This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Holy smokes, Project Veritas suing both CNN and Twitter, winning NYT case  (Read 5799 times)

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7399
  • Now even more Toxic
Veritas was caught red handed attempting to manufacture fake news. Just outright, unquestionably they we're attempting to create a fake story from whole cloth. If the NYT or CNN had tried to do what they tried to do, you'd be screaming bloody murder. But because you like Veritas, you will spin it however you need to, to make yourself more comfortable with the idea you support a lying piece of shit source. See for example.
The first webpage you linked is a wall of text with the readability of a dictionary and a complete lack of context on almost everything. Sussing out what each section is trying say much less verifying them, would take forever. Can you point to one specific case that you consider irrefutable?

When you first mentioned it, I looked a little into PV's credibility on my own (hadn't heard of it before, but then I know very little about PV), and The Guardian article you just linked is actually the first one I found. But the article is written with a lot of bias, which makes it feel less like objective journalism, and more like a hit piece. And when I also read the counter on Project Veritas' website, their response seems quite reasonable. They use lies, disguises and false identities in order to get interviews and access. Which, as they point out, is standard for investigative reporting. That leaves the only real claim against the claim that they were trying to fabricate a story about sex and abortion and get that published, in order protect a creepy Republican judge by drowning out the news. That seems pretty far fetched, and their own explanation seems plausible. So it's hardly compelling evidence.

Plus the article in The Guardian has ZERO evidence to back up it's claims.
Well, it's reporting on an article from another paper (The Washington Post). The Guardian article is basically the text version of a newsreader, with snark. I wouldn't expect it to have evidence, that's the job of the article that's being written about. But yes, the Guardian article is the wrong article to link as proof.

I'm not giving The Washington Compost money to read their drivel, let's see if Archive dot is can archive it without their crappy request for money on top of everything.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
Veritas was caught red handed attempting to manufacture fake news. Just outright, unquestionably they we're attempting to create a fake story from whole cloth. If the NYT or CNN had tried to do what they tried to do, you'd be screaming bloody murder. But because you like Veritas, you will spin it however you need to, to make yourself more comfortable with the idea you support a lying piece of shit source. See for example.
The first webpage you linked is a wall of text with the readability of a dictionary and a complete lack of context on almost everything. Sussing out what each section is trying say much less verifying them, would take forever. Can you point to one specific case that you consider irrefutable?

When you first mentioned it, I looked a little into PV's credibility on my own (hadn't heard of it before, but then I know very little about PV), and The Guardian article you just linked is actually the first one I found. But the article is written with a lot of bias, which makes it feel less like objective journalism, and more like a hit piece. And when I also read the counter on Project Veritas' website, their response seems quite reasonable. They use lies, disguises and false identities in order to get interviews and access. Which, as they point out, is standard for investigative reporting. That leaves the only real claim against the claim that they were trying to fabricate a story about sex and abortion and get that published, in order protect a creepy Republican judge by drowning out the news. That seems pretty far fetched, and their own explanation seems plausible. So it's hardly compelling evidence.
If people want to argue that PV pushes the envelope, I won't disagree. I'm still amazed O'Keefe didn't get shot at when he demonstrated how porous the southern U.S. border was... by crossing it while dressed as Osama bin Laden.

What the media and the left are pissed about is that PV keeps sneaking in behind closed doors and recording 'the things that don't get said in public'. It beggars the imagination to think that their last ejection from Twitter was anything other than a reaction to that CNN sting.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7399
  • Now even more Toxic
Okay! Managed to archive the article, link will be below, WP recorded the woman, posted reporters to follow her, yet they provide ZERO evidence of their claims that she entered Project Veritas building...

And, even if she had, she was trying to sell a story to a newspaper, so, without evidence to back their insinuation that she works for PV we must believe the WP that she didn't went there to try and sell the story to PV...

Nah, that shit doesn't fly.

https://archive.is/ci0pb
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

RandyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • R
  • Posts: 1218
Greetings!

