Previously uncontacted tribe photographed Amazon, A HOAX!

[Thorvald of Lym]

Indeed. This doesn't compare to the 'lost' tribe in the Philippines however many years ago. Even National Geographic fell for that one.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The [wiki]Tasaday[/wiki]? Apparently they were real.

 

[Arwon]

This was not a hoax, the new story is nonsense

The source of these "new" revelations is news.com.friggin.au, ie, the Daily Telegraph, which is about as credible as the Daily Mail. And they're not new revelations, they're from the original story. If media since then has twisted it into "previously unknown tribe" that's their own fault, not the people who took the photos nor the original reporters.

Here's the original BBC article from a few weeks ago:

The Brazilian government says it took the images to prove the tribe exists and help protect its land.

The pictures, taken from an aeroplane, show red-painted tribe members brandishing bows and arrows.

[...]

"We did the overflight to show their houses, to show they are there, to show they exist," the group quoted Jose Carlos dos Reis Meirelles Junior, an official in the Brazilian government's Indian affairs department, as saying.

"This is very important because there are some who doubt their existence."

Repeat: this is not a hoax.

 

[Masquerouge]

This was not a hoax, the new story is nonsense

The source of these "new" revelations is news.com.friggin.au, ie, the Daily Telegraph, which is about as credible as the Daily Mail.

Here's the original BBC article from a few weeks ago:



Repeat: this is not a hoax.

Ah, but how could we pass an apparently golden opportunity to rant against hippies and the liberal media?

 

[Catharsis]

ie, the Daily Telegraph, which is about as credible as the Daily Mail

That's a bit harsh.

 

[skadistic]

So much for credibility.

 

[The Fishman]

That's a bit harsh.

Not as harsh as comparing it to the Sun...

 

[scy12]

Ah The media , the ultimate bandwagon jumpers.

 

[History_Buff]

So much for credibility.

Beautifully executed.

 

[Arwon]

Yeah, point to skad for that one.

That's a bit harsh.

You're not thinking I'm talking about the English version are you? Because the Aussie version is exactly the same sort of half-cocked, poorly researched, sans-punctiation outrage-fest as the Mail and targetted at the same demographics as it.

I could compare it to the Sun by virtue of its association with Murdoch...

 

[Catharsis]

Ah, here's the problem: I was thinking of a different Daily Telegraph.

But if it has an actual journalist on the team, it's not as bad as the Mail.

 

[Arwon]

It's hard to compare papers directly because Sydney only has two plus a national one also owned by Murdoch. We don't have as rich and precise a spectrum of newspapers as the UK, no Yes Minister jokes to be made about who reads what. You could easily compare the Aussie Telegraph to either the Sun, the Mail or the UK Telegraph, it contains facets of all of them.

But, for our purposes it's pretty simple. news.com.au reportage is unreliable like the Daily Mail or the Sun if it's uncorroborated by actual news sources.

 

[bhsup]

What about the Sydney Morning Herald? That's where I like to go when I want to read far east or Australian news.

 

[luiz]

Funai is one of the dirtiest organs of the dirty brazilian government. I expect lies and worse from them.

 

[Arwon]

I typically use the SMH as a first-stop news source. Broadly speaking the SMH is seen as centre-left and the Telegraph is seen as centre-right, is expressed mostly in editorials. The SMH has one or two baby-eater, notably Miranda Divine, while the Telegraph's editorials are mostly very right wing.

The difference is more in their reliability and approach, the SMH is more measured and straight-down the line in reportage though is drifting into tabloid territory, the Telegraph was born there.

The SMH journalistic standards aren't actually significantly better, and their extra sections are mostly pap compared to something like the Guardian which has some really interesting peripheral stuff. However, they don't go for the knee-jerk idiot readership, you won't see them race-baiting or hatemongering or flying off on so many half-cocked OUTRAGED HEADLINE CAUSES OUTRAGE nonsenses. The SMH and its company are an old establishment paper and I guess still preserve some of that instinct.

Something like the New York Times, in that it used to be seen as very conservative and elite and establishment, but has now drifted leftwards as newer more shouty press has outflanked it to the sensationalist right.

So yeah, basically it's a more reliable paper and gets things hopelessly and offensively wrong much less frequently than the Telegraph.

 

[Gooblah]

This is not a 'hoax'..it's just a scandal. Just because the tribe was seen once before in all of modern day history does not mean that the Amazon can be chopped down and stuff. It just means that one sentence in the story was fabricated. Big whoop.

 

[luiz]

What do indians and the conservation of the Amazon have to do with each other? They chop it down too. The two are separate issues and should be treated as such. I hate it when people talk about indians when we discuss our rainforest policy.

 

[History_Buff]

What do indians and the conservation of the Amazon have to do with each other? They chop it down too. The two are separate issues and should be treated as such. I hate it when people talk about indians when we discuss our rainforest policy.

Because they usually don't clear cut

 

[Arwon]

The expansion of logging and agriculture frontiers is disastrous for isolated peoples in jungles and forests. It's where they live, it's their home, and quite often the expansion and dispossession isn't just disastrous but fatal. Claiming they have nothing to do with it is reflecting the worst practises of 500 years of colonial expansion.

And if you're seriously recognising no difference between clear cutting for agriculture and settlement versus what native peoples do, well that's just wacky.

 

[RedRalph]

Well, to be honest, I did think that one of those guys looked slightly familiar.