CNN's most embarrassing flub ever? The ISIS dildo gay pride flag, explained.

This is a real screenshot of a CNN segment. That flag is covered in dildos. (still image via Youtube)

On Saturday, during coverage of a gay rights rally, CNN ran a segment with an alarming message. According to the chyron on the bottom of the screen, "ISIS FLAG SPOTTED AT GAY PRIDE PARADE."

The supposed ISIS flag was in fact a parody, bearing outlined images of dildos and butt plugs in place of Arabic script.

For the clarification of whatever unknown number of CNN producers and reporters who collaborated on this segment, as well as any CNN viewers who happened to catch it and may now need things cleared up, here is a brief explainer on the now-notorious ISIS gay pride dildo flag.

1) Are you pulling my leg or did CNN really confuse a dildo-covered gay pride banner with the official flag of ISIS?

I wish I were exaggerating here even a little but I am not. CNN dedicated an entire six and a half minutes to covering, in a tenor of total seriousness and extreme gravity, what they said was an ISIS flag being waved at a gay pride parade, when in fact it was readily and painfully obvious that the "ISIS flag" was in fact a joke flag covered with images of dildos and butt plugs.

"An unnerving sight today at a London gay pride celebration: an ISIS flag among a sea of rainbow colors," CNN anchor Suzanne Malveaux announced. The word "unnerving" made several other appearances in the very long segment about a flag of dildos and butt plugs.

The segment went on to analyze the photo of the flag in great depth, zooming in especially on the man waving it. A London-based CNN reporter who called in — yes, there were multiple reporters on this, no one covers breaking news like CNN — pointed out with concern, "This man, quite distinctive from the rest of the crowd, he was dressed in black and white."

The flag, I cannot stress this enough, was clearly covered with images of dildos and butt plugs. And was waving at a London gay pride rally.

2) Did no one at CNN notice that this "ISIS flag" was in fact covered with dildos and butt plugs, and also was appearing at a gay pride rally, all of which should suggest maybe it was not really an ISIS flag?

What makes this all so amazing is that CNN actually did dwell at some length on the indications that this was probably not an ISIS flag waving at a London gay pride rally. As one of the reporters on the story pointed out, for example, it was waving at a London gay pride rally, which is sort of an unusual place for an ISIS flag to be.

And, also, they went on, the script on the flag, which on actual non-satirical ISIS flags would be in Arabic, was not in Arabic at all. (It was dildos and butt plugs.)

CNN anchor Suzanne Malveaux uses her face to express how concerning this story is (CNN still image via YouTube)

But, for CNN, all of this evidence was not taken as an indication that the flag was probably benign, but rather as signs of just how shocking and newsworthy this story is. One reporter called the flag "a very bad mimicry, but a very clear attempt to mimic, the ISIS flag."

CNN described the writing on the flag as "gobbledygook." In fact, it was dildos and butt plugs.

3) So CNN really thought it was breaking the story that ISIS had infiltrated London's gay pride rally?

The fact that they were all alone on this story, that no one had reported or even seen ISIS overtaking the London gay pride rally, might have chastened more modest networks.

But not CNN, which paused only for a bit of self-congratulation on breaking this exciting scoop: "I seem to be the only person who had spotted this," the London reporter says.

4. If London's gay pride movement had joined ISIS, wouldn't that be ... kind of a big deal?

Yes, it would, as CNN pointed out!

The network actually spent not much time dwelling on this shocking revelation — though it was, they noted, a shocking revelation indeed — and pivoted rather to the even more shocking revelation that London police were not treating this with the seriousness it deserved.

The correspondent relayed with concern that London police had not even known of this danger in their midst, until CNN's correspondent brought it to their attention.

Malveaux, the anchor, expressed alarm that London authorities were not tracking the flag-waving culprit, especially after "these terrorist attacks that we saw on three different continents just in the last several days."

