3 ms·

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
        It wasn't a mistake, they used photos and footage in their reporting of it. It was lies. Malicious lies. Even if you want to use the weak excuse that they didn't know what they were doing, the fact it was not corrected or retracted after they did view this "hypothetical footage" (which apparently everyone else on the internet was able to find immediately), proves the malicious and intentional nature of it.
        lalaland1125 5y ago
        > It wasn't a mistake, they used photos and footage in their reporting of it. They covered the most popular footage at the time, which was not the footage that exonerated Sandmann. > Even if you want to use the weak excuse that they didn't know what they were doing, the fact it was not corrected or retracted after they did view this "hypothetical footage" (which apparently everyone else on the internet was able to find immediately), proves the malicious and intentional nature of it. They published their correction to the original article on January 22nd (3 days after their first article, 4 days after the incident in question). Pretty quick fix if you ask me for this sort of stuff. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/picture-of-the-conflict-on-the-mall-comes-into-clearer-focus/2019/01/20/c078f092-1ceb-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/picture-o...
- emerged 5y ago
  > The difference is that the CNN and the Washington Post don't intentionally lie: Oh, sweet summer child…

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
        It wasn't a mistake, they used photos and footage in their reporting of it. It was lies. Malicious lies. Even if you want to use the weak excuse that they didn't know what they were doing, the fact it was not corrected or retracted after they did view this "hypothetical footage" (which apparently everyone else on the internet was able to find immediately), proves the malicious and intentional nature of it.
        lalaland1125 5y ago
        > It wasn't a mistake, they used photos and footage in their reporting of it. They covered the most popular footage at the time, which was not the footage that exonerated Sandmann. > Even if you want to use the weak excuse that they didn't know what they were doing, the fact it was not corrected or retracted after they did view this "hypothetical footage" (which apparently everyone else on the internet was able to find immediately), proves the malicious and intentional nature of it. They published their correction to the original article on January 22nd (3 days after their first article, 4 days after the incident in question). Pretty quick fix if you ask me for this sort of stuff. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/picture-of-the-conflict-on-the-mall-comes-into-clearer-focus/2019/01/20/c078f092-1ceb-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/picture-o...
emerged 5y ago
> The difference is that the CNN and the Washington Post don't intentionally lie: Oh, sweet summer child…