Took me all of 15 seconds to realize something was wrong. By the way, you are not a journalist of any kind, you are a hack, a fake, a moron. Just another jerk off on youtube that will not waste another second of my time.
Im glad to hear you tell us it we fake as I thought pretty early on that it was. I thought it odd when the host asked you to repeat yourself but cut of the first part. Had it been real they likely would have edited it before airing instead of asking you to edit yourself while you were sitting there. All people have biases but not all interviewers bring bias into their work at all times.
As soon as I saw the cut to the interviewer. I knew it was fake. It shocks me how many people see a vid presented as real and completely fall for yet without registering that the video was shot with multiple cameras. There's one that shows a fight in a car. They've got 2 handheld camera in the back seats, 3 'hidden' dash cams, a 'hidden' door cam, 2 handheld point of view shots and 3 exterior cameras on tripods.
Actually I bought your acting but not the interviewers. And I also wandered myself about the camera shots? I didn't think big media would allow you to video them leading you interview like that. It seem odd anyway.
While the interviewer, up until the end where he dismisses you, was realitively realistic in his "please phrase like this" style (worked in news industry myself). But it was your willingness to be lead to obvious sound bites that weren't your meaning that gave the falseness away.
I fell for it, You are wrong about journalist's though! A real journalist does not bring any of his own bias or leaned discussion with set up questions! When you guys started doing that it was obvious to us few but you realized you could fool the masses and do this shock CRAP and get away with any agenda~! Even electing the president! Us people who are not journalists just want you guys to do your job just like i do when i do my job! We NEED all of the info so we can conclude OUR OWN opinion!
I kind of thought it was fake. It looked real, but the acting and the way the camera angles, you whispering into your own cam in front of the entire stage...
There were three clues that made me realize it was a fake, just after the "interview" started.
The audio didn't match up. One was very clear and one had a lot of background noise. I could pick up on where audio was placed over a clip.
Location. Pretty messy, especially for a news studio. Didn't seem professional.
Too many cameras used; especially if you were "undercover". And the biggest giveaway to me was the fact that the interviewer was conveniently hidden when you were on camera.
I actually left the video believing it was somehow real! but...the things that definetly made me wonder if it was fake where the camera angles and the fact that the camera was pretty stable, it didnt seem like you were hiding the camera and it mustve been held by someone, so i didnt know if the Big Media guys would allow that....if it looked more like the camera was being sneaked i wouldve had no doubt at all! still fell for it though, i must be gullible =D
I got it the first time you made a close up of the 'journalist'.
But i also know how they take the direction on to what they want to publish, so that was actually convincing, just as you said, the cameras gave it away. you were too close and at a wrong angle to shoot the interviewer simultanuously while he was asking you, because the camera would have been in the way, and again, it was way to close.
I was wondering how you got the directors face into the video, whether you had a camera on your Jacket lapel, but I fell for it, with unanswerd question still to ask. Well Done, good video.
I was wondering how you got the directors face into the video, whether you had a camera on your Jacket lapel, but I fell for it, with unanswerd question still to ask. Wll Done, good video.
Wow, you had me. I didn't know it was a hoax until you said so in this video. I believed the guy could really be that biased- sure, didn't doubt it for a second. I thought this "debrief" video was going to be the news show on the air.
I was a little suspicious about the camera angles, and it seemed out of place for a journalist to use the word "crap" in an interview. Seems like that's the kind of thing the major media would censor.
Dang it Nalts! Ok, you win this round. The two different camarea angle did get me wondering. I'll admit you got me though.... You won't be so lucky next time.... Mwa ha ha ha ha ha!
The editor saying for you to leave the first part of your comment out.. that's what hit it for me.. and then when he said online vid was good for a joke.. Big media is VERY afriad of online vid I think.. That clinched it :D
When you cut the beginning off your comment so willingly it gave it away for me.
But I was interviewed for the television in Germany once and when I wouldn't let the journalist lead me where I didn't want to go he would turn off the tape and make me do it again. He tried this several times but I just wouldn't allow it. The story got out anyway, more or less as I wanted it to be.
the camera cutting between the producer and you kind of gave it away. The producer was a little too leading in questions though. Yes, bias comes into interviews but the video was bordering on not listening to the interviewee.
I think when I first thought...what?!? That can't be real!!! Was when you said the bit about "during that time" and then actually repeated it without that part. I didn't think you'd do that. I must admit though..I was second guessing myself the WHOLE time!
I think what gave it away the most was when the camera was on the guy asking the questions. I could fall for the hidden camera watching you give responses. But I can't fall for a hoax video when the camera is in such an obvious spot. Know what I mean?
When you kept cutting back to the guy who was interviewing you was the give away that it was scripted/fake. So, yes, the 2 to 3 different camera shots. Still funny though. Are you going to Yo'Tube?
I suspected from the off, just because, well, it's you, ain't it, nalts? You like to hoax and punk folks, so all your videos are automatically suspect from the off.
But the point where I knew for certain it was a hoax was simply when the interviewer was so transparently obvious about the fact that he was twisting it to suit his agenda and you didn't react to it - laugh at that or refuse to go along or something. Anything, really. You wouldn't just ignore it, which is basically what you did.
Sorry, your "Smosh" acting didn't really ever truly make me drop my suspicions that you're hoaxing again.
Like I say, if you'd let out a nervous uncomfortable laugh or something, when he made his "big media agenda" clear, then that would have rung truer.
As if, you know, you don't like it but you're going to go along with it anyway because - I don't know - you're feeling bullied or awestruck or, well, anything that would explain why you'd go along with the bullshit.
Lol Yeah I figured it out when the setting for your "interview" wasn't really a big professional kind of setting. AND the camera angles, he he he yeah that helped blow it he he he
I realized when near the end when I noticed that there was a camera view from right in front of the reporters face. I was like....he would let him film from that angle.