The Guardian is in the same group of cock-sucking Marxists that the NYT and CNN. I don't trust a thing the Guardian says. Overall, I have found Project Veritas to be far more accurate and truthful than the aforementioned Liberal media sources.

Are the Liberal, cock-sucking Marxist media going to attempt to lie, smear, and disparage organizations like Project Veritas?

Yes, of course. They collectively hate organizations like Project Veritas because Veritas exposes their lying, their deception, and fucking corruption, and then broadcasts it out to the public, for all to see what fraudulent, corrupt bastards they are.

I love it when the Liberal cunt media gets fucked! It's always a great day whenever that occurs. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

They aren't cunts. They lack both warmth and depth.

Trond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2743
No man, that's you doing your typical "I deny what you say, show me evidence even though I will present no counter evidence" schtick you do. I then provide evidence, and you just repeat "That's not enough, show me more, even though I will never show you any counter evidence." We've played this game before. It's you being an asshole. It's not OK. This is a back and forth. You don't get to demand evidence, and then group it all with a single sentence response, and act like you just "proved me wrong." We ALL know what you just did, and it sure as fuck isn't that.

Veritas was caught red handed attempting to manufacture fake news. Just outright, unquestionably they we're attempting to create a fake story from whole cloth. If the NYT or CNN had tried to do what they tried to do, you'd be screaming bloody murder. But because you like Veritas, you will spin it however you need to, to make yourself more comfortable with the idea you support a lying piece of shit source. See for example.

The Guardian....OK
But check the link you provided:
" The Washington Post turned the spotlight that O’Keefe had tried to put on the newspaper back on him by disclosing a plot to dupe its reporters into publishing an entirely false story.

The fake account was peddled by a woman named Jaime Phillips who claimed to have had an abortion when she was 15 after sexual encounters with the Republican senatorial candidate in Alabama, Roy Moore. Post reporters did their due diligence, grew suspicious of her narrative, and later watched her walking into the Project Veritas offices in New York.

They also discovered a GoFundMe page under the name of Jaime Phillips in which she said she had accepted a job in New York “to work in the conservative media movement to combat the lies and deceit of the liberal MSM”. When these matters were put to O’Keefe in a filmed encounter, he refused to answer questions about the apparent attempt to plant a fake story on the Post presumably intended to undermine the paper’s earlier exposé of Moore’s alleged molestation of underage girls as young as 14."


That is......a paper thin story at best.

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
Absolutely no mention of how Roy Moore was dogged by reports of inappropriate relationships with underage girls during his entire Senate run, a push led by well known Democrat flunky Gloria Allred, and how mysteriously as soon as the election was over everyone involved vanished.

I detest Moore. He has always struck me as the worst kind of demagoguing asshole, and he knew his stunt with the Ten Commandments monument would cause trouble. But that whole 'scandal' was smoke and mirrors and bullshit.

DocJones

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1081
  • theofascist
Project Veritas has a pretty long wall of "caught lying, deceiving, intentionally editing out crucial context, etc.."
Project Veritas releases the full unedited videos as well, so if there is an argument about crucial context that would be easily made.
It's obvious they deceive and lie to the people they are recording about who they are.  That's what undercover investigative reporters do.


GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7399
  • Now even more Toxic
Project Veritas has a pretty long wall of "caught lying, deceiving, intentionally editing out crucial context, etc.."
Project Veritas releases the full unedited videos as well, so if there is an argument about crucial context that would be easily made.
It's obvious they deceive and lie to the people they are recording about who they are.  That's what undercover investigative reporters do.

Shhhh, those are facts and objective truth, therefore racist, sexist, etc.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

Snowman0147

  • Now Even More Frosty
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3085


This is interesting.  NWT just admitted they don't know shit.

Trond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2743


This is interesting.  NWT just admitted they don't know shit.

Yeah, it's pretty juicy. NYT have dug themselves pretty deep into a pile of shit here.

