3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas The group's productions have been widely criticized and dismissed a

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas The group's productions have been widely criticized and dismissed as misleading, fabricated or taken out of context; a failed attempt to sting The Washington Post led to widespread mockery.[4][5] O'Keefe and Project Veritas have been sued for defamation repeatedly, at least one of those suits leading to an apology and $100,000 payment.[6][7][8] O'Keefe has been barred from fundraising for Project Veritas in Florida and other states because of his federal criminal record for entering a federal building under fraudulent pretenses.[9]

aphextim 7y ago
Although he has had a record of stuff in the past try this. Google search, "project veritas defamation lawsuit" See how many of the top results 9 of 10 are all libel lawsuits they have gotten thrown out or actually won. Investigative journalism like this is pretty much dead and even through sometimes they may be wrong, it seems like 9 out of 10 is a pretty good record.
- aphextim 7y ago
  Yup, down-voted to oblivion for going against the herd.
  - happytoexplain 7y ago
    Don't you think that explanation, all by itself, could be over simplistic and self-pitying?
    - aphextim 7y ago
      It is most likely over simplistic, although I guess it would be nice for an explanation of why the down-votes happen. I like to believe that I didn't try to personally attack anyone just try to show that they've been sued for Libel dozens of times, with 97% of them thrown out/dismissed. The above Wikipedia entry makes it sound like the libel case was a one time deal painting him guilty on all videos when in reality it was a one time story he got wrong. Not saying this guy speaking about google is credible or true, just trying to point out that if you win 97% of your libel cases there is more truth to their investigations than what the initial wiki entry made it seem. Self-pity? Nah I could care less whether this guy is right or wrong, just trying to point out that everyone is painting him in a negative way and maybe it wouldn't hurt to look at the other side.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  Public figures who sue for libel have to demonstrate that the person they claim libeled them did so with "actual malice" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice), which is quite hard to prove as to a certain degree it involves reading their minds. If they're smart enough to avoid sending an email where they cackle about how they're going to twist the truth in order to destroy you, you're going to have a hard time meeting that standard.
- fooey 7y ago
  They're not investigative journalism, they cut and edit video and stories to create lies in support of a predetermined narrative. They're propagandist tabloid journalism with a video camera

aphextim 7y ago

Although he has had a record of stuff in the past try this. Google search, "project veritas defamation lawsuit" See how many of the top results 9 of 10 are all libel lawsuits they have gotten thrown out or actually won. Investigative journalism like this is pretty much dead and even through sometimes they may be wrong, it seems like 9 out of 10 is a pretty good record.

aphextim 7y ago
Yup, down-voted to oblivion for going against the herd.
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  Don't you think that explanation, all by itself, could be over simplistic and self-pitying?
  - aphextim 7y ago
    It is most likely over simplistic, although I guess it would be nice for an explanation of why the down-votes happen. I like to believe that I didn't try to personally attack anyone just try to show that they've been sued for Libel dozens of times, with 97% of them thrown out/dismissed. The above Wikipedia entry makes it sound like the libel case was a one time deal painting him guilty on all videos when in reality it was a one time story he got wrong. Not saying this guy speaking about google is credible or true, just trying to point out that if you win 97% of your libel cases there is more truth to their investigations than what the initial wiki entry made it seem. Self-pity? Nah I could care less whether this guy is right or wrong, just trying to point out that everyone is painting him in a negative way and maybe it wouldn't hurt to look at the other side.
smacktoward 7y ago
Public figures who sue for libel have to demonstrate that the person they claim libeled them did so with "actual malice" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice), which is quite hard to prove as to a certain degree it involves reading their minds. If they're smart enough to avoid sending an email where they cackle about how they're going to twist the truth in order to destroy you, you're going to have a hard time meeting that standard.
fooey 7y ago
They're not investigative journalism, they cut and edit video and stories to create lies in support of a predetermined narrative. They're propagandist tabloid journalism with a video camera