I realized it when he made you repeat the phrase that you watched more big media than online media. They could've just had some guy in the editing room change that around (I think). You really had me going for a while though.
The interviewer isn't overloaded with make up. Also you can tell right away that he is not gay- usually you cant tell immediately and maybe you never figure it out. Also, the room was super cramped and big media never shoots in a room that small. The real prob is that big media has their hands in the internet pie so they are not trying to crush it so much anymore so why would you even be having this conversation?
I knew it was a hoax, because the interviewer's agenda was so obvious, and when you didn't pick up on it, it became clear that it was a hoax. If you would've stormed out of the interview it would've been more believable. Still very amusing though.
What gave it away for me was the multiple camera angles. I could imagine them letting you set up your camcorder on a tripod, but not having help with multiple cameras.
The big guy was too obvious in his censorship, and the putting of words into your mouth. In reality, it would be more subtle. He'd have to keep it subconscious in order to do it, without embarrassing himself. That level of shamelessness isn't really credible.
I figured it was a hoax partly because the journalists' bias did get pushed too far, but the one big tell was that the journalist character just continued to guide you in a way that would make you lie - in front of another camera, in front of someone like you who has access to a huge amount of "citizen journalists." It just seemed unlikely. but that's the thing about satire - it's not funny unless it could be true!
The guy doing the interview kinda looked like someone else from one of your other videos at the office.
The main thing, aside from the camera changing, that gave it away was that the interviewer will normally try to be more sly about what they ask, or try to ask trick questions.
mate, your gonna have a car accident one day doing those video logs. for a family man, i would have thought you would act allot safer than u do. ur eyes come off the road allot and u very rarely look in mirrors. just a thought.
the person interviewing you sounded fake, like he was reading from a script. Also when he makes you repeat your answer without the first part. First of all I don't think you would have just acted so confused, you probably would have said something about that and you just played along. For the most part pretty good job! Love your videos!
right away when the guy started talking saying "this is about how big media is still relevant". It was a bit expository, and also, big media is not that desperate (yet).
Once the actual interview began it was clear that it was a hoax, but the lead up to the interview set a realistic tone. I think it would be hard to script a realistic fake interview that illustrated media bias in a believable way... the real thing is too subtle... most of the time...
I knew it was fake when the interviewer said to repeat what you said without the first part. I don't think any journalist would be that blatant no matter how crooked they are!
Thing that made me think it was a hoax was pretty much right away with edits in your answer that cut straight to a coherent answer... and the switch of cameras back and forth.
I kinda knew it was fake from the beginning but you verified that with multiple camera angles and from the fact that no journalist would do that during an interview, the would rather edit it later to make you look bad...
I never once fell for it. I guess I've watched enough Nalts videos to know when you are pulling my leg. Plus, you referred to yourself as "Kevin Nalts" and I'm pretty sure that if it was a real interview you would have used your actual last name.
I got it when you said I'm Kevin Nalts, but I've been fooled once by you so I'm always skeptical. If it was for real though getting such good shots of the media guy would have been tougher he wouldn't have allowed that camera so close to his face if at all in the same room.
I was assuming it was a hoax because your camera was there, and the journalist allowed you to film him right in front of his face and when he says "I think we can cut it up"
It was the camera and the camera angles that made me think it was faked.
#1 it was you. ive learned not to believe a thing you say. #2 "you" had more than one camera, none of which seemed to be on a tripod. #3 the interviewer had a camera right next to his ear, and you were in front of a green screen. what kinda shot would that make?
I stopped this video at around 55 sec so I could go back to the first video to verify and then answer for myself. I suspected from the first, the footage of real interviews made me wonder, the different angles and quality of the video pretty much convinced me it was a joke (you called it 3 camera shot?) and by the time the interviewer had you shorten your answer, I'd reached 100%. As I watched the rest of this video I wanted to shout, "Leading the witness! He's leading the witness!"
I am sorry to disappoint you but I never fell for it. Once it started I knew it was some form of prank. You are well noted for them. The biggest give away was the part where he asked you to leave of the first part. No self respecting journalist would do that and if they did it would come across as being suspicious.
Yes, it was the camera directed at the interviewer, how would you have gotten that footage, and who was he anyway? He was kind of toady to be a daytime host. Otherwise you had me - and what does "doing it out of love" mean?
i fell for it but i thought it was weird, because think about it, when the guy is filming the man questioning him, the guy would see him defeating the purpose.
Yep I fell for it. I was interviewed by BBC News about one of my videos and they did a total hit piece on Youtube. So Big Media Lies is true whether a satire video or not.
I didn't really fall for it but I didn't pick it as a hoax either. Coming to these videos via your blog I did exactly as you asked and didn't make a judgment until I saw this video. The first video did seem legit until the interviewer started directing your answers then I thought 'wow, could a interviewer be that blatant and still get away with it?'. The different camera angles and B roll didn't seem strange to me. For all I knew you could've had other family members with cameras there.
is it ok to say that i didn't fall for it because you posted it! (i guess i remember some of your script writer videos) but that didn't stop me enjoying it.
the battle between big/old media and new media is one that needs more exposure. i don't think online video will be the amateur new kid on the block forever, although neither do i think old media will roll over and die without one heck of a fight!
Too small of a stage and the variety of camera angles gave it away real quick. April 1st in coming and I'm waiting for LE NAULTS EXTREME GRANDE PRANK!
At 1 minute in I thought, How does that guy not see his alterior motive is being captured? Then when the camera is suddenly held by a third party who must be in full view of everyone. If you had done it with hidden cameras, or just the camera feed of the actual interview that you had somehow "stolen". But then the interviewer is a little too unsubtle to be convincing. I don't think he'd cut you off and get you to say stuff twice, and if he did you'd probably tell him to GTF.
