4 ms·

Start with http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/ http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-vi... and go from there r

by evgen 10y ago

Start with http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/ http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-vi... and go from there regarding the validity of these videos. tl;dr is that the 'reporter' in this case has a history of making misleading videos by collecting out of context quotes and then splicing in different video segments that make these out of context ones seem sinister.

matwood 10y ago
Given that people have already been fired/quit and others are distancing there must be some truth to these videos. Is there any link attacking the validity of the video itself and not the source?
- evgen 10y ago
  There does not have to be truth for people to decide to fall upon their swords to avoid any suggestion of a scandal. Given how apparently gullible people are the simple fact is that whether it is true or not does not matter, nor does the actual context in which the conversations occurred. If you worked for a campaign and I had a bar conversation with you about how voting fraud might happen and then only saved/broadcasted the part after your initial "we do everything we can to prevent it, but if you were to ask me how it could happen given existing safeguards then..." bit of the conversation then I would expect to read about you getting fired or quitting the next day as well. To examine the validity of the video we would actually need all of it, but that is not the point for O'Keefe. His goal is to maintain his street cred with the trumpistas and ratfucking part of the community that might keep paying him after having fallen so far with his last few failed attempts. Given the source and this source's history of manipulating videotaped conversations on multiple occasions to create a narrative that does not match what actually happened, it is smarter to start assuming the videos are a lie and asking for proof that this is not another case of misleading edits. Show me the whole tape or I will assume O'Keefe is telling lies again.
- aljones 10y ago
  On July 19, 2010, Shirley Sherrod was fired from her appointed position as Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture.[1][2] Her firing was an administration reaction to media reports on video excerpts from her address to an event of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in March 2010 and commentary posted by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart on his website.[3] Based on these excerpts, the NAACP condemned Sherrod's remarks as racist and U.S. government officials called on the official to resign. But, after a longer version of her address was reviewed and her remarks were understood to be about the importance of overcoming personal prejudices, the NAACP and White House officials apologized. In addition, United States Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack apologized for the firing and offered Sherrod a new position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod
abgawrv 10y ago
I read that Snopes article this morning, and the thing is, those criticisms don't apply to this new PVA video. Especially so in the second part that was released today, the clips are not at all edited together or taken out of context. Scott Foval essentially has an extended conversation with the undercover reporter in which he lays bare the criminal conspiracy that his organization is attempting to concoct.
- rschuetzler 10y ago
  The clips are edited together, though. That was my first thought when watching the video. There are a lot of cuts. I get that it might just be for time, to show only the most relevant stuff. But it may also be to make it look worse than it is. Without the full conversation, we can't know.
  - abgawrv 10y ago
    I thought that about part I, that maybe some of the really terrible lines ("I've payed mentally ill homeless people to do some crazy shit!" or whatever) could be jokes taken out of context, but part II released today is less cobbled together. I don't see how there can be any doubt about the criminal intentions that Scott Foval and Bob Creamer had, and their respective firing and resignation are further evidence of that.
  - pistle 10y ago
    If PV wanted their stuff taken seriously at this point, they would always offer full videos for actual journalists to review and edit. They could license the content and amplify the impact of their work. Instead, they do a hack job to fit their purpose.

by evgen 10y ago

matwood 10y ago

Given that people have already been fired/quit and others are distancing there must be some truth to these videos. Is there any link attacking the validity of the video itself and not the source?

evgen 10y ago
There does not have to be truth for people to decide to fall upon their swords to avoid any suggestion of a scandal. Given how apparently gullible people are the simple fact is that whether it is true or not does not matter, nor does the actual context in which the conversations occurred. If you worked for a campaign and I had a bar conversation with you about how voting fraud might happen and then only saved/broadcasted the part after your initial "we do everything we can to prevent it, but if you were to ask me how it could happen given existing safeguards then..." bit of the conversation then I would expect to read about you getting fired or quitting the next day as well. To examine the validity of the video we would actually need all of it, but that is not the point for O'Keefe. His goal is to maintain his street cred with the trumpistas and ratfucking part of the community that might keep paying him after having fallen so far with his last few failed attempts. Given the source and this source's history of manipulating videotaped conversations on multiple occasions to create a narrative that does not match what actually happened, it is smarter to start assuming the videos are a lie and asking for proof that this is not another case of misleading edits. Show me the whole tape or I will assume O'Keefe is telling lies again.
aljones 10y ago
On July 19, 2010, Shirley Sherrod was fired from her appointed position as Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture.[1][2] Her firing was an administration reaction to media reports on video excerpts from her address to an event of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in March 2010 and commentary posted by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart on his website.[3] Based on these excerpts, the NAACP condemned Sherrod's remarks as racist and U.S. government officials called on the official to resign. But, after a longer version of her address was reviewed and her remarks were understood to be about the importance of overcoming personal prejudices, the NAACP and White House officials apologized. In addition, United States Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack apologized for the firing and offered Sherrod a new position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod

abgawrv 10y ago

I read that Snopes article this morning, and the thing is, those criticisms don't apply to this new PVA video. Especially so in the second part that was released today, the clips are not at all edited together or taken out of context. Scott Foval essentially has an extended conversation with the undercover reporter in which he lays bare the criminal conspiracy that his organization is attempting to concoct.

rschuetzler 10y ago
The clips are edited together, though. That was my first thought when watching the video. There are a lot of cuts. I get that it might just be for time, to show only the most relevant stuff. But it may also be to make it look worse than it is. Without the full conversation, we can't know.
- abgawrv 10y ago
  I thought that about part I, that maybe some of the really terrible lines ("I've payed mentally ill homeless people to do some crazy shit!" or whatever) could be jokes taken out of context, but part II released today is less cobbled together. I don't see how there can be any doubt about the criminal intentions that Scott Foval and Bob Creamer had, and their respective firing and resignation are further evidence of that.
- pistle 10y ago
  If PV wanted their stuff taken seriously at this point, they would always offer full videos for actual journalists to review and edit. They could license the content and amplify the impact of their work. Instead, they do a hack job to fit their purpose.