6 ms·

> Plaintiff Project Veritas, a non-profit media organization that engages in undercover investigative journalism, states that it documents matters of public con

> Plaintiff Project Veritas, a non-profit media organization that engages in undercover investigative journalism, states that it documents matters of public concern by making unannounced audiovisual recordings of conversations, often in places open to the public. This has got to be the single rosiest description of Project Veritas ever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas

chii 3y ago
The kinds of money this "non-profit" org gets is almost like they're getting funded covertly from foreign states, looking to interfere with american politics.
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  Do you have any proof of this?
wnevets 3y ago
[flagged]
- ifyoubuildit 3y ago
  Which part?
  - wnevets 3y ago
    > a non-profit media organization that engages in undercover investigative journalism investigative journalism doesn't involve falsely editing video to ruin people's lives
    - waffle_ss 3y ago
      No they'll instead ruin your life for posting a Trump wrestling GIF on Reddit
      - wnevets 3y ago
        I don't know what that means.
        mcpackieh 3y ago
        A redditor made a gif Trump hitting CNN with a chair in a wrestling ring, or something to that effect. It was subsequently tweeted by Trump. CNN tracked the gif back to the redditor that made the gif and threatened to go public with his identity and reddit comment history if he didn't issue an apology (which he did). I think the lesson is something about picking fights with people who buy ink by the barrel.
        wnevets 3y ago
        That is quite the non sequitur. No one's life was ruined and investigative journalism wasn't involved.
        mcpackieh 3y ago
        It was investigative journalism, if you can call it journalism. CNN investigated the origin of the gif, and used biographical details revealed on reddit to determine the gif creators real name / identity. They didn't ruin his life, but threatened to go public with information which probably would have. Anyway, here's the article in question: https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-tr...
        wnevets 3y ago
        > if you can call it journalism. I don't, hence my comment.
        mcpackieh 3y ago
        Well that's waffle_ss's point I think.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    In the sense that it implies neutrality. This group of people is highly partisan and carefully cuts out context from their video recordings in order to slander their targets.
    - BurningFrog 3y ago
      I don't see anything implying neutrality in that text.
      - steamer25 3y ago
        Their expectation of neutrality probably stems from the word 'journalism'. I'd say that the expectation of neutral journalism is a (commonish) fallacy, though. Unbiased, neutral, objective reporting is a great ideal and aspiration for those who fancy themselves journalists. But that doesn't mean it could be 100% achieved. The very nature of reporting means that you need to make editorial decisions about which stories are newsworthy and salient. We probably don't need to know how many hairs were on the Senator's head as he gave his speech. Different people will make different choices about which details are important and those choices will inevitably be colored/informed by the things that're important to those making the editorial choices. As much as it'd be nice if we could somehow fix it, bias affects everything. Even institutions which we hold sacred like education, jurisprudence, science, statesmanship, etc. are all irrevocably tainted. What's especially interesting about the media, though, is that it comes with a megaphone. The medium is the message: "The most trusted name in news", "Fair and Balanced". Where the self-promotion is repeated often enough, it's particularly easy for people start believing it--at least about their favored side. Every other outlet produces nothing but salacious, yellow, muckraking tabloid-esque sound-bites but 'journalism' is as pure as the wind-driven snow. You can't apply the term 'journalism' to a real, human organization unless it's one of the organizations that I like. Otherwise, you're implying neutrality where none exists.
    - sourcegrift 3y ago
      You know all news channels cut out the part where Trump followed Abe in feeding the fish, so as to mock Trump? And I'll be flagged again
noduerme 3y ago
Who cares who the plaintiff was? If they operate in bad faith, so much the better[0]. I'd be inclined to see this decision as a boon to progressive organizations wanting to expose hypocritical conduct. Again, this applies in places with no expectation of privacy. On general principle, it seems like a no-brainer. I get being disappointed if your ox is gored, but being recorded by your interlocutor in a public place where anyone else could record shouldn't be a problem for any individual or organization that adheres to its stated principles. I'm more disturbed that this is somehow perceived as an attack against progressive organizations, when frankly it should be celebrated as a powerful tool to expose covert discrimination and other wrongdoing. [0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-project-veritas-member-matthew-tyrmand-threatens-dirt-on-james-okeefe?ref=home https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-project-veritas-member-matt...
ajhurliman 3y ago
Is it rosy because the interviews reveal information you don’t like? Or because you think the information is attained unethically? Simply saying “I don’t like them” doesn’t advance a conversation much.

