6 ms·

I hate that they have to preface it with "we hate these guys but..."

by Goety 5y ago

pm90 5y ago
There are very good reasons to find what Project Veritas has been credibly accused of quite distasteful. Institutions do no exist in a perfect vacuum, they consist of people, and people live in civil society. What they're saying here is analogous to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  I hate the phrase "credibly accused of". What were they accused of and why is it credible? Have they done worse than other journalists at major news corporations? Do accusations somehow revoke a person's rights? How on earth are these accusations relevant for the ACLU to weigh in on while commenting about this attack on the press? "She did wear revealing clothing and some observers thought she was leading the man on. Nevertheless, we condemn the sexual assault..."
  - lalaland1125 5y ago
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/03/08/james-okeefe-pays-100000-to-acorn-employee-he-smeared-conservative-media-yawns/?sh=180bdd8e14bd https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/03/08/james-okee...
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      CNN and the Washington Post were forced to pay millions of dollars for smearing Nick Sandmann.
      - lalaland1125 5y ago
        The difference is that the CNN and the Washington Post don't intentionally lie: > The AG’s report highlighted how Mr. O’Keefe edited his videos to appear as if he was engaging in his ACORN hi-jinks wearing “stereotypical 1970’s pimp garb”, the intent being to suggest that ACORN employees would willingly do business with someone dressed in this manner. However, it turns out that O'Keefe was actually wearing a coat and tie when he entered the ACORN offices. The report also stated that ACORN employees "may be able to bring a private suit against O'Keefe and Giles for recording a confidential conversation.” The Washington Post and CNN might be reckless and get things wrong, but that doesn't really compare to the intentional dishonesty from Project Veritas.
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
        Yes they absolutely did intentionally lie. EDIT: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/washington-post-settles-lawsuit-with-family-of-kentucky-teenager/2020/07/24/ae42144c-cdbd-11ea-b0e3-d55bda07d66a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/washington-po... In July 2019, a federal judge in Kentucky dismissed the Sandmanns’ suit against The Post, ruling that all of the challenged statements were either opinion, not defamatory or not about Sandmann specifically. But in October, the judge, William O. Bertelsman, reinstated part of the lawsuit, based on a motion to reconsider an amended complaint filed by Sandmann’s lawyers, allowing the case to proceed on three statements in Post articles stating that Sandmann had “blocked” Phillips and “would not allow him to retreat.” I.e., bald faced lies.
        lalaland1125 5y ago
        How did the Washington Post intentionally lie? They were certainly reckless and reported Phillips’s account without doing due diligence but that is a very different thing from the intentional dishonesty shown by Project Veritas. Lying requires intent. And intent is very important.
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
        I added an edit. Footage was immediately available showing he was being accosted and advanced upon by the other people, and the idea that they had blocked and trapped the demonstrators was a complete fabrication.
        lalaland1125 5y ago
        A reporter making mistakes and not reviewing every piece of theoretically available footage is not the same as a reporter intentionally doctoring footage. One is incompetence, the other is malice. Do you not understand the difference between the two?
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  > There are very good reasons to find what Project Veritas has been credibly accused of quite distasteful. The only accusations against Project Veritas is that they doctored their videos, but it seems to me that they usually publish the full length videos.
  - pstuart 5y ago
    Plenty to read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas
    - mansion7 5y ago
      On an unrelated note, WikiMedia foundation actually pays progressive groups to write/edit Wikipedia articles.
      - gaganyaan 5y ago
        Well it's a good thing that article is well-sourced, then.
        TeeMassive 5y ago
        They quote opinion pieces as fact.
        gaganyaan 5y ago
        Well it's a good thing that article is well-sourced, then. Conveniently, you can evaluate their cited sources for yourself.
        TeeMassive 5y ago
        That's what I did, their "sources" are opinions. That's not what "well-sourced" means.
- LanceH 5y ago
  > “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Yea, they didn't really say anything like that. They're saying Veritas are scumbags and the FBI might be wrong but should proceed with oversight. Their statement has so many qualifications and judgements attached to it, that it is nearly meaningless.

