3 ms·

Oh it's not a leaked video, it's an interview of an audiovisual technician done by Project Veritas, who are among the most biased and cynically named outfits in

Oh it's not a leaked video, it's an interview of an audiovisual technician done by Project Veritas, who are among the most biased and cynically named outfits in journalism. Cynically named (veritas is Latin for "truth") because they don't try to make their message correspond to reality (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/), but instead go to great pains to twist, alter, edit and selectively curate reality to fit their message. They're permanently suspended from Twitter. In my mind they are enemies of the truth. They were fertilizing the soil for the Big Lie before the 2020 US elections, spreading their deceitful manure into the minds of the vulnerable. Please watch more of their work. From MediaBiasFactCheck: > Project Veritas was created by James Edward O’Keefe III, an American conservative political activist. He produces secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some selectively edited to imply its subjects said things they did not, with figures and workers in academic, governmental, and social service organizations, purporting to show abusive or allegedly illegal behavior by employees and/or representatives of those organizations. Project Veritas primarily targets liberals and liberal organizations. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/ Meanwhile the person interviewed was a technical director, as I understand it meaning an audiovisual equipment guy, so I don't know why you'd consider him an authority on editorial decisions. That all media has some bias doesn't seem so shocking, but rather mere common sense.

pjc50 5y ago
It's amazing how people will go from "mainstream media has bias" to "... but this random guy on Youtube doesn't!" despite the youtuber being far worse. As if they can only handle one level of critical thinking.
- seaorg 5y ago
  The only people dumber than that are people who straw-man…
  - Nursie 5y ago
    But that’s exactly what you’ve just done.
orwin 5y ago
My brother used to be a sound technician (and sound engineer on a lot of non-paid projects), and was named technical director on a small TV plateau during a cold epidemic, because his (our) family name came first in the technician list, and the 3 higher ranked/paid employees were sick.
seaorg 5y ago
Nope. I wouldnt care if it was Alex Jones who published the footage and neither should you. The footage is raw and not a reflection of any party other than the subject. It’s not edited or altered in any significant way let alone in a way that would change its meaning. Technical director is certainly not a low title and his station is irrelevant anyway because anyone who was senior enough apparently was in the room to witness phone calls coming from headquarters mandating that the death counter be put back up to “sustain engagement.” And as you say yourself, the fact that CNN is financially incentivized to do all of these things is common sense, so why are you denying that they happen? And finally, you are dead weight on society. It’s also common sense that officers require a bribe and that people who speak up against vested interests fall out of windows. Every stage of societal breakdown is considered common sense by the people who are born into it and this attitude of shoulder shrugging is the reason why our institutions are disintegrating. If it is so normal for the media to brazenly lie, then why doesn’t the media in the Netherlands do it? Or Denmark? Or maybe it has something to do with the fact they they are in the top 3 least corrupt countries in the world, and don’t bend over for bullshit like you? Perhaps idiotic shoulder shrugging is not a good idea after all?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Nursie 5y ago
  > Technical director is certainly not a low title Could be, depends on the organisation. I've met "Executive Directors" at major banks who had a team of 20 people and "Vice Presidents" who were effectively dev team leads with 5 guys working for them in a company of hundreds of thousands. In the context of a TV news channel, it could be basically anyone. He could be responsible for making sure the weather desk have the correct lighting setup. It seems you have been misled by a partisan hack.
  - malloryerik 5y ago
    It's certainly not an editorial title. Technical Director (CNN) https://www.warnerbroscareers.com/find-jobs/?184412BR https://www.warnerbroscareers.com/find-jobs/?184412BR
MikeUt 5y ago
> but instead go to great pains to twist, alter, edit and selectively curate reality to fit their message. The video had long segments without cuts, that seemed to include enough context. Do you have any examples from that video in mind as to how it could have been misleading despite this? > Meanwhile the person interviewed was a technical director, as I understand it meaning an audiovisual equipment guy, so I don't know why you'd consider him an authority on editorial decisions. If I recall correctly, he only spoke of his first-hand experiences. So even if he were just a janitor, that would not cast doubt on his claims.

pjc50 5y ago

It's amazing how people will go from "mainstream media has bias" to "... but this random guy on Youtube doesn't!" despite the youtuber being far worse. As if they can only handle one level of critical thinking.

seaorg 5y ago
The only people dumber than that are people who straw-man…
- Nursie 5y ago
  But that’s exactly what you’ve just done.

orwin 5y ago

My brother used to be a sound technician (and sound engineer on a lot of non-paid projects), and was named technical director on a small TV plateau during a cold epidemic, because his (our) family name came first in the technician list, and the 3 higher ranked/paid employees were sick.

seaorg 5y ago

Nope. I wouldnt care if it was Alex Jones who published the footage and neither should you. The footage is raw and not a reflection of any party other than the subject. It’s not edited or altered in any significant way let alone in a way that would change its meaning. Technical director is certainly not a low title and his station is irrelevant anyway because anyone who was senior enough apparently was in the room to witness phone calls coming from headquarters mandating that the death counter be put back up to “sustain engagement.” And as you say yourself, the fact that CNN is financially incentivized to do all of these things is common sense, so why are you denying that they happen? And finally, you are dead weight on society. It’s also common sense that officers require a bribe and that people who speak up against vested interests fall out of windows. Every stage of societal breakdown is considered common sense by the people who are born into it and this attitude of shoulder shrugging is the reason why our institutions are disintegrating. If it is so normal for the media to brazenly lie, then why doesn’t the media in the Netherlands do it? Or Denmark? Or maybe it has something to do with the fact they they are in the top 3 least corrupt countries in the world, and don’t bend over for bullshit like you? Perhaps idiotic shoulder shrugging is not a good idea after all?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Nursie 5y ago
> Technical director is certainly not a low title Could be, depends on the organisation. I've met "Executive Directors" at major banks who had a team of 20 people and "Vice Presidents" who were effectively dev team leads with 5 guys working for them in a company of hundreds of thousands. In the context of a TV news channel, it could be basically anyone. He could be responsible for making sure the weather desk have the correct lighting setup. It seems you have been misled by a partisan hack.
- malloryerik 5y ago
  It's certainly not an editorial title. Technical Director (CNN) https://www.warnerbroscareers.com/find-jobs/?184412BR https://www.warnerbroscareers.com/find-jobs/?184412BR

MikeUt 5y ago

> but instead go to great pains to twist, alter, edit and selectively curate reality to fit their message. The video had long segments without cuts, that seemed to include enough context. Do you have any examples from that video in mind as to how it could have been misleading despite this? > Meanwhile the person interviewed was a technical director, as I understand it meaning an audiovisual equipment guy, so I don't know why you'd consider him an authority on editorial decisions. If I recall correctly, he only spoke of his first-hand experiences. So even if he were just a janitor, that would not cast doubt on his claims.