4 ms·
Complaining about the quality of mainstream media while quoting project vertias as your source shows your bias in the extreme - they are not someone you'd prese
by hobs 6y ago
Complaining about the quality of mainstream media while quoting project vertias as your source shows your bias in the extreme - they are not someone you'd present as a trusted source, and in fact present extreme versions of the biases you are purporting others hold.
- goostavos 6y agoWhy isn't Veritas a trusted news source? What does "trusted" mean in this instance? My biases: I tend to think the corporate press has less rigor in terms of sourcing/reporting claims than your average high school homework paper, which makes most of it not trustworthy 'news' to me.
- jolux 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas#Incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas#Incidents
- panny 6y agoThat's a locked page. English Wikipedia is well known for left bias.
- random314 6y agoIf your argument is to attack the messenger, the same argument can be much more easily be applied to Project veritas.
- panny 6y agoI don't read wikipedia if the page is locked, because locked pages are a clear indicator of editorialization from wikipedia. It's basically their icon for wikipedia's opinion section.
- cozuya 6y agoWhy won't you read one or more of the 30 links that Wikipedia cites in the above article? Since you don't read locked articles, would you like me to link them here? I'd be happy to.
- panny 6y agoI am sorry I could not respond to your offer sooner. I am a wrongthinker you see, and we are not allowed to post very often on HN. I will decline your gracious offer, because those sources are going to be no better than the wikipedia article based on them. Starting at the top of the references section, I see the first supporting link is from Washington Post, a well known publisher of biased false information. Let me illustrate with an example: Washington Post recently admitted the sensational Trump Georgia call story was false. The entire story was based on hearsay from Jordan Fuchs and refuted by the recording of the call. The Post was forced to retract. Alone, presenting hearsay and rumors as fact is bad enough, but worse in the context where the sensational quotes were "independently confirmed" by several other "trusted" media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, etc. In fact, on a locked Wikipedia page on this topic, we see that Wikipedia continues to spread this false information more than a week after the retraction, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Pressure_on_state_and_local_officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia... I won't read a locked wikipedia page, not just because the page itself is locked and editorialized, but because the supporting links are going to be equally poor quality sources from their echo chamber. These biased false stories are "locked" in, pretty much permanently. Editors rush to add them, and conveniently forget they are still referenced when the story turns out to be untrue. No one else with an interest in seeing them removed can do so because the page is locked. Wikipedia therefore, persists false stories under the lock indefinitely. The Washington Post publishes false rumors about the POTUS as confirmed facts. I have little hope that their coverage will be honest and thorough for someone much less significant like James O'Keefe. The lock is the first thing I check before reading anything on wikipedia. If it is locked, I close the page, because the page is invariably full of wild conspiracy theories from tabloid quality sources.
- 6y ago
- raarts 6y agoPolarization knows many victims. Important drivers are outrage, othering and dismissal. I've followed Project Veritas and yes they go undercover for right-wing causes, but I haven't seen evidence of them being deliberately untruthful in their reporting. The real case here is that imho we should all start to (1) withdraw from outrage, (2) expand our bubble to cover all sides. I've done the latter, it helped with the former, although I'm not there yet.
- orwin 6y agoWasn't the sting OP to protect an alleged pedophile (or almost) organized by project Veritas? I saw this on a rightwing media in France, so unless there is no honor among thieves, this must be close to the truth, no?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- stupendousyappi 6y agoJust to use their most recent scandal, what about their claim that Richard Hopkins, a postal worker in Pennsylvania, was told to backdate a ballot postmark? After which the post office inspector general investigated and reported that Hopkins had denied that claim? I'm guessing you'll claim that Project Veritas was truthfully reporting what Hopkins told them, and it's not their fault that he changed his story once he talked to law enforcement. Even though he also told the investigators that his initial affadavit was written by Project Veritas.
- seoaeu 6y agoThere's plenty of cases where they spliced footage to purposely be deceptive. For instance [1], though Google has many more [1]: https://entertainment.time.com/2011/03/13/the-twisty-bent-truth-of-the-npr-sting-video https://entertainment.time.com/2011/03/13/the-twisty-bent-tr...
- marcusverus 6y ago> Complaining about the quality of mainstream media while quoting project vertias as your source shows your bias in the extreme. My cited source is a legal decision, written by a judge.