11 ms·

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.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    You can't even trust 60 minutes to tell you how long their show is; it's 45 minutes at best! Seriously though, I honestly don't get why that show is so popular. Maybe decades ago it was the best thing on TV, but that's damning with faint praise. It's such a short format they never cover anything beyond the surface details of an issue. It gives people the sensation of being informed without actually having to do the hard legwork being informed actually requires. And of course, anything shorter is almost certainly even worse; video is generally a problematic format that lends itself to surface level details chosen to not confuse the lowest common denominator.
drak0n1c 7y ago
They consistently release the full unedited footage afterwards, for years now. That’s significantly better than the large TV news outlets, and the selectively edited videos paraded nightly on Oliver, Colbert, Late Show, etc.
grayed-down 7y ago
Do you mean like mainstream television news does? The reason I ask is because I have not noticed any big or even significant shifts in context between whatever snippets they release and any raw footage that makes it out afterwards. That's just me, and I'd like to think I'm being reasonable in looking at this.
- bduerst 7y ago
  I don't think 'mainstream television' tries to bait staffers into committing voter fraud, fabricates accusations of underage sexual assault, or dresses up as Bin Laden to make some point about border crossing in Mexico. This "whatabout mainstream media" falls apart as a deflection because the laundry list of things that James O'Keefe has done puts him pretty far into his own camp as being a professional troll.
  - grayed-down 7y ago
    Investigative journalists are ALWAYS trying to bait their targets. They wouldn't have a job if they didn't!
    - bduerst 7y ago
      How is paying a woman to lie about being sexually assaulted as a teenager (and getting paid to abort the following pregnancy) actually investigative journalism?
      - splintercell 7y ago
        > How is paying a woman to lie about being sexually assaulted as a teenager (and getting paid to abort the following pregnancy) actually investigative journalism? You do understand that on the other side of the political spectrum there are people (in large quantities) who don't believe that the teenager who is sexually assaulted should be directed towards abortion? You're rhetorical statement is as ridiculous as someone saying "How is going to baker after baker and trying to find a hard working god fearing Christian baker and forcing him to bake a cake he doesn't wanna bake, investigative journalism?"

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.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  You can't even trust 60 minutes to tell you how long their show is; it's 45 minutes at best! Seriously though, I honestly don't get why that show is so popular. Maybe decades ago it was the best thing on TV, but that's damning with faint praise. It's such a short format they never cover anything beyond the surface details of an issue. It gives people the sensation of being informed without actually having to do the hard legwork being informed actually requires. And of course, anything shorter is almost certainly even worse; video is generally a problematic format that lends itself to surface level details chosen to not confuse the lowest common denominator.

drak0n1c 7y ago

They consistently release the full unedited footage afterwards, for years now. That’s significantly better than the large TV news outlets, and the selectively edited videos paraded nightly on Oliver, Colbert, Late Show, etc.

grayed-down 7y ago

Do you mean like mainstream television news does? The reason I ask is because I have not noticed any big or even significant shifts in context between whatever snippets they release and any raw footage that makes it out afterwards. That's just me, and I'd like to think I'm being reasonable in looking at this.

bduerst 7y ago
I don't think 'mainstream television' tries to bait staffers into committing voter fraud, fabricates accusations of underage sexual assault, or dresses up as Bin Laden to make some point about border crossing in Mexico. This "whatabout mainstream media" falls apart as a deflection because the laundry list of things that James O'Keefe has done puts him pretty far into his own camp as being a professional troll.
- grayed-down 7y ago
  Investigative journalists are ALWAYS trying to bait their targets. They wouldn't have a job if they didn't!
  - bduerst 7y ago
    How is paying a woman to lie about being sexually assaulted as a teenager (and getting paid to abort the following pregnancy) actually investigative journalism?
    - splintercell 7y ago
      > How is paying a woman to lie about being sexually assaulted as a teenager (and getting paid to abort the following pregnancy) actually investigative journalism? You do understand that on the other side of the political spectrum there are people (in large quantities) who don't believe that the teenager who is sexually assaulted should be directed towards abortion? You're rhetorical statement is as ridiculous as someone saying "How is going to baker after baker and trying to find a hard working god fearing Christian baker and forcing him to bake a cake he doesn't wanna bake, investigative journalism?"