I think you oversatarized. As realistic as it may seem, I dont think any network would ever make you repeat or rephrase anything you just said so blatantly. I presume that they instead just use fancy editing to skew the interview. But it was still really good!
The multiple camera views gave it away, but the thing that clinched it was when he asked you to actually change your answer. I don't think that type of thing generally happens. I agree there is bias, but I think it's generally more subtle.
WAIT! STOP! Before you read this comment tell me what you think about the screenplay idea I sent you about 8 weeks ago. Okay, first give away was the fact that you had no trouble in being able to record the interview and the camera angles(looking at the interviewer). Second the interviewers attitude (like he didn't feel the need to convince you). Also, the furniture didn't look like I would expect. Even if all they needed was a headshot, you would get better furniture. Last but not l
Sorry man, you're nalts. If something's in comedy, we know it's a hoax...although I have to admit...I only caught it halfway through when the questions started seeming like it was supposed to be a joke. Anyway, good vid. You had me for a minute.
I found out when I saw the recording of the Interviewer asking the question, You didn't have a camera set up when it showed you answering the questions :P.
I new it was a hox when i saw nalts as the creator. Also when he cut you of like hard core the 1st time. Also the description, saying you couldent release the name it threw up a flag for me for some reason
Well done! But after falling for your previous pranks, I don't trust you any more. You could come out with a video about the world being round and I would start driving slower, looking around for earth's flat edge.
The fact that there were multiple cameras was a good give-away. Also when you were guided you followed the instructions too well while trying to seem oblivious to the fact that you were. Your response to "chop off the first part" wasn't realistic at all.
There were quite a lot of things I think you did right, but it ran too smoothly for it to seem real. The awkwardness of such a situation should have been thicker.
For me, it was how easily you allowed the interviewer to lead you into his "spin". I doubt you'd really do that, or that they would just come out and say they're gonna cut things a certain way while your right there.
Don't get me wrong, I loved it! Favorited and everything... and I COULD see something similar happening. Quite easily...
I agree with BlackkingX. I was predisposed to thinking it was a hoax right off the bat just because its you, for crying out loud. I absolutely knew it, though, during the Pakistan question.
The interviewer wasn't a good enough actor. I could tell it was rehearsed. The other big thing that gives it away for me is the angle from where you were shooting. You were filming the interviewer's face, but you weren't holding the camera in your lap. It was obvious that you didn't have a spy cam cause the quality was HD. Also, we should have been able to see your lil camera by the production crew. There was 2 cameras, but we were only shown 1. Sorry! I'm a film student so I notice this stuff!
i figured it out when i was htinking how you would be able to set a video camera in his face and if he would allow that if he actually said those things
I was probably skeptical to begin with, because of your tendency to hoax. I wasn't looking for evidence, so the camera angles didn't really give it away. I realized for certain when the interviewer said, "say that again without the first part." Of course this does actually happen, but I would think he would be a bit more subtle or have more tact and not be so obvious that he was intentionally going to manipulate and misrepresent your words. This counts as an educational installment. Good work.
Ever since the vlog where you told on yourself re: HS pranks...You are a PRANKSTER that goes WAY way back. It is in the BLOOD...You cannot help it! Pranking comes naturally to you.
I knew straight away Nalts because of the different cameras (at least 2) as you mentioned and also because of your history of running gags like this. lol. Great job :)
I should note I liked the professionism of the interviewing camera crew though (their gear looked about right). That almost made me sway but still.. you're Nalts! :p
I kinda figured it out when the interviewer said it was about Big Media and how it will remain the major outlet for people.. I didn't understand why you would be interviewed for that.. Maybe it was just me haha
1. The beginning was good...talking to the camera up close and personal...that's your style.
2. Editing at the beginning was good cutting to real scenes of past clips was well done, but remaining too good while the real shoot was going on...should have became "choppy" or a little unorganized.
3. Shouldn't have told us about "BIG MEDIA'S AGENDA" right off the bat, should have waitied till later or at the end of the video.
4. You were too relaxed. You are not your carefree self when doing real ones...from the few that I've seen. You're usaully nervous (with good reason) and that didn't come across here. (unless you're TMT and checking out the set all around you...LOL)
5. Interviewer was too pushy and arrogant defending his territory and it fell apart from there.
You asked, so I offered my thoughts...I ALWAYS enjoy your videos and the time and effort put toward making us laugh! Thanks Kev! :o)
i realized because you were just very far away from the interviewer and he wasn't realistic to what my idea of someone like that on a news network would be. but i also kind of believed it was true until i found out it wasn't for sure.
Took me all of 15 seconds to realize something was wrong. By the way, you are not a journalist of any kind, you are a hack, a fake, a moron. Just another jerk off on youtube that will not waste another second of my time.
megadrummer2 1 month ago
Ya had me going but I started having my doubts towards the end.
FULLMETALVAMP87 1 year ago
I believed it up until the interviewer started talking. He just sounded fake. You were really good though! But he ruined it!
FallOutBoy1201 2 years ago
Im glad to hear you tell us it we fake as I thought pretty early on that it was. I thought it odd when the host asked you to repeat yourself but cut of the first part. Had it been real they likely would have edited it before airing instead of asking you to edit yourself while you were sitting there. All people have biases but not all interviewers bring bias into their work at all times.
mrekbass 2 years ago
As soon as I saw the cut to the interviewer. I knew it was fake. It shocks me how many people see a vid presented as real and completely fall for yet without registering that the video was shot with multiple cameras. There's one that shows a fight in a car. They've got 2 handheld camera in the back seats, 3 'hidden' dash cams, a 'hidden' door cam, 2 handheld point of view shots and 3 exterior cameras on tripods.
