fresh in the zeitgeist (even if it was released 10 years ago). The reason I called FAKE so quickly is that I've sat in on discussions for a similarly themed project (ie: lost/forgotten vid-tapes filed away for years, then remembered ... and they have a chilling tale to tell) ... and as such, it felt a little obvious.

But credit to MeFi, the thread did rather well, didn't degenerate into an "is so / is not" back and forth, but instead, either A. just ignored the issue and talked about the content of the FPP, or B. rolled with issue in a positive way (ie: yeah, it's FAKE but it's still pretty darned cool and spooky).

Conclusion. A good basic post, with solid content will not just withstand cries of "F is for Fake", it will eat them up, digest them, grow strong and healthy because of them.
posted by philip-random at 10:18 AM on June 1, 2012


It's bad grammar to use "reality" as an adjective anyway, and a dead giveaway that you're being lied to.

Huh, and all this time I thought "Reality Bites" was a 90s snack food.
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 11:43 AM on June 1, 2012 [1 favorite]


desjardins: "What's wrong with me that I read "flagging" as "flogging" every single time?"

A Freudian slip is where you try to say one thing, but you actually say a mother.
posted by zarq at 11:46 AM on June 1, 2012 [1 favorite]


> Could we consider that someone who says a video looks fake isn't a derail? It's a reaction to watching the video, just as valid as any other.

That's true, but it's one thing to make a reasonable argument that the video looks fake and quite another to just holler FAKE!, which is just obnoxious.

> And I've done it -- first comment in the thread. In that case, I believe I didn't even look at the links first.

Case in point. Don't do that.
posted by languagehat at 11:48 AM on June 1, 2012 [2 favorites]


Well, I did reference a pretty cool Orson Welles movie.
posted by philip-random at 12:06 PM on June 1, 2012


phunniemee: "Maybe this would be something better handled via MeMail or flagging?

My monitor is a TV and the text isn't very big and I'm sitting kind of far away and all of this makes the text look a little fuzzy and I totally thought that said "via MeMail or a flogging." I read it at least three times the same way thinking, man, jessamyn must be having a rough day, until it occurred to me to ctrl+.

That is all.
"

MeMail or Flogging is a reality show that I would watch religiously.
posted by Splunge at 12:23 PM on June 1, 2012 [1 favorite]

If you know exactly where to look - which I do - you can still see a small oval of differently textured skin where the burn was.
faaaaake.
posted by yeoz at 4:45 PM on June 1, 2012


Man, I can't believe I didn't think to link to this until now. For shame.
posted by adamdschneider at 7:13 PM on June 1, 2012


There's a world of difference between saying "something about this doesn't seem right to me: for example..." and saying " This is obviously fake! Anyone who isn't a gullible child or a moron coukd see that this is fake. Why did the OP waste our time with this obviously fake viral advertising for..."

And yeah, it is a common problem with these sorts of videos. It's not the "hey let's puzzle out whether or not this is legit" responses that are troubling, it's the people who insist, stridently, that the video cannot possibly be legitimate and that anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly a credulous fool. A big part of the problem with those responses is that they strongly imply (and often explicitly include the assertion) that the post is an inappropriate one which should be removed. That tends to create a rather hostile atmosphere for no reason.

And I can't count the number of times that a video has been declared an "obvious" fake by numerous posters only to eventually be proven to be real. People are just not as good at spotting fake videos as they like to imagine.
posted by yoink at 7:58 AM on June 2, 2012 [3 favorites]


...their reaction doesn't seem nearly as psychotic off-the-handle most people would be if their kitchen just exploded into flames.

Some people react differently than you might expect. Like, despite her cool demeanor, it was later shown that the dingo really did take that lady's baby.
posted by StickyCarpet at 1:12 PM on June 2, 2012


So, I left a message for the Pet Collective, the group that did the video, telling them that Metafilter was talking about it...... here's the response:

"The Pet Collective
This is a great thread. Much smarter than most. The Yahoo comment thread is frighteningly ignorant and bile-ridden.

I'm the director of distribution for the channel, and I can confirm that it's all real. Interestingly, the firefighting community is embracing the video as an example to proliferate fire safety awareness of chemicals under sinks - a place I think about 90% of us keep chemicals. The accident was caught while shooting a piece of b-roll footage illustrating Yogi's typically annoying but harmless reaction to Hali attempting to retrieve cleaning supplies. Thus in prep for the shot, labels were blacked out with tape on the products. Even the most reputable news agencies shoot b-roll for their video pieces - it's a visual medium after all. We don't necessarily get the same rights as straight-up news entities, so blacking out the labels in prep for the shot was necessary. It was all shot for our small reality/doc series called Pet Sense, exclusively for our new YouTube channel, The Pet Collective, and as unanticipated accidents often happen on productions, this happened when the fumes hit the pilot light on the stove. We've put out an explanation video that explains the context of the event, and shows some aftermath and gets comments from the producer and Hali. It's all real.