I hate that they have to preface it with "we hate these guys but..."

by Goety 5y ago

I hate that they have to preface it with "we hate these guys but..."

pm90 5y ago

There are very good reasons to find what Project Veritas has been credibly accused of quite distasteful. Institutions do no exist in a perfect vacuum, they consist of people, and people live in civil society. What they're saying here is analogous to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
I hate the phrase "credibly accused of". What were they accused of and why is it credible? Have they done worse than other journalists at major news corporations? Do accusations somehow revoke a person's rights? How on earth are these accusations relevant for the ACLU to weigh in on while commenting about this attack on the press? "She did wear revealing clothing and some observers thought she was leading the man on. Nevertheless, we condemn the sexual assault..."
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/03/08/james-okeefe-pays-100000-to-acorn-employee-he-smeared-conservative-media-yawns/?sh=180bdd8e14bd https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/03/08/james-okee...
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    CNN and the Washington Post were forced to pay millions of dollars for smearing Nick Sandmann.
    - lalaland1125 5y ago
      The difference is that the CNN and the Washington Post don't intentionally lie: > The AG’s report highlighted how Mr. O’Keefe edited his videos to appear as if he was engaging in his ACORN hi-jinks wearing “stereotypical 1970’s pimp garb”, the intent being to suggest that ACORN employees would willingly do business with someone dressed in this manner. However, it turns out that O'Keefe was actually wearing a coat and tie when he entered the ACORN offices. The report also stated that ACORN employees "may be able to bring a private suit against O'Keefe and Giles for recording a confidential conversation.” The Washington Post and CNN might be reckless and get things wrong, but that doesn't really compare to the intentional dishonesty from Project Veritas.
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago
        Yes they absolutely did intentionally lie. EDIT: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/washington-post-settles-lawsuit-with-family-of-kentucky-teenager/2020/07/24/ae42144c-cdbd-11ea-b0e3-d55bda07d66a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/washington-po... In July 2019, a federal judge in Kentucky dismissed the Sandmanns’ suit against The Post, ruling that all of the challenged statements were either opinion, not defamatory or not about Sandmann specifically. But in October, the judge, William O. Bertelsman, reinstated part of the lawsuit, based on a motion to reconsider an amended complaint filed by Sandmann’s lawyers, allowing the case to proceed on three statements in Post articles stating that Sandmann had “blocked” Phillips and “would not allow him to retreat.” I.e., bald faced lies.
        lalaland1125 5y ago
        How did the Washington Post intentionally lie? They were certainly reckless and reported Phillips’s account without doing due diligence but that is a very different thing from the intentional dishonesty shown by Project Veritas. Lying requires intent. And intent is very important.
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
        I added an edit. Footage was immediately available showing he was being accosted and advanced upon by the other people, and the idea that they had blocked and trapped the demonstrators was a complete fabrication.
        lalaland1125 5y ago
        A reporter making mistakes and not reviewing every piece of theoretically available footage is not the same as a reporter intentionally doctoring footage. One is incompetence, the other is malice. Do you not understand the difference between the two?
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
TeeMassive 5y ago
> There are very good reasons to find what Project Veritas has been credibly accused of quite distasteful. The only accusations against Project Veritas is that they doctored their videos, but it seems to me that they usually publish the full length videos.
- pstuart 5y ago
  Plenty to read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas
  - mansion7 5y ago
    On an unrelated note, WikiMedia foundation actually pays progressive groups to write/edit Wikipedia articles.
    - gaganyaan 5y ago
      Well it's a good thing that article is well-sourced, then.
      - TeeMassive 5y ago
        They quote opinion pieces as fact.
        gaganyaan 5y ago
        Well it's a good thing that article is well-sourced, then. Conveniently, you can evaluate their cited sources for yourself.
        TeeMassive 5y ago
        That's what I did, their "sources" are opinions. That's not what "well-sourced" means.
LanceH 5y ago
> “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Yea, they didn't really say anything like that. They're saying Veritas are scumbags and the FBI might be wrong but should proceed with oversight. Their statement has so many qualifications and judgements attached to it, that it is nearly meaningless.