Zerothis 2 years ago
..fell for it :(
beckykurth 2 years ago
Actually I bought your acting but not the interviewers. And I also wandered myself about the camera shots? I didn't think big media would allow you to video them leading you interview like that. It seem odd anyway.
Lmoseley0726 2 years ago
While the interviewer, up until the end where he dismisses you, was realitively realistic in his "please phrase like this" style (worked in news industry myself). But it was your willingness to be lead to obvious sound bites that weren't your meaning that gave the falseness away.
Hopeful71 3 years ago
I fell for it, You are wrong about journalist's though! A real journalist does not bring any of his own bias or leaned discussion with set up questions! When you guys started doing that it was obvious to us few but you realized you could fool the masses and do this shock CRAP and get away with any agenda~! Even electing the president! Us people who are not journalists just want you guys to do your job just like i do when i do my job! We NEED all of the info so we can conclude OUR OWN opinion!
WALKERGUITAR 3 years ago
I kind of thought it was fake. It looked real, but the acting and the way the camera angles, you whispering into your own cam in front of the entire stage...
DarthCheney420 3 years ago
i completely fell for it. good job!!!
fractalmoon 3 years ago
There were three clues that made me realize it was a fake, just after the "interview" started.
The audio didn't match up. One was very clear and one had a lot of background noise. I could pick up on where audio was placed over a clip.
Location. Pretty messy, especially for a news studio. Didn't seem professional.
Too many cameras used; especially if you were "undercover". And the biggest giveaway to me was the fact that the interviewer was conveniently hidden when you were on camera.
thx4077 3 years ago
I saw the camera changes
ratgirl03 3 years ago
I actually left the video believing it was somehow real! but...the things that definetly made me wonder if it was fake where the camera angles and the fact that the camera was pretty stable, it didnt seem like you were hiding the camera and it mustve been held by someone, so i didnt know if the Big Media guys would allow that....if it looked more like the camera was being sneaked i wouldve had no doubt at all! still fell for it though, i must be gullible =D
MujakiKid 3 years ago
I got it the first time you made a close up of the 'journalist'.
But i also know how they take the direction on to what they want to publish, so that was actually convincing, just as you said, the cameras gave it away. you were too close and at a wrong angle to shoot the interviewer simultanuously while he was asking you, because the camera would have been in the way, and again, it was way to close.
good job anyway
RuudschMaHinda 3 years ago
I think it's funny that there's a big Mack truck behind you and it looks like you're going about 5mph
Hardcoredork86 3 years ago
I was wondering how you got the directors face into the video, whether you had a camera on your Jacket lapel, but I fell for it, with unanswerd question still to ask. Well Done, good video.
itslefty2004 3 years ago
I was wondering how you got the directors face into the video, whether you had a camera on your Jacket lapel, but I fell for it, with unanswerd question still to ask. Wll Done, good video.
itslefty2004 3 years ago
i want to do a school project based on this idea. Can I use your videos?
I fell for it mostly, until you did what he told you to. I have faith that you wouldn't let them play you like that.
"Smosh like actin" made me literally laugh.
kiten2cat12345 3 years ago
How do you know THIS isn't the hoax huh?
1noen1 3 years ago
Wow, you had me. I didn't know it was a hoax until you said so in this video. I believed the guy could really be that biased- sure, didn't doubt it for a second. I thought this "debrief" video was going to be the news show on the air.
I was a little suspicious about the camera angles, and it seemed out of place for a journalist to use the word "crap" in an interview. Seems like that's the kind of thing the major media would censor.
Keep up the good work though. :P
computer13137 3 years ago
1:07 was when I figured it out, the way you sat, the way you started out.. I was like 'Oh ok, it's not real...'
spraycanmansam 3 years ago
I realized it when there was the cameras, and the "cut that whole first thing out and say it again... yea that's it..." "but, I..."
Great hoax though! Good work :D entertaining...
runescapevids 3 years ago
Dang it Nalts! Ok, you win this round. The two different camarea angle did get me wondering. I'll admit you got me though.... You won't be so lucky next time.... Mwa ha ha ha ha ha!
SamTheMan55555 3 years ago
Yup, too many camera angles
H2TheChrizzle 4 years ago
yeah the fact that you had multiple camara angles gave it away.
stephalephalephalie 4 years ago 4
The moment I saw you had two cameras filming you and the guy.
janjko 4 years ago
The editor saying for you to leave the first part of your comment out.. that's what hit it for me.. and then when he said online vid was good for a joke.. Big media is VERY afriad of online vid I think.. That clinched it :D
mienna1 4 years ago
i knew it was a hoax. i just didn't believe that the interviewer would be so blatant in trying to edit your answers. it was funny though.
cheezit83 4 years ago
When you cut the beginning off your comment so willingly it gave it away for me.
But I was interviewed for the television in Germany once and when I wouldn't let the journalist lead me where I didn't want to go he would turn off the tape and make me do it again. He tried this several times but I just wouldn't allow it. The story got out anyway, more or less as I wanted it to be.
Badgerbeads 4 years ago
the camera cutting between the producer and you kind of gave it away. The producer was a little too leading in questions though. Yes, bias comes into interviews but the video was bordering on not listening to the interviewee.
nice work.
rnb8220 4 years ago
different camera angles, one of them was right in front of the 'media guy' i didn't think they would allow you to do that
lizcalininei 4 years ago
I figured it was a hoax from the beginning... I mean, it's a Nalts video. It's what you do.
The "Smosh-like acting" in the beginning for the build up/intro clinched it for me.
But I read people very well.
