6 ms·

The guy behind this stunt, James O'Keefe, got his start with funding from Peter Thiel: https://www.villagevoice.com/2009/09/22/conservative-facebook-investor-fu

The guy behind this stunt, James O'Keefe, got his start with funding from Peter Thiel: https://www.villagevoice.com/2009/09/22/conservative-facebook-investor-funded-anti-acorn-videographer/ https://www.villagevoice.com/2009/09/22/conservative-faceboo....

MBCook 9y ago
And this is not O’Keefe’s first try at manipulating the media/election: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/james-okeefe-accidentally-stings-himself https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/james-okeefe-a...
smcl 9y ago
It's extremely weird reading his reactions on Twitter - either he's putting a very brave face on it, or he's completely unfazed by (yet another) awful self-own. I never know if James O'keefe and his ilk are really into this cause (not sure exactly what, something vaguely conservative?) or if they're just grifters trying to make a buck by whatever means necessary
- kevinburke 9y ago
  I don't think he cares. The goal is to muddy the waters and make it harder to do real journalism. The story on right wing websites tomorrow will probably be "one of the accusers was obviously lying - this raises questions about the other ones," never mind the lying one was paid by a right wing site.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    > I don't think he cares. The goal is to muddy the waters and make it harder to do real journalism. I think, generally, the result has been that it's harder to do fake journalism; at least when it comes to the undercover work.
    - marcopolitik 9y ago
      I think it's a bit more complex than that. It's harder to do fake journalism that is liberal or anti-authoritarian; but it's easier than ever to successfully distribute authoritarian and conservative propaganda.
- charcoal23 9y ago
  It's probably both, but leaning much more towards the grifting side of things. There's something about conservative politics in the US which encourages grifters and cons. When my very Republican stepfather fell into dementia, I helped my mom monitor his mail so he'd stop spending so much money on things he didn't understand. It was a deluge of stuff every day. Often from groups I had never heard of who wanted money to stop Sharia law or stop the "war on Christmas" or whatever the big conservative cause was that day. And even the mainstream GOP got into the act. More than once, a FedEx envelope would show up with a plea that everything was doomed unless a check was overnighted. Once the GOP FedEx solicitation contained a letter accusing my stepfather of no longer being a member of the Republican Party, but he could clear up this misunderstanding by writing a check.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    A great, in-depth article on this is here: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-long-con https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-long-con The conservative movement is elder abuse on a grand scale.
  - fleitz 9y ago
    And on the flip side it's Donate or get deported. Scare tactics work, both sides use it.
    - fmihaila 9y ago
      Except the stated policy of this executive is to deport large numbers of people, whereas there is no danger of Christmas being outlawed, or of Sharia becoming the law of the land.
      - fleitz 9y ago
        That’s funny given that deportations are down 80% since the previous admin, also far less wall has been built than the previous admin was able to build on a yearly basis... Wouldn’t you characterize that as scaremongering given the facts?
- r00fus 9y ago
  Why is it a self-own? If his objective (cast shade on real allegations) is achieved, then he's doing fine, he'll be paid by his funders (and protected). He is a political hitman and stalking horse.
  - sanderjd 9y ago
    It's a self-own because this doesn't cast shade on real allegations, it does the opposite by showing that the WaPo is doing diligence on the allegations. It probably doesn't matter though: folks who trust the WaPo already know they do diligence, and folks who don't trust them won't care.