She pointed out, her voice rising, that London authorities had not given "any follow, in terms of trying to find this guy."

5) Isn't this sort of like that one scene from the oddball 2002 comedy film "Death to Smoochy"?

Indeed it is! Robin Williams plays a bitter old children's TV host who attempts to sabotage an up-and-coming star (Smoochy, portrayed by Edward Norton in a dinosaur costume) by planting, on the live set, a cookie in the shape of a penis. Norton plays it off by pretending the cookie is in the shape of a rocket ship.

The difference, of course, is that Death to Smoochy was fictional whereas this actually happened, in the film the only people fooled are children whereas in the real-life version it was an array of professional CNN journalists who got hoodwinked, and the hoax in the film was perpetrated by a villainous Robin Williams on Edward Norton rather than by an international news network on itself.

6) Did CNN really call up renowned terrorism expert Peter Bergen to ask him about the flag?

Poor Peter Bergen, a respected figure who has written several books and in 1997 actually interviewed Osama bin Laden from a cave in Afghanistan, was made to spend the first several minutes of the segment waiting patiently on the line to give his analysis of the situation.

CNN threw to Bergen by asking him what sounded like an awfully leading barrage of questions: "From a national security point of view, does this bother you? Does this concern you? Should people in that crowd be concerned? Should somebody be following this guy and figuring out what he was doing there?"

Bergen suggested, gently, that it was "possible" that this was just a "parody." As he pointed out, ISIS has gone to great lengths to persecute and often murder LGBT individuals, so it would be a little odd for them to show up at a London gay pride rally, though CNN had just spent the previous five minutes reporting that this is exactly what had happened.

7) Can I see ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi with a rainbow flag overlay?

Yes:

8) Is there a way in which we can permanently enter this incident into the journalism vernacular?

Liam Stack, of the New York Times, had an excellent suggestion along these lines:

Best part of CNN/ISIS/dildo flag story?CNN producers will have to start asking "is this thing we're about to report just a bunch of dildos?"

— Liam Stack (@liamstack) June 27, 2015

Henceforth, whenever CNN drastically flubs or overstates a nonsense threat, such segments shall be known as "just a bunch of dildos."

To wit:

"Did you see that CNN bit about how ISIS is recruiting female fighters using nutella and kittens?"

"Yeah, but I think that story might turn out to be just a bunch of dildos."

9) How did this happen? Isn't this sort of bad?

Mistakes happen — we at Vox have made our own — but the way that CNN covered this is a bit concerning, and not for the error so much as for the fear-mongering.

The flub was totally consistent with CNN's approach to terrorism

The network spent several minutes telling Londoners that ISIS was in their midst, frequently reminding viewers of last week's bloody terror attacks in Tunisia and Kuwait. They portrayed the London gay pride rally as sullied by violent Islamist extremism. And they displayed on screen, for long stretches, the image of a totally innocent gay pride supporter, repeatedly suggesting that this man is in fact a terrorist.

CNN does not normally confuse ISIS flags with satirical dildo flags. This was clearly their JV team making a flub. But that flub was totally consistent with the network's approach to terrorism, which for years has over-hyped threats, blasting viewers with hysterical warnings of imminent and omnipresent danger. It is a network whose terrorism coverage has been not just clumsy and irresponsible but cynical, exploiting people's earnest fears and the bloodshed of real victims in order to create a more titillating TV viewing experience.

In many ways, the CNN team responsible for this bit was just following normal protocol: over-hyping threats is, for the network, part of the daily routine. It just so happened that they went a little more overboard than usual here and got caught doing it. Usually, the act is not quite so obvious, and it's not at all funny.

Will you support Vox today?

We believe that everyone deserves to understand the world that they live in. That kind of knowledge helps create better citizens, neighbors, friends, parents, and stewards of this planet. Producing deeply researched, explanatory journalism takes resources. You can support this mission by making a financial gift to Vox today. Will you join us?

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via