5 ms·

I can't wait until social norms change again down the road, and the right uses this newfound power of consorship and control to dominate. I mean, it'll suck, n

by LocalH 6y ago

I can't wait until social norms change again down the road, and the right uses this newfound power of consorship and control to dominate. I mean, it'll suck, no doubt. But it'll also be just desserts for the destroyers of freedom.

acdha 6y ago
You mean it’s now a right-wing idea that private companies aren’t allowed to decide who they want to do business with? This isn’t really a right vs. left issue: it’s not like they lost their account for tweeting about lowering the capital gains tax rate or something. This is an organization which weaponized bad faith attacks. The only reason it seems politicized now is that there isn’t broad support for that kind of dishonesty outside of far-right circles.
- slackfan 6y ago
  They're doing exactly the same type of yellow journalism that the NYT and CNN is doing, just with a bend you happen to not agree with. Nothing far-right about that.
  - moistbar 6y ago
    And that makes it ok? Do you happen to know for sure that OP is accepting of the things that the New York Times and CNN do as well?
    - slackfan 6y ago
      Either you have free press and open platforms, or you don't.
      - moistbar 6y ago
        That's not my point. My point is that you're assuming OP is on board with those things as well, which is something you can't prove. You've made a strawman argument about someone you've never met and know nothing about.
  - acdha 6y ago
    That’s a very big claim conspicuously made with no supporting evidence. In particular, misleading editing and entrapment is all Project Veritas does. You can find individual journalists who betrayed their audience’s trust, although rarely so badly, but you know about them because they get fired, not promoted. This is true across the political spectrum – CNN, Fox News, NPR, NYT, WSJ, etc. all have their biases but they’re all qualitatively better than someone whose business is based on deliberately editing video to mislead in service of a political narrative. The fact that some right wing people see ethics rules as an attack on their politics is disturbing but it’s only saying something about their values.
    - anonRepub12345 6y ago
      Citation Needed. Project Veritas has successfully challenged 331 "news reports" of misleading editing and gotten those report retracted[1] . Further, they have sued and been sued in court and claim a record of 7 wins, 0 losses[2]. Finally, PV has a page dedicated to the admitting where they were wrong[3]. Please support your claim of "misleading editing and entrapment" with evidence of retractions or court losses by Project Veritas that are not listed on their "Mistakes" page (i.e., events that they are attempting to hide or mislead the public about). [1] https://www.projectveritas.com/wall-of-shame-retracto/ https://www.projectveritas.com/wall-of-shame-retracto/ [2] https://www.projectveritas.com/news/legal-victories-pv/ https://www.projectveritas.com/news/legal-victories-pv/ [3] https://www.projectveritas.com/mistakes-that-project-veritas-has-made/ https://www.projectveritas.com/mistakes-that-project-veritas...
      - acdha 6y ago
        This is why you generally want to find third-party sources rather than relying on someone to tell you whether to trust them. Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas
        anonRepub12345 6y ago
        First, it is interesting that Wikipedia lists 2010 as the formation date of Project Veritas, but then goes back two years ("Planned Parenthood recordings (2008)") to start the list of "Content" produced by that organization -- would you consider that misleading? To avoid a claim of cherry picking examples, I'll look at each "Content" claim listed in Wikipedia from 2010 onward since we're discussing Project Veritas... * Senator Mary Landrieu (2010). Claim: "charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony." Outcome: Those involved plead to a misdemeanor. Addressed by PV: https://www.projectveritas.com/news/pleading-guilty-to-misdemeanor/ https://www.projectveritas.com/news/pleading-guilty-to-misde... * Abbie Boudreau (2010). Claim: "planned a staged encounter with the CNN correspondent Abbie Boudreau." Outcome: PV settled with a former employee, according to