GeniusRickyD 4 years ago
it was the different camera angles that gave it away, but I definitely kept thinking that maybe I was just too suspicious...
Szbooks9 4 years ago
the fact that you had two camera angles... i doubt they'd let that.
fallenwater 4 years ago
I think when I first thought...what?!? That can't be real!!! Was when you said the bit about "during that time" and then actually repeated it without that part. I didn't think you'd do that. I must admit though..I was second guessing myself the WHOLE time!
nice...
pixiesticxchix 4 years ago
I got it, but it was good and enjoyable!
MichaelLydon 4 years ago
I fell for it.
whitefloweret 4 years ago
it was the camera angle of the "journalist" that gave it away...the questions just added to the disbelief.
cobberman 4 years ago
I was a believer..lol
=)
XfunkeemonkeeX 4 years ago
I didn`t.
nasolll 4 years ago
it gave it away when you had the different camera angles & seemed really comfortable that they would let you film your interview.
Liz10000 4 years ago
I though it was a hoax until the end when you said "...awkward." Then I was flummoxed and wondering if that could have possibly been real.
elljay68 4 years ago
I think what gave it away the most was when the camera was on the guy asking the questions. I could fall for the hidden camera watching you give responses. But I can't fall for a hoax video when the camera is in such an obvious spot. Know what I mean?
GlItCh017 4 years ago
There ya' go. I just don't believe most of what you put up, but that's part of your charm. Loved it. :)
firefare 4 years ago
the double camera shots, the shot of you was believable, but when it cut to a shot of the dude i wuz pretty sure it wuzn't real.
dumptruck89 4 years ago
I realized it was a hoax as soon as it started, and you know why ;)
boobtubious 4 years ago
The title page, "Big Media Lies" didn't help hide your hoax. But I know I had it when the *journalist* fed you an answer.
Great premise and video! :)
ButterRivaLs 4 years ago
When you kept cutting back to the guy who was interviewing you was the give away that it was scripted/fake. So, yes, the 2 to 3 different camera shots. Still funny though. Are you going to Yo'Tube?
Logan5312 4 years ago
That first "STOP!" sounds like from the song "Stop in the name of love" ^^
At least, that was my first thought, when I actually stopped the video after the first second to give it time to load ;)
kirschunterlage 4 years ago
i feel for it ! there is truth to it tough !
oceanjunkies05 4 years ago
Camera switching gave it away.
I don't think you could openly film a real interview, maybe a secret camera type effect?
Loved it though!
janisisis 4 years ago
The first moment that he interjected his ideas and you paused like "wtf"
spacekicker 4 years ago
Slow on the uptake here in NC.....all 3: hook, line & sinker.
mooitz 4 years ago
you should have done it as "hidden camera!"
ThomasIsTired 4 years ago
Awesome! 5 stars! o(^ - ^)o *♥*♥*♥*♥*
EnchantinFlower 4 years ago
A lot of your stuff seems to be a hoax..so that's why I figured this one was too. ;) I still love your vids though!
lynzzzay 4 years ago
the response to the video that said debrief. DUH
bca5gd 4 years ago
I only watch him to see if he gets in a car crash.
rickythepilot 4 years ago
I suspected from the off, just because, well, it's you, ain't it, nalts? You like to hoax and punk folks, so all your videos are automatically suspect from the off.
But the point where I knew for certain it was a hoax was simply when the interviewer was so transparently obvious about the fact that he was twisting it to suit his agenda and you didn't react to it - laugh at that or refuse to go along or something. Anything, really. You wouldn't just ignore it, which is basically what you did.
KlaxonCow 4 years ago
Sorry, your "Smosh" acting didn't really ever truly make me drop my suspicions that you're hoaxing again.
Like I say, if you'd let out a nervous uncomfortable laugh or something, when he made his "big media agenda" clear, then that would have rung truer.
As if, you know, you don't like it but you're going to go along with it anyway because - I don't know - you're feeling bullied or awestruck or, well, anything that would explain why you'd go along with the bullshit.
Just didn't ring true.
KlaxonCow 4 years ago
yah .... the camiras gave u away
blacknwhite08 4 years ago
I didn't care enough to even think about it
Isaias4041 4 years ago
i figured it out when there was multiple camera shots. and it just seemed wierd
PianoMixMan 4 years ago
Lol Yeah I figured it out when the setting for your "interview" wasn't really a big professional kind of setting. AND the camera angles, he he he yeah that helped blow it he he he
you're on a role!
KaliSword 4 years ago
I realized when near the end when I noticed that there was a camera view from right in front of the reporters face. I was like....he would let him film from that angle.
tetraqk 4 years ago
I realized it when he made you repeat the phrase that you watched more big media than online media. They could've just had some guy in the editing room change that around (I think). You really had me going for a while though.
whitesoxfanatic 4 years ago
The interviewer isn't overloaded with make up. Also you can tell right away that he is not gay- usually you cant tell immediately and maybe you never figure it out. Also, the room was super cramped and big media never shoots in a room that small. The real prob is that big media has their hands in the internet pie so they are not trying to crush it so much anymore so why would you even be having this conversation?
kipswitch 4 years ago
I knew it was a hoax, because the interviewer's agenda was so obvious, and when you didn't pick up on it, it became clear that it was a hoax. If you would've stormed out of the interview it would've been more believable. Still very amusing though.
JimmyK76 4 years ago
The hoxieness was apparent in the two points of view.
I liked your erudite discussion of on line video/TV though. Thanks!
Freshette 4 years ago
I didnt believe it.....the only reason why i know, you are a prankster. But I think mostly people would buy it. espically the unsavy online clan.
soundrone 4 years ago
"Real media"???
Nalts, you are REAL MEDIA
Don't marginalize yourself or the impact of
YouTube or other on-line media outlets.