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
This is interesting.  NWT just admitted they don't know shit.

Come on Snowman, that is obviously an edited video.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266


This is interesting.  NWT just admitted they don't know shit.

Yeah, it's pretty juicy. NYT have dug themselves pretty deep into a pile of shit here.

I would agree, if the American legal system hadn't been corrupted into a farce.  Some judge from an Ivy League school will declare in the Times favor, then, on appeal, a group of other Ivy League grads will say whatever they think is necessary to justify the opinion they want to reach, and the case will be over.  The chief justice of the f*****g USSC decided on a whim that the Obamacare mandate was a tax, in order to decide not to strike it down.  The American legal system is just performance art at this point.  Once more people realize that all of our systems have been corrupted (judges, the FBI, big pharma and big science), and the last few years are waking people up more and more, it's going to be really hard to keep things "civil" in our civilization...

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
The chief justice of the f*****g USSC decided on a whim that the Obamacare mandate was a tax, in order to decide not to strike it down.
That one can be explained more narrowly. The Supreme Court, traditionally, has almost never done anything that might threaten their power. Since they lack the ability to make laws or enforce them, and don't have an army or a police force, that means they need to at least play civil with the other two branches of government. That's why, if the executive and legislation agree on something, the SC won't overturn it. This seems to be a guiding principle for Roberts in particular, and explains why he often comes across as a fake conservative. He's conservative, but he's conserving the court itself rather than legal principles. That's why he came up with that absurd stretch to not overthrow Obamacare, even though Obama's lawyers were the most vociferous in arguing that it was not a tax. (Because that would have been political death for the bill.)

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
The chief justice of the f*****g USSC decided on a whim that the Obamacare mandate was a tax, in order to decide not to strike it down.
That one can be explained more narrowly. The Supreme Court, traditionally, has almost never done anything that might threaten their power. Since they lack the ability to make laws or enforce them, and don't have an army or a police force, that means they need to at least play civil with the other two branches of government. That's why, if the executive and legislation agree on something, the SC won't overturn it. This seems to be a guiding principle for Roberts in particular, and explains why he often comes across as a fake conservative. He's conservative, but he's conserving the court itself rather than legal principles. That's why he came up with that absurd stretch to not overthrow Obamacare, even though Obama's lawyers were the most vociferous in arguing that it was not a tax. (Because that would have been political death for the bill.)
So, what you are saying is, the legal reasoning for the decision was not the basis for the decision, but instead a post hoc justification for the ruling the justice wanted to make.  Which is exactly my point above.  This is not "justice" or even "rule of law."  It's formalistic performance.  The motivation for the performance doesn't matter.  No court can be trust to rule fairly when this is the standard operating procedure.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
The chief justice of the f*****g USSC decided on a whim that the Obamacare mandate was a tax, in order to decide not to strike it down.
That one can be explained more narrowly. The Supreme Court, traditionally, has almost never done anything that might threaten their power. Since they lack the ability to make laws or enforce them, and don't have an army or a police force, that means they need to at least play civil with the other two branches of government. That's why, if the executive and legislation agree on something, the SC won't overturn it. This seems to be a guiding principle for Roberts in particular, and explains why he often comes across as a fake conservative. He's conservative, but he's conserving the court itself rather than legal principles. That's why he came up with that absurd stretch to not overthrow Obamacare, even though Obama's lawyers were the most vociferous in arguing that it was not a tax. (Because that would have been political death for the bill.)
So, what you are saying is, the legal reasoning for the decision was not the basis for the decision, but instead a post hoc justification for the ruling the justice wanted to make.  Which is exactly my point above.  This is not "justice" or even "rule of law."  It's formalistic performance.  The motivation for the performance doesn't matter.  No court can be trust to rule fairly when this is the standard operating procedure.
Under a much narrower set of circumstances. Since the NYT case doesn't involve the executive or the legislature in any significant way, they have a better chance of ruling on the merits.