Politico. * New Jersey Teachers' Union video (2010). Claim: "a calculated attack on [the New Jersey Education Association] and its members." Outcome: No legal action taken by NJEA to assert misleading or falsely edited video. * Medicaid videos (2011). Claim: "released videos of his colleagues' staged encounters purportedly showing Medicaid fraud in offices in six states." Outcome: No legal action taken by any state against PV for misleading or falsely edited video. * NPR video (2011). Claim: "Schiller's remarks were presented out of sequence and that he said that he would speak personally, and not for NPR." Outcome: No legal action taken by NPR. Addressed by Veritas: https://www.projectveritas.com/news/project-veritas-provided-edited-npr-video/ https://www.projectveritas.com/news/project-veritas-provided... * New Hampshire primary video (2012). Claim: "associates obtaining a number of ballots for the New Hampshire primary by using the names of recently deceased voters." Outcome: The New Hampshire Attorney General's office later dropped its investigation of O'Keefe for potential voter fraud in 2013. (Again, no claims of improperly edited or misleading videos in this event.) * Patrick Moran (2012). Claim: "video was released showing Patrick Moran, son of then-U.S. Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), and a field director with his father's campaign, discussing a plan to cast fraudulent ballots" Outcome: Arlington County Commonwealth's Attorney, had concluded and that no charges would be brought [against Patrick Moran or Project Veritas]. * Attempt to solicit voter fraud (2014). Claim: "attempted to bait staffers for Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) and then-U.S. Senator Mark Udall, as well as independent expenditure organizations, into approving voter fraud" Outcome: Push back from staffers that the claimed actions were illegal. * Attempted sting of Open Society Foundations (2016). Claim: "attempted to call Open Society Foundations under the assumed name of "Victor Kesh", describing himself as attached to "a, uh, foundation"[sic] seeking to "get involved with you and aid what you do in fighting for, um, European values."[sic]" Outcome: Poor opsec by Project Veritas resulted in the undercover nature of the call. * U.S. presidential elections (2016). Claim: " alleging a connection between the videos and the Trump campaign" [note: the "videos" are not identified in the Wikipedia article] Outcome: no clear claim of fraud in this section. * Americans United for Change videos (2016). Claim: "that apparently showed former national field director Scott Foval of Americans United for Change discussing planting agitators" Outcome: On June 1, 2017, Creamer's firm, Democracy Partners, filed a $1 million lawsuit against Project Veritas, claiming Project Veritas had lied to gain access to the firm and violating anti-wiretapping laws. PV won this lawsuit in a Directed Verdict ("JUDGMENT: The Plaintiff shall recover nothing from the Defendants in the form of damages. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDCE in its entirety, and the Defendants shall recover their costs of the action from the Plaintiff. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 6/7/2019. (maf) (Entered: 06/07/2019)" [1]) * New York City elections official video (2016). Claim: "video taken at a United Federation of Teachers holiday party on December 16, 2015" Outcome: No legal action pursued by targets of video. * CNN undercover videos (2017). Claim: "Jones said that O'Keefe had deceptively edited the video to take his remarks out of context" Outcome: lots of public protestations by targets of videos, but no legal action taken by CNN or individuals to force a retraction or demonstrate claims of deceptions were true. * Failed attempt to sting The Washington Post (2017). Claim: "released a video which he claimed exposed the newspaper's liberal bias." Outcome: Videos were seen as being the opposite of what PV claimed, and earning PV criticism from more conservative outlets. (Perhaps you could consider this to be "misleading" but if both conservatives and liberals criticized the product, it is not so successful at doing so.) * New Jersey Teachers Unions Officials (2018). Claim: "video allegedly showing a New Jersey teachers union administrator discussing a teacher alleged to have struck a student" Outcome: no legal action