4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas I doubt this affected search rankings but Project Veritas does have

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas I doubt this affected search rankings but Project Veritas does have a ton of credibility issues.

leereeves 7y ago
I see some claims that PV edited videos, selectively removing portions to give a particular impression, which may well be true. But when CNN did that[1,2], changing "take that shit [violence] to the suburbs" into "a call for peace", the left wing media ignored it. Wikipedia editors didn't add it to CNN's page[3] or add a message that CNN has a history of deceptively editing videos. That's why it's so important to get information from many sources, because every source (including Wikipedia) is selectively edited to favor an agenda. At the very least, by choosing what stories to cover, but sometimes more blatantly. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-8Cn6boqcA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-8Cn6boqcA 2: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/cnn-sorry-for-not-airing-full-clip-of-milwaukee-sister#.wkb8J8Ganx https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/cnn-sorry-for... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN
- skosch 7y ago
  Two wrongs don't make a right – but more importantly, Project Veritas deliberately uses lies and deception to obtain its footage, which it then edits to remove context. That crosses a line far beyond run-of-the-mill reporting bias.
  - wavepruner 7y ago
    Michael Moore films and edits his documentaries in a similar fashion.
    - jjeaff 7y ago
      I agree. I watched one of his newer docs and anytime I heard something that just seemed too crazy to be true, I researched it. And in all cases, I found that important context was missing and in some cases, the evidence for the point being made was almost completely fabricated.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    The point of that story isn't "two wrongs make a right", but that the left wing still accepts CNN just as the right wing still accepts PV. "Gotchas" and "gaffes" are taken out of context all the time. And when reporters lie to go undercover and obtain a story, they're usually hailed as heroes. These objections are only used to "discredit" opposing viewpoints. People don't object when sources they agree with use the same tactics.
    - lostcolony 7y ago
      I'm sorry, whataboutism doesn't actually lend credence. You're free to select the occasional time when a news agency gets it wrong (and apologizes and issues a correction)...but to try and compare it to an intentionally biased organization that always, intentionally gets it wrong (by willfully setting up people, then editing their responses, to paint things in a particular light), and never backs down, never apologizes, well...at best, your bias is showing.
      - leereeves 7y ago
        Actually I'm not a fan of PV. Gotcha journalism doesn't appeal to me. But I see that low quality "journalism" every day, so I don't see PV as particularly noteworthy. Certainly not worth altering search results for. And I'd say you are mistaken when you call changing "take that [violence] to the suburbs" into "a call for peace" merely getting it wrong. What CNN did could hardly be anything other than intentional deception from an organization with a strong left-wing bias[1]. 1: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        PV isn't "gotcha journalism". They've repeatedly committed felonies and completely fabricated things (ex. when they tried to trick WaPo into pushing a fake #metoo story about Roy Moore) in attempts to create their content.
        leereeves 7y ago
burfog 7y ago
They are getting slammed hard by the powerful people and corporations that they have been exposing. Wikipedia edit wars often do not converge on the truth. Project Veritas is highly reliable. The worst you could legitimately accuse them of is a bit of overexcited promotion when an upcoming video is mundane. They are more trustworthy than all of the big-budget news programs.
qbaqbaqba 7y ago
And so does wikipedia.
zackees 7y ago
Project Veritas does not have credibility issues. They have never issued a single retraction. If this surprises you, then welcome to the systematic bias of wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas I doubt this affected search rankings but Project Veritas does have a ton of credibility issues.

leereeves 7y ago

I see some claims that PV edited videos, selectively removing portions to give a particular impression, which may well be true. But when CNN did that[1,2], changing "take that shit [violence] to the suburbs" into "a call for peace", the left wing media ignored it. Wikipedia editors didn't add it to CNN's page[3] or add a message that CNN has a history of deceptively editing videos. That's why it's so important to get information from many sources, because every source (including Wikipedia) is selectively edited to favor an agenda. At the very least, by choosing what stories to cover, but sometimes more blatantly. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-8Cn6boqcA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-8Cn6boqcA 2: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/cnn-sorry-for-not-airing-full-clip-of-milwaukee-sister#.wkb8J8Ganx https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/cnn-sorry-for... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN

skosch 7y ago
Two wrongs don't make a right – but more importantly, Project Veritas deliberately uses lies and deception to obtain its footage, which it then edits to remove context. That crosses a line far beyond run-of-the-mill reporting bias.
- wavepruner 7y ago
  Michael Moore films and edits his documentaries in a similar fashion.
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    I agree. I watched one of his newer docs and anytime I heard something that just seemed too crazy to be true, I researched it. And in all cases, I found that important context was missing and in some cases, the evidence for the point being made was almost completely fabricated.
- leereeves 7y ago
  The point of that story isn't "two wrongs make a right", but that the left wing still accepts CNN just as the right wing still accepts PV. "Gotchas" and "gaffes" are taken out of context all the time. And when reporters lie to go undercover and obtain a story, they're usually hailed as heroes. These objections are only used to "discredit" opposing viewpoints. People don't object when sources they agree with use the same tactics.
  - lostcolony 7y ago
    I'm sorry, whataboutism doesn't actually lend credence. You're free to select the occasional time when a news agency gets it wrong (and apologizes and issues a correction)...but to try and compare it to an intentionally biased organization that always, intentionally gets it wrong (by willfully setting up people, then editing their responses, to paint things in a particular light), and never backs down, never apologizes, well...at best, your bias is showing.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      Actually I'm not a fan of PV. Gotcha journalism doesn't appeal to me. But I see that low quality "journalism" every day, so I don't see PV as particularly noteworthy. Certainly not worth altering search results for. And I'd say you are mistaken when you call changing "take that [violence] to the suburbs" into "a call for peace" merely getting it wrong. What CNN did could hardly be anything other than intentional deception from an organization with a strong left-wing bias[1]. 1: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        PV isn't "gotcha journalism". They've repeatedly committed felonies and completely fabricated things (ex. when they tried to trick WaPo into pushing a fake #metoo story about Roy Moore) in attempts to create their content.
        leereeves 7y ago

burfog 7y ago

They are getting slammed hard by the powerful people and corporations that they have been exposing. Wikipedia edit wars often do not converge on the truth. Project Veritas is highly reliable. The worst you could legitimately accuse them of is a bit of overexcited promotion when an upcoming video is mundane. They are more trustworthy than all of the big-budget news programs.

qbaqbaqba 7y ago

And so does wikipedia.

zackees 7y ago

Project Veritas does not have credibility issues. They have never issued a single retraction. If this surprises you, then welcome to the systematic bias of wikipedia.