The GP's argument doesn't make any sense to me. The reporting was good for a change. It gives named, verifiable sources who are legitimate experts on the subj

The GP's argument doesn't make any sense to me. The reporting was good for a change. It gives named, verifiable sources who are legitimate experts on the subject and several of them, it tells us where to find the video in question [1] and gives us the basis for their opinion (e.g. no visual artifacts in the smoke or when the hand goes in front of the face). All of this can be confirmed by a responsible news consumer and everything I can find here checks out. So this is legit investigative news and precisely the kind of thing we should encourage more of. I am aware of Project Mockingbird [2] but I cannot see any relation between it and this report. It makes no sense whatsoever that the CIA would care about some squabble over unknown cheerleaders. It makes no sense to believe that everything is or isn't a deepfake without examining the facts. And this article, unlike so many I have seen, is an example of news done right. Given how disinformation works, this is the opposite of it. This article was written to inform, not to inflame our passions. In short, it's the polar opposite of what I would expect from disinformation and this is the kind of good reporting that should be rewarded. [1] It should've actually linked it, IMHO, but I won't complain because it wasn't hard to find this video @0:49 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5I1RfxehT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5I1RfxehT4 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mockingbird