Had anyone been hurt, human or animal, or if any participating party had any objection to its release, this obviously never would have been released. But we look at it as a small miracle. Had Hali not taken Yogi out of the kitchen so quickly, it would have been tragic. But as we've stated in our press communication, since no one was hurt, it's 2012, it's a channel on the internet, and this was an incredible event that we caught on camera. What better way to launch an already scheduled new YouTube channel with a bang? It's a fascinating study in virality too - the obsession with "fake" judgement is incredible. People are passionate about their skepticism online. There's no doubt that you could copy-paste this to the thread (which you are welcome to do), and some word in these paragraphs will be dissected for conspiracy theory.

Regardless, it's interesting to learn that fire experts apparently have a surprisingly short inventory of real incidents like this caught on camera...requests have been coming in for use of it for fire safety education. Something we're very happy about...this video might help save lives.

The only fallout is that our friend Hali has taken a beating in online forums of haters attacking her as a pet owner. She's had Yogi for years, and he's always hated cleaning products...it's his only quirk as an otherwise well trained and loveable corgi. If anyone has ever owned a dog or children, you could childproof the heck out of your house, but they're like hackers...they'll find a crack at some point.

My theory is that he's a male dog...they're territorial and mark their space with scent. Corgis shed like crazy and that leaves their scent for territory marking. He learned at a young age that all his hard work shedding on his territory can be wiped away by vacuums and cleaning products. I'd be frustrated too, so it seems like a no brainer to me. But face it...we have to clean. Sorry, Yogi, cleaning products aren't going anywhere (except further out of reach). If he was ever in any obvious real danger, either then or in the past, or was able to open the cabinet on his own over the years, she obviously wouldn't have taped the sequence, or kept the stuff down there in the first place - which she doesn't do anymore. And as far as having a can of spraypaint down there...I gotta say, as a California resident, I removed my can of WD-40 from under my sink after the L.A. fire department's blog posting of safety analysis of this video. We're a land of dogs and earthquakes.

That's about it. No mystery. We're a Los Angeles based team of about 25 people starting a new pet/animal focused YouTube channel from the ground up. Was an amazing pet video to launch with and we're proud that our content has provoked so much safety awareness and pet-centric dialogue in the online medium. A serendipitously positive result of a production accident.

If anyone wants an actual "fake" video...scope our Gotye parody with a dog and a cat...it's pretty fake. But Yogi explosion....REAL!

-Tom Hoffman
Director of Distribution
The Pet Collective"
posted by HuronBob at 6:03 PM on June 2, 2012 [10 favorites]


What a great response! Thanks for contacting them and posting what they said.
posted by languagehat at 7:07 AM on June 3, 2012


Agreed, that's a great response. Why not post it in the original thread, too? Your comment there links to FB, but clicking it just invites me to send my own message to the Pet Collective.
posted by Gator at 9:01 AM on June 3, 2012


Huh. That's a ridiculously reasonable response. Thanks for taking the effort to contact them, HuronBob.

Like mathowie, this seemed fake to me, not because of the explosion, but because that is totally not the reaction I'd have if my dog just created an explosion of black paint all over my white kitchen, which was then followed by a fireball.

And, I mean... if the dog's covered in black paint, the last thing I would do would be to take him into another room.
posted by schmod at 9:20 AM on June 4, 2012


the last thing I would do would be to take him into another room

that dog was on his way to get cleaned immediately, straight into the bathtub is my guess. That's what I would've done.
posted by philip-random at 10:29 AM on June 4, 2012


I think why people are quick to say its FAKE is because the high quality of the video - the idea being that if it was real the video quality would be a lot worse. There have been a lot of viral marketing videos out there that try to be "real" so it's really hard to tell nowadays.

I like how she continuously yells at the guy to fix the things that she has just FUBARed, while never actually helping at all, herself.

She was holding onto the dog and trying to keep it away from the kitchen. Which is a good thing since, you know, he had a ton of highly flammable paint on its fur.

Anyways, I am so glad that video was posted. I seriously had NO IDEA how flammable that stuff is... especially near a stove that didn't have an open flame.
posted by littlesq at 11:47 AM on June 4, 2012


« Older What Was this Term In a Comment?   |   Or is it just me? Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments