CNN whistleblower (1 Viewer)

[Lazybones]

I am seeing some articles about a CNN whistleblower. My sources are only one sided, so I am a little skeptical of the validity.
However, apparently project Veritas has a whistleblower who wore a hidden camera to work.
The accusation is that CNN has been running their news with a tad of bias. (No surprise here for some of us) We will see how this plays out.

 

[V Chip]

If you feel the need to call out O'Keefe or x, y, and/or z for the 1,000th time then do it. Or else don't.

It’s only the 143rd time I’ve called out O’Keefe or the inaptronym Project Veritas, but they deserve every single one so far.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So the question is, who believes that? Is it someone you have interactions with in this thread?

It doesn't matter if there is anyone specifically in this thread that believes it. Trump and Trump Jr. both retweeted and promoted the Project Veritas videos. There are people responding positively to Project Veritas tweets and Trump family retweets. Those people believe this. Those are the people I am talking about.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

How do we know this, is there an original we can compare?

I am going to need a link please.

James O'Keeffe has a documented history of deceptively editing his videos to portray scenarios in a manner that is not consistent with reality, often in an effort to discredit legitimate news organizations, like the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html

Here's a nice rundown of O'Keeffe's past efforts, in case you weren't aware:

The 33-year-old who tried to trick the Washington Post with a fake sexual harassment story has a long history of sting operations backfiring

James O'Keefe's most recent attempt at uncovering bias at The Washington Post is the latest in a string of failed undercover operations over the years.

www.businessinsider.com

Given all of this, why should anyone take him or Project Veritas at their word?

 

[Lazybones]

James O'Keeffe has a documented history of deceptively editing his videos to portray scenarios in a manner that is not consistent with reality, often in an effort to discredit legitimate news organizations, like the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html

Here's a nice rundown of O'Keeffe's past efforts, in case you weren't aware:

The 33-year-old who tried to trick the Washington Post with a fake sexual harassment story has a long history of sting operations backfiring

James O'Keefe's most recent attempt at uncovering bias at The Washington Post is the latest in a string of failed undercover operations over the years.

www.businessinsider.com

Given all of this, why should anyone take him or Project Veritas at their word?

“According to Media Bias/Fact Check, regarding Business Insider, They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes.”

“May 15, 2016 · LEFT-CENTER BIAS. Notes: Business Insider is a German owned American news website that has a left of center bias in reporting. Well sourced. Has been critcized for clickbait style. (5/15/2016)”

Using a left wing media source to debunk someone who’s job is to take out left wing media sources, may not be the best way to influence those around you.

Also the washpo is behind a paywall. I thought walls were wrong? Lol

 

[MT15]

Did the words “factual information” somehow fly over your head?

You cannot refute the facts of what they reported, can you?

Almost all media has a POV, media literacy means being able to recognize loaded language but also being able to pick out the facts.

Project Veritas isn’t about facts, they have been caught multiple times just making up stuff. And yet, you and the Trumps cling to it. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Lazybones]

Did the words “factual information” somehow fly over your head?

You cannot refute the facts of what they reported, can you?

Almost all media has a POV, media literacy means being able to recognize loaded language but also being able to pick out the facts.

Project Veritas isn’t about facts, they have been caught multiple times just making up stuff. And yet, you and the Trumps cling to it. Why do you suppose that is?

Okeefe also often puts out factual info. Just look at this thread. He put out that CNN has a bias against trump. This thread is filled with “everyone new that already”.

If that’s the position, ok. Okeefe is reporting the truth.

also show me where I have supported a false story from project Veritas. Also please look at the language I used in the OP. I was skeptical because it was project Veritas, but low and behold, they were accurate.

 

[Lazybones]

Did the words “factual information” somehow fly over your head?

You cannot refute the facts of what they reported, can you?

Almost all media has a POV, media literacy means being able to recognize loaded language but also being able to pick out the facts.

Project Veritas isn’t about facts, they have been caught multiple times just making up stuff. And yet, you and the Trumps cling to it. Why do you suppose that is?

comment nbr 2. Why don’t you give trump the credence you give these media outlets. He has factual information and uses inflammatory language to get his point across.

 

[JRad]

I was skeptical because it was project Veritas, but low and behold, they were accurate.

So they get a pat on the back for evidence water is wet? And that adds their credibility?

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Let’s listen to what the blind squirrel has to say about nut gathering since he got that one nut that one time

 

[cuddlemonkey]

“According to Media Bias/Fact Check, regarding Business Insider, They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes.”

“May 15, 2016 · LEFT-CENTER BIAS. Notes: Business Insider is a German owned American news website that has a left of center bias in reporting. Well sourced. Has been critcized for clickbait style. (5/15/2016)”

Using a left wing media source to debunk someone who’s job is to take out left wing media sources, may not be the best way to influence those around you.

Also the washpo is behind a paywall. I thought walls were wrong? Lol

The gist of the WaPo article was that O’Keeffe and Project Veritas sent in a woman claiming to have a bombshell story regarding Roy Moore. They sniffed out her bullshirt and found out who she worked for because these people are terrible at this.

 

[MT15]

Okeefe also often puts out factual info. Just look at this thread. He put out that CNN has a bias against trump. This thread is filled with “everyone new that already”.

If that’s the position, ok. Okeefe is reporting the truth.

also show me where I have supported a false story from project Veritas. Also please look at the language I used in the OP. I was skeptical because it was project Veritas, but low and behold, they were accurate.

No, just no. Often puts out factual info is false. This thread proves nothing about Project Veritas.

 

[MT15]

comment nbr 2. Why don’t you give trump the credence you give these media outlets. He has factual information and uses inflammatory language to get his point across.

You don’t know the difference between facts and lies, do you?

Or the difference between reporting a factual story with inflammatory language and just making up self-serving bull crap.

This much is clear.

Communication with you has reached a certain level of diminishing return. C’est la vie.

 

[Lazybones]

So they get a pat on the back for evidence water is wet? And that adds their credibility?

Some water is wet. And I’m just saying it wasn’t lies that he was reporting in this instance.

 

[Lazybones]

Your OP did not link any of the articles you were talking about, nor did you state anything specific about the claims against CNN.

It didn't seem like you wanted to discuss anything because the OP didn't really give anything to discuss.

You are post 54 and it appears this is one of the more popular threads currently.

 

[Lazybones]

You don’t know the difference between facts and lies, do you?

Or the difference between reporting a factual story with inflammatory language and just making up self-serving bull crap.

This much is clear.

Communication with you has reached a certain level of diminishing return. C’est la vie.

Please point me to the days you are talking about that trump puts out 10-20 lies. I liked back for a week and didn’t see what you are saying. But I’m fairness I didn’t read them all, I just skimmed.
I do however see him using hyperbole, much like some posters in this thread.

 

[Lazybones]

No, just no. Often puts out factual info is false. This thread proves nothing about Project Veritas.

lets go 1 for 1. I gave you a truth that was put out, now you provide a lie. Then we can go back and forth and see who runs our first.

The cool thing will be to debate if what we put out is a lie or truth. I’m starting out pretty good with a unanimous truth on this issue. Your turn.

 

[JRad]

Some water is wet. And I’m just saying it wasn’t lies that he was reporting in this instance.

Right, but, like...what's the point here? I'm honestly just trying to figure out why we're supposed to be proud of Veritas for reporting something everyone already knew. To steal a line from the kids, weird flex but ok.

 

[Ayo]

Please point me to the days you are talking about that trump puts out 10-20 lies. I liked back for a week and didn’t see what you are saying.

I gave you Daniel Dale's twitter. Twice.

Last night, Dale chronicled 26 lies (I arrived at this number by counting tweets he made while fact checking, in real time, last night's rally) Trump told in 80 minutes. A couple of these are based on things that might still happen, possibly, but have not happened yet. Even disgregarding those, he's at a cool two dozen.

This was last night. You don't even have to go back a week.

If you *still* aren't seeing it, it's because you don't want to