It's not aggrandizement to think of
yourself and the rest of the YouTubers as pioneers, just as much as Fred Friendly and Edward R. Morrow pioneered broadcast television.
Sometimes, imho, we tend to trivialize what's going on here because what tends to resonate with others it rather silly content.
McLuhan said "The Medium IS the Message"
dogstar7 4 years ago
What gave it away for me was the multiple camera angles. I could imagine them letting you set up your camcorder on a tripod, but not having help with multiple cameras.
fshalot 4 years ago
multiple shots
xenafairy3 4 years ago
screw you
tafunda 4 years ago
Please stop making these kind of videos, why can't you go back to you're old ones? :(
DashTube1 4 years ago
The big guy was too obvious in his censorship, and the putting of words into your mouth. In reality, it would be more subtle. He'd have to keep it subconscious in order to do it, without embarrassing himself. That level of shamelessness isn't really credible.
papackar 4 years ago
Ok, I knew it was a hoax...because YOUR MOUTH WAS MOVING!!! LOL! Love ya, Nalts!
cswhitmill 4 years ago
The camera change gave it away for me.
pkingo1 4 years ago
same but it was still convincing
Prowlgrin 4 years ago
I figured it was a hoax partly because the journalists' bias did get pushed too far, but the one big tell was that the journalist character just continued to guide you in a way that would make you lie - in front of another camera, in front of someone like you who has access to a huge amount of "citizen journalists." It just seemed unlikely. but that's the thing about satire - it's not funny unless it could be true!
josiejose 4 years ago
I realized, because of the multiple shots, and the way the interviewer was acting
ZeroPunkDreamer 4 years ago
The guy doing the interview kinda looked like someone else from one of your other videos at the office.
The main thing, aside from the camera changing, that gave it away was that the interviewer will normally try to be more sly about what they ask, or try to ask trick questions.
meoka2368 4 years ago
I saw the catagory.
RosssFrazer 4 years ago
mate, your gonna have a car accident one day doing those video logs. for a family man, i would have thought you would act allot safer than u do. ur eyes come off the road allot and u very rarely look in mirrors. just a thought.
ten4prod 4 years ago
i always check the category, if its under comedy, i know not to take u seriously.
still good video. funny one.
ten4prod 4 years ago
I knew it was a hoax because YOU pulled it off :P
So yeah, i've been watching you for too long :D
mabbink 4 years ago
I suspected it was a hoax at about 1:04. At 1:24 I was certain for a couple of reasons:
1. If they were doing that type of story, why would they allow you to get such great behind-the-scenes-multiple-camera footage?
2. How did you get such good audio quality from both people?
3. I already had prior suspicions.
ZackScott 4 years ago
you got me nalts
JackAttack92 4 years ago
the person interviewing you sounded fake, like he was reading from a script. Also when he makes you repeat your answer without the first part. First of all I don't think you would have just acted so confused, you probably would have said something about that and you just played along. For the most part pretty good job! Love your videos!
lebellerose 4 years ago
right away when the guy started talking saying "this is about how big media is still relevant". It was a bit expository, and also, big media is not that desperate (yet).
pete275 4 years ago
Once the actual interview began it was clear that it was a hoax, but the lead up to the interview set a realistic tone. I think it would be hard to script a realistic fake interview that illustrated media bias in a believable way... the real thing is too subtle... most of the time...
blackturtleus 4 years ago
I knew it was fake when the interviewer said to repeat what you said without the first part. I don't think any journalist would be that blatant no matter how crooked they are!
RoboFillet 4 years ago
Well i didn't. I thought that is was going to be real but with all the camera changes i knew right away.
vmjg1 4 years ago
Thing that made me think it was a hoax was pretty much right away with edits in your answer that cut straight to a coherent answer... and the switch of cameras back and forth.
baseballgeek 4 years ago
I thought it was real, until i watched your debrief...I'm such a sucker!!!!
gmswife 4 years ago
Probably the fact that it sounded really scripted. No offense to the interviewer, but his lines sounded overall quite fake.
Then also the fact that it was in the comedy section.
Don't get me wrong though, I loved it.
luvthecanadian 4 years ago
I kinda knew it was fake from the beginning but you verified that with multiple camera angles and from the fact that no journalist would do that during an interview, the would rather edit it later to make you look bad...
sh8oony 4 years ago
I walk into a Nalts video knowing it's a hoax.
MustafaPresents 4 years ago
When they told you to repeat it without the first part.
seafoodgar 4 years ago
I fell for it. Hook line and sinker. Sheesh.
Joanie
Joan3424 4 years ago
I realized it because you had a camera from the front of the guy interviewing you. It didnt make sense to me that he would let you do that.
batortilla 4 years ago
I never once fell for it. I guess I've watched enough Nalts videos to know when you are pulling my leg. Plus, you referred to yourself as "Kevin Nalts" and I'm pretty sure that if it was a real interview you would have used your actual last name.
mcase1013 4 years ago
I got it when you said I'm Kevin Nalts, but I've been fooled once by you so I'm always skeptical. If it was for real though getting such good shots of the media guy would have been tougher he wouldn't have allowed that camera so close to his face if at all in the same room.
coloursepia 4 years ago
i didnt figure it out till you told me
jamminjosh999 4 years ago
I fell for it up untill some of the questions he asked you..
TrueBlueAustralian 4 years ago
I was assuming it was a hoax because your camera was there, and the journalist allowed you to film him right in front of his face and when he says "I think we can cut it up"
It was the camera and the camera angles that made me think it was faked.
insanity54 4 years ago
#1 it was you. ive learned not to believe a thing you say. #2 "you" had more than one camera, none of which seemed to be on a tripod. #3 the interviewer had a camera right next to his ear, and you were in front of a green screen. what kinda shot would that make?
bubbabrand 4 years ago
I stopped this video at around 55 sec so I could go back to the first video to verify and then answer for myself. I suspected from the first, the footage of real interviews made me wonder, the different angles and quality of the video pretty much convinced me it was a joke (you called it 3 camera shot?) and by the time the interviewer had you shorten your answer, I'd reached 100%. As I watched the rest of this video I wanted to shout, "Leading the witness! He's leading the witness!"
ButterZoned 4 years ago
I am sorry to disappoint you but I never fell for it. Once it started I knew it was some form of prank. You are well noted for them. The biggest give away was the part where he asked you to leave of the first part. No self respecting journalist would do that and if they did it would come across as being suspicious.
Spiralworm 4 years ago
I might have fallen for it except it was you making it XD
jelly17000 4 years ago
lol! I didn't realise it was a hoax. I missed the last 10 seconds of the video though, if that has anything...
I was wondering why there was a greenscreen behind you, and not the journalist though. :)
Jaromani 4 years ago
When you cut back and forth from the interviewee and interviewer, and the fact that I have seen most of your videos. lol
dhawg75 4 years ago
It was the two camera angles that made me suspicious.
siggy75 4 years ago
smosh like acting lol
TheDailyMonk 4 years ago
Yes, it was the camera directed at the interviewer, how would you have gotten that footage, and who was he anyway? He was kind of toady to be a daytime host. Otherwise you had me - and what does "doing it out of love" mean?
RonSchira 4 years ago
fell for it. love it now!
kasimirneumann 4 years ago
i fell for it but i thought it was weird, because think about it, when the guy is filming the man questioning him, the guy would see him defeating the purpose.
godpodproductions 4 years ago
Yep I fell for it. I was interviewed by BBC News about one of my videos and they did a total hit piece on Youtube. So Big Media Lies is true whether a satire video or not.
DickGhostmoon 4 years ago
i didnt fall for it, i knew it was satire.
however, i do think that the media lies!
generally!
fckuvrymch 4 years ago
I didn't really fall for it but I didn't pick it as a hoax either. Coming to these videos via your blog I did exactly as you asked and didn't make a judgment until I saw this video. The first video did seem legit until the interviewer started directing your answers then I thought 'wow, could a interviewer be that blatant and still get away with it?'. The different camera angles and B roll didn't seem strange to me. For all I knew you could've had other family members with cameras there.
etourist2 4 years ago
is it ok to say that i didn't fall for it because you posted it! (i guess i remember some of your script writer videos) but that didn't stop me enjoying it.
the battle between big/old media and new media is one that needs more exposure. i don't think online video will be the amateur new kid on the block forever, although neither do i think old media will roll over and die without one heck of a fight!
talk74 4 years ago
Too small of a stage and the variety of camera angles gave it away real quick. April 1st in coming and I'm waiting for LE NAULTS EXTREME GRANDE PRANK!
FATMIME 4 years ago
when the guy asked you to repeat without the first part. I knew you wouldnt do that for real
creegirl9 4 years ago
yeah, the overplaying alerted me, but now you mention about the camera switch, that should have told me to. =P
killert00thbrush 4 years ago
At 1 minute in I thought, How does that guy not see his alterior motive is being captured? Then when the camera is suddenly held by a third party who must be in full view of everyone. If you had done it with hidden cameras, or just the camera feed of the actual interview that you had somehow "stolen". But then the interviewer is a little too unsubtle to be convincing. I don't think he'd cut you off and get you to say stuff twice, and if he did you'd probably tell him to GTF.
periurban 4 years ago
I think you oversatarized. As realistic as it may seem, I dont think any network would ever make you repeat or rephrase anything you just said so blatantly. I presume that they instead just use fancy editing to skew the interview. But it was still really good!
EgoBarreN 4 years ago
i found out when the camera switched to the interviewer
aussielexi 4 years ago
It's from Nalts.
stephenetienne 4 years ago
The multiple camera views gave it away, but the thing that clinched it was when he asked you to actually change your answer. I don't think that type of thing generally happens. I agree there is bias, but I think it's generally more subtle.
nothintosee 4 years ago
WAIT! STOP! Before you read this comment tell me what you think about the screenplay idea I sent you about 8 weeks ago. Okay, first give away was the fact that you had no trouble in being able to record the interview and the camera angles(looking at the interviewer). Second the interviewers attitude (like he didn't feel the need to convince you). Also, the furniture didn't look like I would expect. Even if all they needed was a headshot, you would get better furniture. Last but not l
tooomp 4 years ago
Sorry man, you're nalts. If something's in comedy, we know it's a hoax...although I have to admit...I only caught it halfway through when the questions started seeming like it was supposed to be a joke. Anyway, good vid. You had me for a minute.
Ivancloak 4 years ago
I found out when I saw the recording of the Interviewer asking the question, You didn't have a camera set up when it showed you answering the questions :P.
WookieeCookies 4 years ago
I new it was a hox when i saw nalts as the creator. Also when he cut you of like hard core the 1st time. Also the description, saying you couldent release the name it threw up a flag for me for some reason
karldakilla 4 years ago
Well done! But after falling for your previous pranks, I don't trust you any more. You could come out with a video about the world being round and I would start driving slower, looking around for earth's flat edge.
:)
marquisdejolie 4 years ago
two rolling cameras, surely they wouldnt have even let you have one :P
LittleBindii 4 years ago
i think the point here is that nalts is a hoax.. ;-}
monello198 4 years ago
The category "comedy"
apehodet 4 years ago
I thought it was a hoax because big media would let you answer it whatever way you want and then edit your answer whatever way they see it.
nashnwo0 4 years ago
agreed
bohogirl1 4 years ago
I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention to the first video, as I was chatting on AIM, so when I got here, I thought it was real. haha.