    - r00fus 9y ago
      My point being, that the intersection set of group "readers of this WaPo piece" and "voters of Alabama" are already polarized such that the gain from the in-group (i.e., Trump supporters in Alabama) might be greater than publication of the own-goal. Consider: what if O'Keefe is just a decoy?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - smcl 9y ago
    Because it’s yet another poorly executed bumbling failure. People talk like O’Keefe is some American version of Vladislav Surkov playing four dimensional chess and that we are all falling into his little trap. But they’re just too incompetent to warrant the comparison. If they could execute any of their bizarre little pranks then they would maybe deserve some of this and I’d maybe consider them as some kind of threat. But tthey come undone in the most hilarious ways, like leaving a voicemail for one of their marks and forget to hang up and immediately start talking about the scam they are conducting. https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/935274569778319360 https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/935274569778319360 I’d be quite happy for his funders to continue wasting their money on things like this
katastic 9y ago
So wait, after everyone called George Soros a made-up bad guy for funding progressive things. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/11/24/washington-post-reporter-caught-plotting-liberal-agenda-with-billionaire-george-soros.html http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/11/24/washington-p... Now, Peter Thiel, "is" a hidden evil overlord pulling the strings? Because if you're going to suggest that hidden evil overlords can and do exist, then why are we giving Soros the benefit of the doubt? Why are journalists meeting with this guy and speaking at his events if he has nothing to do with politics? I'm asking honestly, which is it: Are billionaires trying to manipulate us, or not? And if so, why do we give an exception to one specific man? And if not, why do we give exception to one specific man? [Ooh, downvotes without replies. I must be on to something here. Katastic, the most dangerous thing to Hacker News, is a guy with sources. I can't wait to hear how sources and logic are the new arm of the Patriarchy and Neo-Nazism.]
- foobarbazetc 9y ago
  You’re getting downvotes because you’re talking utter nonsense, not because you’re “dangerous”.
- pulisse 9y ago
  Soros funds groups that advocate for government transparency and freedom of the press. In this case, Thiel funded an organization that attempts to pollute public discourse through fraud. There's no inconsistency at all in condemning one but not the other.
- rconti 9y ago
  I didn't downvote you. People are welcome to fund what they like. Everyone has an agenda. However, this guy's stunts seem to have the expressly destructive purposes. He's a troll.
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
He also got funding from Trump's charitable foundation. Maybe Trump was correct to claim he invented fake news.
- foobarbazetc 9y ago
  You’ve gotta remember to put “charitable” in quotes there.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
Also, your and my tax dollars subsidise Project Veritas' [1] and Project Veritas Action Fund's [2] 501(c)(3) [3] tax-free status. Curiously, 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted from biased political activity [4]. I'll pen a letter out to my state representatives and state attorney general this week. This is the sort of low-visibility, easy-to-act on thing that tends to be worth reaching out about. [1] http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/272/272894856/272894856_201512_990.pdf http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/272/2728948... [2] http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/471/471809663/471809663_201608_990O.pdf http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/471/4718096... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization [4] https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...