against PV for false or misleading videos. * Internal Google documents (2019). Claim: "released internal Google documents to Project Veritas regarding the 2016 presidential election" Outcome: no legal action against PV for false or misleading claims about the documents. * Minnesota videos (2020). Claim: "alleged that Project Veritas had edited and combined the videos to take them out of context." Outcome: The Minneapolis Police is "looking into the validity" of the allegations. There has been no legal action taken by anyone targeted by PV to force a retraction or defend against the allegations. * Pennsylvania postal worker video (2020). Claim: "a Pennsylvania postal worker in Erie claimed [mail fraud had occurred]". Outcome: the worker has not recanted his claim, despite reporting to the contrary. No legal action by the Post Office has been taken against PV. I've reviewed the 18 cases listed in the source you provided. Despite protestations of the targets claiming "misleading", "out of context", or otherwise fraudulent editing of material by PV, only one listed attempted to sue PV to force a retraction and their claim was dismissed with prejudice by the judge. So the "evidence" presented does not support a fact of "misleading" editing by PV, but only an assertion by those targeted by PV, which is why you generally want a third-party (I'll take the courts in a he-said-they-said case) rather than relying on someone (like a target of PV) to tell you whether to trust them. [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6156641/teter-v-project-veritas-action-fund/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6156641/teter-v-project...
- zthrowaway 6y ago
  Unorthodox journalist tactics or not, they catch the elite saying horrible things on camera when they think they are speaking amongst friends. Yes they do go against the left a lot in who they go after. But you can’t argue against the video footage. I consider myself on the left on many things but what they capture people saying is absolute appalling. Why focus on their tactics instead of what they uncover?
  - acdha 6y ago
    They like to present themselves as undercover journalists but their history shows that they don’t meet that standard: unlike journalists they actively manipulate the videos to mislead their audience – if you remember their rise to fame attacking ACORN, their videos were edited to be successful political propaganda but the subsequent legal investigations didn’t find any wrongdoing by ACORN and Project Veritas had to pay damages for defamation. This also was hardly “elites” - they heavily edited video to misrepresent what low-level employees did, and attempted to portray that false narrative as the organizational policy. They’ve also been known to produce complete fabrications like their unsuccessful attack on the Washington Post. That was straight up entrapment, not journalism.
    - cudgy 6y ago
      “... unlike journalists they actively manipulate the videos to mislead their audience” Are there any journalists left? This behavior is rampant in virtually all forms of news.
      - acdha 6y ago
        No, it’s not. The people hawking that claim do so knowing that it’s a good strategy for getting low-information voters to tune out, but that makes it a useful political tactic rather than true.
        cudgy 6y ago
        I would argue people making your claim are being selective with their standards and not being skeptical of their own information sources. Similar to people re-electing their Congress people, but complaining about the ineptitude of the incumbents in Congress. It’s a common effect that we as individuals suffer from.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >You mean it’s now a right-wing idea that private companies aren’t allowed to decide who they want to do business with? What's legally allowed is very different than ethical and in good taste. The idea that the line for what it legal and the line for what is moral/acceptable should be anywhere near each other is one of the big issues people have with the authoritarian left (and the authoritarian right, but I don't think they're a big threat at present, their push for moralizing policy seems to have mostly faded out in the early 2010s, though we still need to be vigilant).
cecja 6y ago
In the same vain as the right I hope you die you useless piece of shit.