Looking back there were a few things that gave it away... shoulda picked them up. oh well. Nice job :]
irnotdum 4 years ago
umm when you started your camera... lol
omniskittles 4 years ago
I think this video is the hoax, other was definitely real.
bradtube1 4 years ago
You're the boy who cried wolf now :)
LarenKee 4 years ago
The fact that there were multiple cameras was a good give-away. Also when you were guided you followed the instructions too well while trying to seem oblivious to the fact that you were. Your response to "chop off the first part" wasn't realistic at all.
There were quite a lot of things I think you did right, but it ran too smoothly for it to seem real. The awkwardness of such a situation should have been thicker.
Hobgoblyn 4 years ago
For me, it was how easily you allowed the interviewer to lead you into his "spin". I doubt you'd really do that, or that they would just come out and say they're gonna cut things a certain way while your right there.
Don't get me wrong, I loved it! Favorited and everything... and I COULD see something similar happening. Quite easily...
regularguy5mb 4 years ago
I agree with BlackkingX. I was predisposed to thinking it was a hoax right off the bat just because its you, for crying out loud. I absolutely knew it, though, during the Pakistan question.
Max403 4 years ago
The interviewer wasn't a good enough actor. I could tell it was rehearsed. The other big thing that gives it away for me is the angle from where you were shooting. You were filming the interviewer's face, but you weren't holding the camera in your lap. It was obvious that you didn't have a spy cam cause the quality was HD. Also, we should have been able to see your lil camera by the production crew. There was 2 cameras, but we were only shown 1. Sorry! I'm a film student so I notice this stuff!
MisguidedPirate 4 years ago
I SO wanted to believe it. I really did. I think it was the way you were dressed that gave it away for me.
specklefrog 4 years ago
I thought it might be a hoax from the beginning, but knew for sure when the interviewer asked about YouTube going down in Pakistan...
MGABBYB 4 years ago
i figured it out when i was htinking how you would be able to set a video camera in his face and if he would allow that if he actually said those things
emopinkllama 4 years ago
I got suspicious with the 2 cameras but didn't actually decide it was fake until the "I tend to watch more big media than online videos" thing.
adnauseum 4 years ago
*smiles* Very nicely executed! :)
lehcarias 4 years ago
I was probably skeptical to begin with, because of your tendency to hoax. I wasn't looking for evidence, so the camera angles didn't really give it away. I realized for certain when the interviewer said, "say that again without the first part." Of course this does actually happen, but I would think he would be a bit more subtle or have more tact and not be so obvious that he was intentionally going to manipulate and misrepresent your words. This counts as an educational installment. Good work.
onboardvideo 4 years ago
Oh man, I had nooo idea it was a hoax! Good job!
sekhmet2003 4 years ago
It was easy to tell it was a hoax from the start because you're Nalts. LOL!
BlackKingX 4 years ago
I was wondering why you were continuing when the interviewer's intentions became very clear.
Be Well.
distorteddogma 4 years ago
Ever since the vlog where you told on yourself re: HS pranks...You are a PRANKSTER that goes WAY way back. It is in the BLOOD...You cannot help it! Pranking comes naturally to you.
katalina2007 4 years ago
I knew straight away Nalts because of the different cameras (at least 2) as you mentioned and also because of your history of running gags like this. lol. Great job :)
lostinz 4 years ago
I should note I liked the professionism of the interviewing camera crew though (their gear looked about right). That almost made me sway but still.. you're Nalts! :p
lostinz 4 years ago
the 2nd camera gave it off for me
tyrizzo1 4 years ago
I saw through it right from the start. But I think that's only because I know you too well. :-)
Moosie
anmoose 4 years ago
1)When you said your name was Kevin Nalts instead of Nalty
2)Your demeanor was nervous & passive
Look forward to ALL your vids :) and anything you're involved with
thornekatt 4 years ago
I knew it was a hoax the minute the Nalts name was attached.
TOOL!!
Renneto says hi :)
PrincessDiana161 4 years ago
The fact you were able to bring your own cam in gave it away....so the first 1st second
marxdesign 4 years ago
The fact that they let you have a camera in there kind of gave it away
saxymoose 4 years ago
I kinda figured it out when the interviewer said it was about Big Media and how it will remain the major outlet for people.. I didn't understand why you would be interviewed for that.. Maybe it was just me haha
Nanashpeeq 4 years ago
1. The beginning was good...talking to the camera up close and personal...that's your style.
2. Editing at the beginning was good cutting to real scenes of past clips was well done, but remaining too good while the real shoot was going on...should have became "choppy" or a little unorganized.
3. Shouldn't have told us about "BIG MEDIA'S AGENDA" right off the bat, should have waitied till later or at the end of the video.
xjasongarciax 4 years ago
4. You were too relaxed. You are not your carefree self when doing real ones...from the few that I've seen. You're usaully nervous (with good reason) and that didn't come across here. (unless you're TMT and checking out the set all around you...LOL)
5. Interviewer was too pushy and arrogant defending his territory and it fell apart from there.
You asked, so I offered my thoughts...I ALWAYS enjoy your videos and the time and effort put toward making us laugh! Thanks Kev! :o)
xjasongarciax 4 years ago
Was 50-50. What clued me in was the acting from camera man when he made the 'cut' motion to his neck. He wouldn't have a say in it.
AikoShrek 4 years ago
We are all victims of huge media. Otherwise we would not be on YouTube.
frogboytim 4 years ago
i realized because you were just very far away from the interviewer and he wasn't realistic to what my idea of someone like that on a news network would be. but i also kind of believed it was true until i found out it wasn't for sure.
icebar 4 years ago