The Clickbait Award for Hysteria in Journalism goes to…
Today the media is running the claim by the Turkish government that their military “shot down” a drone from an unidentified source 3km inside Turkish airspace. An anonymous US spokesperson was, of course, immediately on hand to tell us he thought the drone was “probably” Russian. Whether that is true will presumably become apparent in due course.
The Guardian*, like many other mainstream outlets, decided not to run a photo of the drone in question. Which of course allowed the impression to remain that it was some sort of military attack drone like this:
But in fact it was this:
A 2-3 ft long surveillance or civilian drone of some kind.
But that didn’t stop the Independent producing this as a headline:
.
Just another reminder, this is the “aircraft” they are talking about:
Some observers have also pointed out the tiny drone in question looks in awful good shape for something that size that has allegedly been shot down by a military jet. But that’s another issue.
*Since the article was published the Guardian has now added a photo of the drone to its coverage, likely in response to repeated requests in the comments
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
[…] Despite all this, the New York Times went one step further, and decided to skip the part of history where Turkey violated Syrian sovereignty: Turkish Jets Shoot Down Drone Near Syria UK neo-liberal rag The Guardian went totally overboard, in a desperate attempt for clicks, by showing a picture of a warplane and referring to the drone as an ‘unidentified aircraft’. I’m sure Putin was piloting it and dropping Barrel Bombs too. off-guardian.org/2015/10/16/the-clickbait-award-for-hysteria-in-journalism-goes-to/ […]
[…] Despite all this, the New York Times went one step further, and decided to skip the part of history where Turkey violated Syrian sovereignty: Turkish Jets Shoot Down Drone Near Syria UK neo-liberal rag The Guardian went totally overboard, in a desperate attempt for clicks, by showing a picture of a warplane and referring to the drone as an ‘unidentified aircraft’. I’m sure Putin was piloting it and dropping Barrel Bombs too. off-guardian.org/2015/10/16/the-clickbait-award-for-hysteria-in-journalism-goes-to/ […]
Great article to read and very Nice tips……
ISIS has drones too and has never refrained from showing off their existence. Also a few days ago a small civilian style drone of Chinese manufacture was shot down by Pakistan on the India Pakistan border, and it accused India of sending it. India doesn’t use Chinese manufactured drones. So I wonder where that came from.
How did they warn the drone not to fly there?
Did a lollipop lady issue a stern hand signal?
Trauned carrier pigeon sitting on it pecking at the controls.
I used to enjoy the Beano, now I turn to the Graun for laughs! From now on, in my mind the Graun will be called the Drone… on all things Russian.
Maybe OffG should have a regular feature, the Drone Awards, for hackneyed, repetitive anti -Russian agitprop?
Where exactly did the Turkish military bring down this drone? I thought I saw somewhere that it had been brought down in Hatay province, which is a contested area between Syria and Turkey. If it had been brought down in Hatay and not some other part of Turkey close to Syria, this downing of the drone could have been a stunt intended to force a NATO intervention in Syria.
I’m sure I saw one of these in the Argos catalogue
i hope they are going to get this poor kid a new model plane.
what did they shoot it with, a BB gun?
Thanks guys. After reading your wonderful article I’m still ROFL, YSST.
Here is my suggestion: a T-15. http://www.sypaq.com.au/sensorsandsurveillance/unmanned-systems/arcturus-uav/
Can’t really figure out if it is Australian or sth. else. Definitely not Russian-made. The likelihood it was Russian-operated seems just the same as for ISIL-, MIT-, CIA-operated…
I can understand Turkey being annoyed (if this is the case) that there airspace is violated.
However the underlying hostility to Russia is not explored in the Guardian.
No questions about Turkey support to IS fighters and the backing of other terrorist groups to over throw a legitimate govt.
It’s typical MSM getting upset about this to serve as a distraction.
Why is the MSM all of a sudden supporting terrorists?
And there’s also the problem of the weight since the “Russian” drone wouldn’t have been able to take off with a cell phone attached to it let alone a BUK. Oh well, I’ll bet there’s some new “Russian~” technology on board it, otherwise why send it 3 km into Turkish air space. I wonder if it can fly that far by remote control, kids are gonna have to be pretty fast on their feet to keep up with it if it has a range of 3 km. Actually, I wouldn’t mind one of these myself, at only £25.45 I can treat myself. I’ll send the dog out to retrieve it if I crash it. Shouldn’t be too badly damaged if it can survive a missile strike and remain in one piece – nothing a bit of superglue wouldn’t fix.