by LocalH 6y ago

acdha 6y ago

You mean it’s now a right-wing idea that private companies aren’t allowed to decide who they want to do business with? This isn’t really a right vs. left issue: it’s not like they lost their account for tweeting about lowering the capital gains tax rate or something. This is an organization which weaponized bad faith attacks. The only reason it seems politicized now is that there isn’t broad support for that kind of dishonesty outside of far-right circles.

slackfan 6y ago
They're doing exactly the same type of yellow journalism that the NYT and CNN is doing, just with a bend you happen to not agree with. Nothing far-right about that.
- moistbar 6y ago
  And that makes it ok? Do you happen to know for sure that OP is accepting of the things that the New York Times and CNN do as well?
  - slackfan 6y ago
    Either you have free press and open platforms, or you don't.
    - moistbar 6y ago
      That's not my point. My point is that you're assuming OP is on board with those things as well, which is something you can't prove. You've made a strawman argument about someone you've never met and know nothing about.
- acdha 6y ago
  That’s a very big claim conspicuously made with no supporting evidence. In particular, misleading editing and entrapment is all Project Veritas does. You can find individual journalists who betrayed their audience’s trust, although rarely so badly, but you know about them because they get fired, not promoted. This is true across the political spectrum – CNN, Fox News, NPR, NYT, WSJ, etc. all have their biases but they’re all qualitatively better than someone whose business is based on deliberately editing video to mislead in service of a political narrative. The fact that some right wing people see ethics rules as an attack on their politics is disturbing but it’s only saying something about their values.
  - anonRepub12345 6y ago
    Citation Needed. Project Veritas has successfully challenged 331 "news reports" of misleading editing and gotten those report retracted[1] . Further, they have sued and been sued in court and claim a record of 7 wins, 0 losses[2]. Finally, PV has a page dedicated to the admitting where they were wrong[3]. Please support your claim of "misleading editing and entrapment" with evidence of retractions or court losses by Project Veritas that are not listed on their "Mistakes" page (i.e., events that they are attempting to hide or mislead the public about). [1] https://www.projectveritas.com/wall-of-shame-retracto/ https://www.projectveritas.com/wall-of-shame-retracto/ [2] https://www.projectveritas.com/news/legal-victories-pv/ https://www.projectveritas.com/news/legal-victories-pv/ [3] https://www.projectveritas.com/mistakes-that-project-veritas-has-made/ https://www.projectveritas.com/mistakes-that-project-veritas...
    - acdha 6y ago
      This is why you generally want to find third-party sources rather than relying on someone to tell you whether to trust them. Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas
      - anonRepub12345 6y ago
        First, it is interesting that Wikipedia lists 2010 as the formation date of Project Veritas, but then goes back two years ("Planned Parenthood recordings (2008)") to start the list of "Content" produced by that organization -- would you consider that misleading? To avoid a claim of cherry picking examples, I'll look at each "Content" claim listed in Wikipedia from 2010 onward since we're discussing Project Veritas... * Senator Mary Landrieu (2010). Claim: "charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony." Outcome: Those involved plead to a misdemeanor. Addressed by PV: https://www.projectveritas.com/news/pleading-guilty-to-misdemeanor/ https://www.projectveritas.com/news/pleading-guilty-to-misde... * Abbie Boudreau (2010). Claim: "planned a staged encounter with the CNN correspondent Abbie Boudreau." Outcome: PV settled with a former employee, according to Politico. * New Jersey Teachers' Union video (2010). Claim: "a calculated attack on [the New Jersey Education Association] and its members." Outcome: No legal action taken by NJEA to assert misleading or falsely edited video. * Medicaid videos (2011). Claim: "released videos of his colleagues' staged encounters purportedly showing Medicaid fraud in offices in six states." Outcome: No legal action taken by any state against PV for misleading or falsely edited video. * NPR video (2011). Claim: "Schiller's remarks were presented out of sequence and that he said that he would speak personally, and not for NPR." Outcome: No legal action taken by NPR. Addressed by Veritas: https://www.projectveritas.com/news/project-veritas-provided-edited-npr-video/ https://www.projectveritas.com/news/project-veritas-provided... * New Hampshire primary video (2012). Claim: "associates obtaining a number of ballots for the New Hampshire primary by using the names of recently deceased voters." Outcome: The New Hampshire Attorney General's office later dropped its investigation of O'Keefe for potential voter fraud in 2013. (Again, no claims of improperly edited or misleading videos in this event.) * Patrick Moran (2012). Claim: "video was released showing Patrick Moran, son of then-U.S. Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), and a field director with his father's campaign, discussing a plan to cast fraudulent ballots" Outcome: Arlington County Commonwealth's Attorney, had concluded and that no charges would be brought [against Patrick Moran or Project Veritas]. * Attempt to solicit voter fraud (2014). Claim: "attempted to bait staffers for Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) and then-U.S. Senator Mark Udall, as well as independent expenditure organizations, into approving voter fraud" Outcome: Push back from staffers that the claimed actions were illegal. * Attempted sting of Open Society Foundations (2016). Claim: "attempted to call Open Society Foundations under the assumed name of "Victor Kesh", describing himself as attached to "a, uh, foundation"[sic] seeking to "get involved with you and aid what you do in fighting for, um, European values."