MBCook 9y ago

And this is not O’Keefe’s first try at manipulating the media/election: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/james-okeefe-accidentally-stings-himself https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/james-okeefe-a...

smcl 9y ago

It's extremely weird reading his reactions on Twitter - either he's putting a very brave face on it, or he's completely unfazed by (yet another) awful self-own. I never know if James O'keefe and his ilk are really into this cause (not sure exactly what, something vaguely conservative?) or if they're just grifters trying to make a buck by whatever means necessary

kevinburke 9y ago
I don't think he cares. The goal is to muddy the waters and make it harder to do real journalism. The story on right wing websites tomorrow will probably be "one of the accusers was obviously lying - this raises questions about the other ones," never mind the lying one was paid by a right wing site.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > I don't think he cares. The goal is to muddy the waters and make it harder to do real journalism. I think, generally, the result has been that it's harder to do fake journalism; at least when it comes to the undercover work.
  - marcopolitik 9y ago
    I think it's a bit more complex than that. It's harder to do fake journalism that is liberal or anti-authoritarian; but it's easier than ever to successfully distribute authoritarian and conservative propaganda.
charcoal23 9y ago
It's probably both, but leaning much more towards the grifting side of things. There's something about conservative politics in the US which encourages grifters and cons. When my very Republican stepfather fell into dementia, I helped my mom monitor his mail so he'd stop spending so much money on things he didn't understand. It was a deluge of stuff every day. Often from groups I had never heard of who wanted money to stop Sharia law or stop the "war on Christmas" or whatever the big conservative cause was that day. And even the mainstream GOP got into the act. More than once, a FedEx envelope would show up with a plea that everything was doomed unless a check was overnighted. Once the GOP FedEx solicitation contained a letter accusing my stepfather of no longer being a member of the Republican Party, but he could clear up this misunderstanding by writing a check.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  A great, in-depth article on this is here: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-long-con https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-long-con The conservative movement is elder abuse on a grand scale.
- fleitz 9y ago
  And on the flip side it's Donate or get deported. Scare tactics work, both sides use it.
  - fmihaila 9y ago
    Except the stated policy of this executive is to deport large numbers of people, whereas there is no danger of Christmas being outlawed, or of Sharia becoming the law of the land.
    - fleitz 9y ago
      That’s funny given that deportations are down 80% since the previous admin, also far less wall has been built than the previous admin was able to build on a yearly basis... Wouldn’t you characterize that as scaremongering given the facts?
r00fus 9y ago
Why is it a self-own? If his objective (cast shade on real allegations) is achieved, then he's doing fine, he'll be paid by his funders (and protected). He is a political hitman and stalking horse.
- sanderjd 9y ago
  It's a self-own because this doesn't cast shade on real allegations, it does the opposite by showing that the WaPo is doing diligence on the allegations. It probably doesn't matter though: folks who trust the WaPo already know they do diligence, and folks who don't trust them won't care.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    My point being, that the intersection set of group "readers of this WaPo piece" and "voters of Alabama" are already polarized such that the gain from the in-group (i.e., Trump supporters in Alabama) might be greater than publication of the own-goal. Consider: what if O'Keefe is just a decoy?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- smcl 9y ago
  Because it’s yet another poorly executed bumbling failure. People talk like O’Keefe is some American version of Vladislav Surkov playing four dimensional chess and that we are all falling into his little trap. But they’re just too incompetent to warrant the comparison. If they could execute any of their bizarre little pranks then they would maybe deserve some of this and I’d maybe consider them as some kind of threat. But tthey come undone in the most hilarious ways, like leaving a voicemail for one of their marks and forget to hang up and immediately start talking about the scam they are conducting. https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/935274569778319360 https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/935274569778319360 I’d be quite happy for his funders to continue wasting their money on things like this

katastic 9y ago

So wait, after everyone called George Soros a made-up bad guy for funding progressive things. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/11/24/washington-post-reporter-caught-plotting-liberal-agenda-with-billionaire-george-soros.html http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/11/24/washington-p... Now, Peter Thiel, "is" a hidden evil overlord pulling the strings? Because if you're going to suggest that hidden evil overlords can and do exist, then why are we giving Soros the benefit of the doubt? Why are journalists meeting with this guy and speaking at his events if he has nothing to do with politics? I'm asking honestly, which is it: Are billionaires trying to manipulate us, or not? And if so, why do we give an exception to one specific man? And if not, why do we give exception to one specific man? [Ooh, downvotes without replies. I must be on to something here. Katastic, the most dangerous thing to Hacker News, is a guy with sources. I can't wait to hear how sources and logic are the new arm of the Patriarchy and Neo-Nazism.]

foobarbazetc 9y ago
You’re getting downvotes because you’re talking utter nonsense, not because you’re “dangerous”.
pulisse 9y ago
Soros funds groups that advocate for government transparency and freedom of the press. In this case, Thiel funded an organization that attempts to pollute public discourse through fraud. There's no inconsistency at all in condemning one but not the other.
rconti 9y ago
I didn't downvote you. People are welcome to fund what they like. Everyone has an agenda. However, this guy's stunts seem to have the expressly destructive purposes. He's a troll.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

He also got funding from Trump's charitable foundation. Maybe Trump was correct to claim he invented fake news.

foobarbazetc 9y ago
You’ve gotta remember to put “charitable” in quotes there.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

Also, your and my tax dollars subsidise Project Veritas' [1] and Project Veritas Action Fund's [2] 501(c)(3) [3] tax-free status. Curiously, 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted from biased political activity [4]. I'll pen a letter out to my state representatives and state attorney general this week. This is the sort of low-visibility, easy-to-act on thing that tends to be worth reaching out about. [1] http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/272/272894856/272894856_201512_990.pdf http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/272/2728948... [2] http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/471/471809663/471809663_201608_990O.pdf http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/471/4718096... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization [4] https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...