Did the “Russian” drone fire any of it’s BUK’s (OK daft question since the BUK’s are probably bigger than the toy – but why let a little(big) detail like that get in the way.)
I wonder if the interior ministry got any response from the “Russian ” surveillance drone?
I think it looks more like on of these:http://www.gearbest.com/other-rc-toys/pp_186264.html?currency=GBP&gclid=Cj0KEQjwwIKxBRDKhOz7ytT30vkBEiQAT1NaPeAIGERbOMP5vX8TLlZk09SszySiT2vIDg98rrSjmzsaAicX8P8HAQ. They come in a range of coloured decals and don’t cost too much but impress the kids mightily. The Orlan-10 is far too big for what was found at least twice as big, available for £25.45 + p &p. Order now in time for Christmas while stocks last! (Not available to countries bordering Syria, at least for the moment) oh and Russian ethnics need not apply but ISIS account holders welcome.
Sometimes I just bury my head in my hands in dismay, other times, I have to get some kitchen roll to mop up my tears of laughter. The idiocy of not just the media trash who print such nonsensical and utterly misleading claptrap but the gullibility of people who read their rubbish and then tell everyone they come across of the “incident” which of course is the purpose of propaganda, is just either contemptible or laughable. Always unbelievable given the glaringly obvious lack of any quantifiable or evidential detail attending the daft article printed. Thanks for this article though, gave me a laugh and undermined my opinion of the masses cognitive astuteness still further. (I’m still wiping tears away) I’ve got a really wacky sense of humour and will probably have some fun in their comments section like I did when Russian Jets came “near” our air space in the UK (The Sun, a Rupert Murdoch rag) went into meltdown, but I wasn’t the only one who took the pee eye ess ess. Oh we did have fun.
It may well be. It’s good to get intelligence, no?
But does it really justify that appallingly provocative headline?
Looks like an Orlan-10
so definitely a Russian drone.
Yes it does. but let’s say Russian-made, if we’re going to be accurate. Don’t know who was operating it as yet.Actually, looks like it’s not an Orlan-10 after all, because the wings are fitted to the bottom of the chassis. Whereas the Orlan-10 has them fitted to the top.
Hmm you’re right, although it’s a bit difficult to say which way is up or down, the air intake for the engine is on the same side of the propeller as the wings on the crashed drone, and on the opposite side on the Orlan-10. They do look very similar though I wonder whether they are made by the same manufacturer but a different model perhaps?
Actually I think it’s safe the say the wings are fitted to the top of the cashed drone, rather than as you say the bottom. The difference is the design of the air intake on the crash zone has it drawing air from above the props rather than the below.
I think presuming that the numbers on the side would have been painted on the right way up is a safe bet.
Ah, yes good point. 🙂
the propeller end is not aerodynamic at all, its squared off.
this looks like it’s propelled from the rear.
Could it be Israeli?
I think being aerodynamic has been traded off in this instance for drawing more air in to cool the engine. The ailerons on the wing show that the drone is not propelled from the rear. This morning. I had a good look earlier through the drones of Israel and Russia on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicles, and the ones that wikipedia didn’t have articles or pics for I googled and it doesn’t look Israeli. It resembles the Orlan-10 the most of all the pictures I could find, but obviously it is not an Orlan-10.
Perhaps it could be an Iranian drone? Since it was found in Turkey it was probably acting in support to the Kurds who control most of the Turkish border, and who has the greatest interest in Turkey since the majority of Kurdistan is on Turkish soil.
One of the misnomers that the western media likes to portray is that the Kurds are opposed to Assad and the west supports them, which seems like complete bullshit because Kurdistan makes up only a very small part of Syria, although it is an oil rich part.
seems it’s made in China and you can buy it online.
http://ewatt.en.alibaba.com/product/60010112603-218980805/EWATT_Unmanned_Aerial_Vehicle_Fixed_Wing_UAV_EWG_2_Unmanned_Drones.html