4 ms·

Project Veritas has a history of being so wildly deceitful[1] that if they said the sky was blue, I'd want to look outside to check myself first before I believ

Project Veritas has a history of being so wildly deceitful[1] that if they said the sky was blue, I'd want to look outside to check myself first before I believed them. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas#Content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas#Content

throwaway4china 6y ago
Linking to a Wikipedia article doesn't seem like a great way to convey an accusation, especially when you don't want to address the content. I suppose you don't want to also link to the defamation lawsuit Project Veritas recently won against The New York Times. Concerning the actual content, I don't see how you can chalk this up to selective editing, the guy goes on for quite a while describing CNN's tactics. What context do you think was left out?
- crooked-v 6y ago
  > recently won No, that's ongoing. All they've "won" was that a judge denied a motion to dismiss the suit. > What context do you think was left out? I'm not going to waste time looking at the video in the first place, so don't bother asking.
throwaway3699 6y ago
Maybe, but ignore Vertias involvement and just concentrate on the raw footage they captured. You can't just fake a conversation like that without fearsome technology or maybe bribery.
- crooked-v 6y ago
  > ignore Vertias involvement Sorry, no. They've tainted the well too much to do that.
  - briefcomment 6y ago
    I’m guessing you’re probably infinitely less critical of the standard ‘respected’ mainstream media. ‘Project Veritas Bad’ is a becoming an increasingly myopic heuristic. Probably something better would be to think that PV is complicated, and institutions have the potential to be seriously predatory and anti-social in the broadest sense.
  - throwaway3699 6y ago
    So you'll blindly reject data based on ideological disagreement with the person filming? Sounds like Veritas isn't the biased one here.
acmdas 6y ago
translation: I don't like what Project Veritas presents, so it must be wildly deceitful, and I need not consider the issue any further.

throwaway4china 6y ago

Linking to a Wikipedia article doesn't seem like a great way to convey an accusation, especially when you don't want to address the content. I suppose you don't want to also link to the defamation lawsuit Project Veritas recently won against The New York Times. Concerning the actual content, I don't see how you can chalk this up to selective editing, the guy goes on for quite a while describing CNN's tactics. What context do you think was left out?

crooked-v 6y ago
> recently won No, that's ongoing. All they've "won" was that a judge denied a motion to dismiss the suit. > What context do you think was left out? I'm not going to waste time looking at the video in the first place, so don't bother asking.

throwaway3699 6y ago

Maybe, but ignore Vertias involvement and just concentrate on the raw footage they captured. You can't just fake a conversation like that without fearsome technology or maybe bribery.

crooked-v 6y ago
> ignore Vertias involvement Sorry, no. They've tainted the well too much to do that.
- briefcomment 6y ago
  I’m guessing you’re probably infinitely less critical of the standard ‘respected’ mainstream media. ‘Project Veritas Bad’ is a becoming an increasingly myopic heuristic. Probably something better would be to think that PV is complicated, and institutions have the potential to be seriously predatory and anti-social in the broadest sense.
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  So you'll blindly reject data based on ideological disagreement with the person filming? Sounds like Veritas isn't the biased one here.

acmdas 6y ago

translation: I don't like what Project Veritas presents, so it must be wildly deceitful, and I need not consider the issue any further.