8 ms·

Why? Do you think they're deep-faking their videos of people admitting to nefarious things?

awakeasleep 7y ago
They're professional trolls that attempt to lead people on and misquote/misrepresent everything their enemies do- to the point where they sacrifice the achievement of conservative goals in favor of short term outrage.
- rijoja 7y ago
  In this particular case was there a misquote?
  - V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
    according to the executive in question, yes. https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82 https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-mo... > Project Veritas has edited the video to make it seem that I am a powerful executive who was confirming that Google is working to alter the 2020 election. On both counts, this is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, of course. In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016. Google has been very public about the work that our teams have done since 2016 on this, so it’s hardly a revelation.
    - CapricornNoble 7y ago
      To expand on this, check out some of comments that have been purged by Medium, many of which are pretty mild: https://cloverchronicle.com/2019/06/24/here-are-some-of-the-deleted-comments-from-jen-gennais-rebuttal-to-the-latest-project-veritas-video-expose/ https://cloverchronicle.com/2019/06/24/here-are-some-of-the-...
plorkyeran 7y ago
They have a track record of splicing together videos to make it appear that people have admitted to nefarious things which they never actually said, yes.
- castlecrasher2 7y ago
  I heard this defense when the PP-selling-baby-parts video came out and had to see for myself. On watching the unedited video, I came to the conclusion that the accusation that Project Veritas is fabricating or otherwise manipulating these videos is a complete lie.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    In that case, they tried to prod the PP representatives into joking, and then edited down those jokes to look like serious statements. The idea was to present a false image in which PP is making a fortune out of body parts, instead of the reality, which is that they will give fetuses for research, but receive nominal compensation for the cost of doing so.
    - rijoja 7y ago
      mhm so they gave body parts and received money? Sounds a lot like selling to me.
      - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
        It costs them money to preserve fetuses for research. They're allowed to be reimbursed for that cost. The law allows them to do so. Maybe you don't like the idea of fetuses being used in medical research, but that's a different issue. If Project Veritas were to argue that fundamental point, then that would be honest. What they did, which was dishonest, was to try to present a false picture in which Planned Parenthood was somehow getting rich off of selling fetuses. As usual, there are honest and dishonest ways of trying to argue for political change. The former relies on accurately depicting what is going on and arguing against it, while the latter relies on lying about what is going on, because one believes that one's lies serve the greater good.
V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
they have a well documented history of releasing selectively edited videos
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  Every investigative journo program selectively edits their interviews. If you see some 'behind the scenes' from 60 minutes, CBC, BBC ... it's all edited to elicit the 'prime moments' and often in the favour of the narrative they're trying to present. I suggest Vertias is definitely worse, I think they are seedy, I don't trust it outright, but there's unavoidably real material there. So - low journalistic standards, but sometimes access to key information.
  - V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
    the difference between 60 minutes editing and veritas (epic name, "truth", lol) is that 60 minutes doesn't edit a clip to the point of changing the apparent meaning of what's being said. That's exactly what veritas does.
    - sonnyblarney 7y ago
      I'd disagree. The narrative in 60 minutes often decontextualizes information to the point of misrepresentation. It's a matter of thresholds.
    - grayed-down 7y ago
      I'm sorry, but I have not perceived this to be the case at all. Are there any examples that stand out to you?
      - V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
        I mean, there's no need to look further than this incident (but you're certainly welcome to if you'd like). https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82 https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-mo... > Project Veritas has edited the video to make it seem that I am a powerful executive who was confirming that Google is working to alter the 2020 election. On both counts, this is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, of course. In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016. Google has been very public about the work that our teams have done since 2016 on this, so it’s hardly a revelation.

They're professional trolls that attempt to lead people on and misquote/misrepresent everything their enemies do- to the point where they sacrifice the achievement of conservative goals in favor of short term outrage.

rijoja 7y ago
In this particular case was there a misquote?
- V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
  according to the executive in question, yes. https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82 https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-mo... > Project Veritas has edited the video to make it seem that I am a powerful executive who was confirming that Google is working to alter the 2020 election. On both counts, this is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, of course. In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016. Google has been very public about the work that our teams have done since 2016 on this, so it’s hardly a revelation.
  - CapricornNoble 7y ago
    To expand on this, check out some of comments that have been purged by Medium, many of which are pretty mild: https://cloverchronicle.com/2019/06/24/here-are-some-of-the-deleted-comments-from-jen-gennais-rebuttal-to-the-latest-project-veritas-video-expose/ https://cloverchronicle.com/2019/06/24/here-are-some-of-the-...

plorkyeran 7y ago

They have a track record of splicing together videos to make it appear that people have admitted to nefarious things which they never actually said, yes.

castlecrasher2 7y ago
I heard this defense when the PP-selling-baby-parts video came out and had to see for myself. On watching the unedited video, I came to the conclusion that the accusation that Project Veritas is fabricating or otherwise manipulating these videos is a complete lie.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  In that case, they tried to prod the PP representatives into joking, and then edited down those jokes to look like serious statements. The idea was to present a false image in which PP is making a fortune out of body parts, instead of the reality, which is that they will give fetuses for research, but receive nominal compensation for the cost of doing so.
  - rijoja 7y ago
    mhm so they gave body parts and received money? Sounds a lot like selling to me.
    - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      It costs them money to preserve fetuses for research. They're allowed to be reimbursed for that cost. The law allows them to do so. Maybe you don't like the idea of fetuses being used in medical research, but that's a different issue. If Project Veritas were to argue that fundamental point, then that would be honest. What they did, which was dishonest, was to try to present a false picture in which Planned Parenthood was somehow getting rich off of selling fetuses. As usual, there are honest and dishonest ways of trying to argue for political change. The former relies on accurately depicting what is going on and arguing against it, while the latter relies on lying about what is going on, because one believes that one's lies serve the greater good.

V-eHGsd_ 7y ago

they have a well documented history of releasing selectively edited videos

sonnyblarney 7y ago
Every investigative journo program selectively edits their interviews. If you see some 'behind the scenes' from 60 minutes, CBC, BBC ... it's all edited to elicit the 'prime moments' and often in the favour of the narrative they're trying to present. I suggest Vertias is definitely worse, I think they are seedy, I don't trust it outright, but there's unavoidably real material there. So - low journalistic standards, but sometimes access to key information.
- V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
  the difference between 60 minutes editing and veritas (epic name, "truth", lol) is that 60 minutes doesn't edit a clip to the point of changing the apparent meaning of what's being said. That's exactly what veritas does.
  - sonnyblarney 7y ago
    I'd disagree. The narrative in 60 minutes often decontextualizes information to the point of misrepresentation. It's a matter of thresholds.
  - grayed-down 7y ago
    I'm sorry, but I have not perceived this to be the case at all. Are there any examples that stand out to you?
    - V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
      I mean, there's no need to look further than this incident (but you're certainly welcome to if you'd like). https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82 https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-mo... > Project Veritas has edited the video to make it seem that I am a powerful executive who was confirming that Google is working to alter the 2020 election. On both counts, this is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, of course. In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016. Google has been very public about the work that our teams have done since 2016 on this, so it’s hardly a revelation.