4 ms·
I found this claim really intriguing and rabbit holed on researching it for a bit... but upon further research I am skeptical. It strikes me that I'm basically
by season2episode3 5y ago
I found this claim really intriguing and rabbit holed on researching it for a bit... but upon further research I am skeptical. It strikes me that I'm basically only seeing articles out of News Corp outlets and random blogs which appear to be rehashing the same content. News Corp outlets definitely dominate here.
But let's agree that CNN's agenda was obviously anti-Trump because it was a major driver of their traffic... here's what really made me skeptical:
> our next thing is going to be climate change awareness
This line is really telling. The CNN tech director, ostensibly caught in an unguarded moment, draws a line directly from Trump's fake news/voter fraud claim all the way to climate science. This is really, really fishy.
It is a _moral imperative_ for humanity to live in greater harmony with the planet, which includes reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. This is not politics, it's an informed take based on science that aligns with an understanding of physics, a long record of paleoclimatological data, and things I can literally see with my eyes (I enjoy mountain climbing and have seen glacial retreat firsthand over years).
I don't believe it's a coincidence that Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the News Corp outlets, has enormous fossil fuel holdings and would be negatively affected by this inconvenient moral imperative.
I hadn't heard of Project Veritas, the originators of this claim, but a little research into their past history also makes me want to take their presentation with more than a little skepticism.
Again, I don't have any _direct_ evidence to claim that the quote is fabricated. I do believe that there are significant ulterior motives here in the reporting of this claim, and the claims are reported by outlets that themselves have a spotty record of journalistic integrity.
- IncRnd 5y agoI'm not sure you read my comment prior to replying. I didn't make a claim, only posted quotes from a video that was referenced by a different poster. That way, people unfamiliar with the video would know its contents. So, I don't understand what claim of mine you attempted to debunk. Instead of reading endless articles about a recording to determine if the recording exists, why not watch the recording itself?