[sic]" Outcome: Poor opsec by Project Veritas resulted in the undercover nature of the call. * U.S. presidential elections (2016). Claim: " alleging a connection between the videos and the Trump campaign" [note: the "videos" are not identified in the Wikipedia article] Outcome: no clear claim of fraud in this section. * Americans United for Change videos (2016). Claim: "that apparently showed former national field director Scott Foval of Americans United for Change discussing planting agitators" Outcome: On June 1, 2017, Creamer's firm, Democracy Partners, filed a $1 million lawsuit against Project Veritas, claiming Project Veritas had lied to gain access to the firm and violating anti-wiretapping laws. PV won this lawsuit in a Directed Verdict ("JUDGMENT: The Plaintiff shall recover nothing from the Defendants in the form of damages. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDCE in its entirety, and the Defendants shall recover their costs of the action from the Plaintiff. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 6/7/2019. (maf) (Entered: 06/07/2019)" [1]) * New York City elections official video (2016). Claim: "video taken at a United Federation of Teachers holiday party on December 16, 2015" Outcome: No legal action pursued by targets of video. * CNN undercover videos (2017). Claim: "Jones said that O'Keefe had deceptively edited the video to take his remarks out of context" Outcome: lots of public protestations by targets of videos, but no legal action taken by CNN or individuals to force a retraction or demonstrate claims of deceptions were true. * Failed attempt to sting The Washington Post (2017). Claim: "released a video which he claimed exposed the newspaper's liberal bias." Outcome: Videos were seen as being the opposite of what PV claimed, and earning PV criticism from more conservative outlets. (Perhaps you could consider this to be "misleading" but if both conservatives and liberals criticized the product, it is not so successful at doing so.) * New Jersey Teachers Unions Officials (2018). Claim: "video allegedly showing a New Jersey teachers union administrator discussing a teacher alleged to have struck a student" Outcome: no legal action against PV for false or misleading videos. * Internal Google documents (2019). Claim: "released internal Google documents to Project Veritas regarding the 2016 presidential election" Outcome: no legal action against PV for false or misleading claims about the documents. * Minnesota videos (2020). Claim: "alleged that Project Veritas had edited and combined the videos to take them out of context." Outcome: The Minneapolis Police is "looking into the validity" of the allegations. There has been no legal action taken by anyone targeted by PV to force a retraction or defend against the allegations. * Pennsylvania postal worker video (2020). Claim: "a Pennsylvania postal worker in Erie claimed [mail fraud had occurred]". Outcome: the worker has not recanted his claim, despite reporting to the contrary. No legal action by the Post Office has been taken against PV. I've reviewed the 18 cases listed in the source you provided. Despite protestations of the targets claiming "misleading", "out of context", or otherwise fraudulent editing of material by PV, only one listed attempted to sue PV to force a retraction and their claim was dismissed with prejudice by the judge. So the "evidence" presented does not support a fact of "misleading" editing by PV, but only an assertion by those targeted by PV, which is why you generally want a third-party (I'll take the courts in a he-said-they-said case) rather than relying on someone (like a target of PV) to tell you whether to trust them. [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6156641/teter-v-project-veritas-action-fund/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6156641/teter-v-project...
zthrowaway 6y ago
Unorthodox journalist tactics or not, they catch the elite saying horrible things on camera when they think they are speaking amongst friends. Yes they do go against the left a lot in who they go after. But you can’t argue against the video footage. I consider myself on the left on many things but what they capture people saying is absolute appalling. Why focus on their tactics instead of what they uncover?
- acdha 6y ago
  They like to present themselves as undercover journalists but their history shows that they don’t meet that standard: unlike journalists they actively manipulate the videos to mislead their audience – if you remember their rise to fame attacking ACORN, their videos were edited to be successful political propaganda but the subsequent legal investigations didn’t find any wrongdoing by ACORN and Project Veritas had to pay damages for defamation. This also was hardly “elites” - they heavily edited video to misrepresent what low-level employees did, and attempted to portray that false narrative as the organizational policy. They’ve also been known to produce complete fabrications like their unsuccessful attack on the Washington Post. That was straight up entrapment, not journalism.
  - cudgy 6y ago
    “... unlike journalists they actively manipulate the videos to mislead their audience” Are there any journalists left? This behavior is rampant in virtually all forms of news.
    - acdha 6y ago
      No, it’s not. The people hawking that claim do so knowing that it’s a good strategy for getting low-information voters to tune out, but that makes it a useful political tactic rather than true.
      - cudgy 6y ago
        I would argue people making your claim are being selective with their standards and not being skeptical of their own information sources. Similar to people re-electing their Congress people, but complaining about the ineptitude of the incumbents in Congress. It’s a common effect that we as individuals suffer from.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>You mean it’s now a right-wing idea that private companies aren’t allowed to decide who they want to do business with? What's legally allowed is very different than ethical and in good taste. The idea that the line for what it legal and the line for what is moral/acceptable should be anywhere near each other is one of the big issues people have with the authoritarian left (and the authoritarian right, but I don't think they're a big threat at present, their push for moralizing policy seems to have mostly faded out in the early 2010s, though we still need to be vigilant).

cecja 6y ago

In the same vain as the right I hope you die you useless piece of shit.