5 ms·

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

by 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
        > They've repeatedly committed felonies That's quite a claim. If that's true, why aren't they in jail? I'm sure they have many powerful enemies who would love to see them convicted of these multiple felonies.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        https://web.archive.org/web/20100531174024/http://neworleans.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/no052610b.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20100531174024/http://neworleans... O'Keefe plead out to a misdemeanor and served probation + a fine. But the crime he committed was a felony. > In January 2012, O'Keefe released a video of associates obtaining a number of ballots for the New Hampshire Primary by using the names of recently deceased voters. That's probably a felony in most parts of the US, although O'Keefe claims it wasn't since he didn't actually vote.
- true_religion 7y ago
  Why the assumption of left or right, when at least in the US most people identify as independents? And to be even more fair, you aren’t talking about “people” here but the OP who can clearly state their own personal preferences, without the need for you to construct a theory of hidden bias.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    No, I'm not only talking about the OP here. Look up the story I'm talking about and you'll see that it was ignored by left-wing sources: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cnn+edited+video+of+sister&t=ffab&atb=v63-1&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cnn+edited+video+of+sister&t=ffab&... https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cnn%20edited%20video%20of%20sister https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cnn%20edited%20video%2... The entire media establishment ignores these tactics when used by other organizations they agree with.
  - wozniacki 7y ago
    Why the assumption of left or right, when at least in the US most people identify as independents? Do you wish to cite a source for this or do you wish to gaslight here? Voters declaring themselves as independent of a major political party rose nationally by 6 percentage points to 28 percent of the U.S. electorate between 2000 and last year’s congressional midterm contest in states with party registration, analyst Rhodes Cook wrote in Sabato’s Crystal Ball political newsletter at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. But as few as 19 percent of Americans identifying as independent truly have no leaning to a party, according to the Pew Research Center.[1] [1] 'Difference-maker' independent voters in U.S. presidential election crosshairs https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-deciders-independents/difference-maker-independent-voters-in-u-s-presidential-election-crosshairs-idUSKCN1VK128 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-deciders-ind...
    - true_religion 7y ago
      The pew polling numbers posted higher in the thread are a fine source. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/15/facts-about-us-political-independents/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/15/facts-about... The gist of it is that for any given party, more people are not members of it (e.g. 70%+ of Americans are not Democrats) so you are not safe in guessing someone political affiliations. Stats wise, you will likely be wrong. Secondarily, saying that someone who leans to a party is basically in that party is wrong. For example, I am an independent. I lean republican on the local level, but in the Federal elections I lean Democrat. If you polled me, I would say I lean republican since that’s usually what’s on my mind

by skosch 7y ago

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
      > They've repeatedly committed felonies That's quite a claim. If that's true, why aren't they in jail? I'm sure they have many powerful enemies who would love to see them convicted of these multiple felonies.
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        https://web.archive.org/web/20100531174024/http://neworleans.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/no052610b.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20100531174024/http://neworleans... O'Keefe plead out to a misdemeanor and served probation + a fine. But the crime he committed was a felony. > In January 2012, O'Keefe released a video of associates obtaining a number of ballots for the New Hampshire Primary by using the names of recently deceased voters. That's probably a felony in most parts of the US, although O'Keefe claims it wasn't since he didn't actually vote.
true_religion 7y ago
Why the assumption of left or right, when at least in the US most people identify as independents? And to be even more fair, you aren’t talking about “people” here but the OP who can clearly state their own personal preferences, without the need for you to construct a theory of hidden bias.
- leereeves 7y ago
  No, I'm not only talking about the OP here. Look up the story I'm talking about and you'll see that it was ignored by left-wing sources: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cnn+edited+video+of+sister&t=ffab&atb=v63-1&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cnn+edited+video+of+sister&t=ffab&... https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cnn%20edited%20video%20of%20sister https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cnn%20edited%20video%2... The entire media establishment ignores these tactics when used by other organizations they agree with.
- wozniacki 7y ago
  Why the assumption of left or right, when at least in the US most people identify as independents? Do you wish to cite a source for this or do you wish to gaslight here? Voters declaring themselves as independent of a major political party rose nationally by 6 percentage points to 28 percent of the U.S. electorate between 2000 and last year’s congressional midterm contest in states with party registration, analyst Rhodes Cook wrote in Sabato’s Crystal Ball political newsletter at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. But as few as 19 percent of Americans identifying as independent truly have no leaning to a party, according to the Pew Research Center.[1] [1] 'Difference-maker' independent voters in U.S. presidential election crosshairs https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-deciders-independents/difference-maker-independent-voters-in-u-s-presidential-election-crosshairs-idUSKCN1VK128 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-deciders-ind...
  - true_religion 7y ago
    The pew polling numbers posted higher in the thread are a fine source. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/15/facts-about-us-political-independents/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/15/facts-about... The gist of it is that for any given party, more people are not members of it (e.g. 70%+ of Americans are not Democrats) so you are not safe in guessing someone political affiliations. Stats wise, you will likely be wrong. Secondarily, saying that someone who leans to a party is basically in that party is wrong. For example, I am an independent. I lean republican on the local level, but in the Federal elections I lean Democrat. If you polled me, I would say I lean republican since that’s usually what’s on my mind