chii 3y ago

The kinds of money this "non-profit" org gets is almost like they're getting funded covertly from foreign states, looking to interfere with american politics.

tourmalinetaco 3y ago
Do you have any proof of this?

wnevets 3y ago

[flagged]

ifyoubuildit 3y ago
Which part?
- wnevets 3y ago
  > a non-profit media organization that engages in undercover investigative journalism investigative journalism doesn't involve falsely editing video to ruin people's lives
  - waffle_ss 3y ago
    No they'll instead ruin your life for posting a Trump wrestling GIF on Reddit
    - wnevets 3y ago
      I don't know what that means.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        A redditor made a gif Trump hitting CNN with a chair in a wrestling ring, or something to that effect. It was subsequently tweeted by Trump. CNN tracked the gif back to the redditor that made the gif and threatened to go public with his identity and reddit comment history if he didn't issue an apology (which he did). I think the lesson is something about picking fights with people who buy ink by the barrel.
        wnevets 3y ago
        That is quite the non sequitur. No one's life was ruined and investigative journalism wasn't involved.
        mcpackieh 3y ago
        It was investigative journalism, if you can call it journalism. CNN investigated the origin of the gif, and used biographical details revealed on reddit to determine the gif creators real name / identity. They didn't ruin his life, but threatened to go public with information which probably would have. Anyway, here's the article in question: https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-tr...
        wnevets 3y ago
        > if you can call it journalism. I don't, hence my comment.
        mcpackieh 3y ago
        Well that's waffle_ss's point I think.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  In the sense that it implies neutrality. This group of people is highly partisan and carefully cuts out context from their video recordings in order to slander their targets.
  - BurningFrog 3y ago
    I don't see anything implying neutrality in that text.
    - steamer25 3y ago
      Their expectation of neutrality probably stems from the word 'journalism'. I'd say that the expectation of neutral journalism is a (commonish) fallacy, though. Unbiased, neutral, objective reporting is a great ideal and aspiration for those who fancy themselves journalists. But that doesn't mean it could be 100% achieved. The very nature of reporting means that you need to make editorial decisions about which stories are newsworthy and salient. We probably don't need to know how many hairs were on the Senator's head as he gave his speech. Different people will make different choices about which details are important and those choices will inevitably be colored/informed by the things that're important to those making the editorial choices. As much as it'd be nice if we could somehow fix it, bias affects everything. Even institutions which we hold sacred like education, jurisprudence, science, statesmanship, etc. are all irrevocably tainted. What's especially interesting about the media, though, is that it comes with a megaphone. The medium is the message: "The most trusted name in news", "Fair and Balanced". Where the self-promotion is repeated often enough, it's particularly easy for people start believing it--at least about their favored side. Every other outlet produces nothing but salacious, yellow, muckraking tabloid-esque sound-bites but 'journalism' is as pure as the wind-driven snow. You can't apply the term 'journalism' to a real, human organization unless it's one of the organizations that I like. Otherwise, you're implying neutrality where none exists.
  - sourcegrift 3y ago
    You know all news channels cut out the part where Trump followed Abe in feeding the fish, so as to mock Trump? And I'll be flagged again

noduerme 3y ago

Who cares who the plaintiff was? If they operate in bad faith, so much the better[0]. I'd be inclined to see this decision as a boon to progressive organizations wanting to expose hypocritical conduct. Again, this applies in places with no expectation of privacy. On general principle, it seems like a no-brainer. I get being disappointed if your ox is gored, but being recorded by your interlocutor in a public place where anyone else could record shouldn't be a problem for any individual or organization that adheres to its stated principles. I'm more disturbed that this is somehow perceived as an attack against progressive organizations, when frankly it should be celebrated as a powerful tool to expose covert discrimination and other wrongdoing. [0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-project-veritas-member-matthew-tyrmand-threatens-dirt-on-james-okeefe?ref=home https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-project-veritas-member-matt...

ajhurliman 3y ago

Is it rosy because the interviews reveal information you don’t like? Or because you think the information is attained unethically? Simply saying “I don’t like them” doesn’t advance a conversation much.