Media Bias

[Hermit]

Project Veritas is a good way to see if someone reports fairly.

The irony. It burns.

Oh, have you got something clear to say about them?

Yes. Project Veritas is renowned for reportage that misleads to the point of lying. ACORN is one example.

The only example, and a shitty one.

ACORN was SO corrupt, that any idiot could have exposed it. I think O'Keefe made some mistakes on it, but that is the whole of the 'evidence' presented to convince people he is wrong.

It is far outweighed by all the other cases.

$100,000 compensation for a lie is shitty? And what are the other cases that outweigh it?

Remember, they don't lose court cases that often. Lots of other news outlets have to print retractions when they slander PV.

Links?

https://www.projectveritas.com/wall-of-shame-retracto/

It's amazing that you have to ask some Cunt to find this stuff for you.

I wasn't asking about retractions, and if I did I wouldn't accept the words of proven liars as evidence unless they are backed up by an independent source.

Give me links to court cases in which the ironically named Project Veritas was accused of lying and won. And no, I don't mean the fact that it has the right to record what public policy figures say.

[Cunt]

They haven't been successfully sued, the ACORN case aside.

The stuff they posted is legit. Forget the source, address the video that got them banned. Maybe you'll begin to see why the establishment removes their insider video evidence of the establishment being the shitty fucking establishment.

Or keep agreeing with media that media isn't biased in favour of media.

[Sean Hayden]

Cunt isn't bothered by the fact that the video shows a guy willing to help human traffickers, but who, in reality, informed the police as soon as Cunt's hero left. That's why Cunt's hero got sued.

I know Cunt isn't bothered because I've already shown this to him, and he's back to praising the guy anyway.

[Sean Hayden]

But you guys need to check yourselves. --you bunch of biased no-gooders!

[Cunt]

Cunt isn't bothered by the fact that the video shows a guy willing to help human traffickers, but who, in reality, informed the police as soon as Cunt's hero left. That's why Cunt's hero got sued.

I know Cunt isn't bothered because I've already shown this to him, and he's back to praising the guy anyway.

Ya. That's the ACORN case.

He fucked that up good.

Was ACORN corrupt, by the way? Like was it SO corrupt, that even with a lying grift-piece exposing it, they still got closed?

Oh, and was there something else after that? Or is that the extent of the smear-material?

[Sean Hayden]

What smear material? You agree he's a liar but consider exposing him as such to be a smear?

As for their corruption, is it not important to you that the corruption claimed by your hero is not the corruption identified by the judge in that case? It's funny, because the case actually demonstrates that Veritas was successful doing to ACORN what you are accusing the media of doing to them i.e. they lied through their teeth to bring down an organization with problems, but by no means of the nature or extent claimed by your hero.

[Cunt]

What smear material? You agree he's a liar but consider exposing him as such to be a smear?

As for their corruption, is it not important to you that the corruption claimed by your hero is not the corruption identified by the judge in that case? It's funny, because the case actually demonstrates that Veritas was successful doing to ACORN what you are accusing the media of doing to them i.e. they lied through their teeth to bring down an organization with problems, but by no means of the nature or extent claimed by your hero.

This one case, years ago, is the total of the 'smear' material which makes you condemn his other efforts?

Is there anything else?

Most journalists get called liar occasionally. It doesn't convince me to trash the evidence they uncover.

[Sean Hayden]

It's not smear material. It's not the only case.

But I'm not of the opinion that I need anything more. You may be okay with telling the world that somebody is willing to help human traffickers, when they aren't, but I am emphatically not.

--nothing to say about Veritas being the very thing you claim to hate then? They are the kind of media we should all hate.

[Cunt]

It's not smear material. It's not the only case.

But I'm not of the opinion that I need anything more. You may be okay with telling the world that somebody is willing to help human traffickers, when they aren't, but I am emphatically not.

--nothing to say about Veritas being the very thing you claim to hate then? They are the kind of media we should all hate.

They faked the story deliberately. They fucked it up.

It should be remembered when looking at their later stories.

The media is biased against them though, so the stories about them reliably slant a LOT more than the ACORN story justifies. It's almost like a good bellweather for 'media bias' to see who will lie about them.

You didn't. I believe you wouldn't. If I found you wrote something incorrect about them, I would assume you were in error, rather than malicious.

But when all the wealthiest social media companies unify against a reporter, don't you get just a little more curious about what they are reporting?

[Sean Hayden]

No.

I want to know why Veritas warrants so much attention, that is something you're not addressing. They must be pretty important for you to ignore their past, right? Well, consider that I think they are mostly important only as a lesson in how critical ethics are for journalist. When you have zero standards, you can do a lot of harm. In today's world, even the little guy can crush it.

That the left gets this wrong too is no excuse to elevate Veritas. Why are they important?

[Cunt]

No.

I want to know why Veritas warrants so much attention, that is something you're not addressing.

Because they provide video evidence, provided by whistleblowers, about some prominent organizations/people.
[quotte] They must be pretty important for you to ignore their past, right? [/quote]Why would you accuse me of ignoring their past?

You see that I told you I knew about it, right?

Well, consider that I think they are mostly important only as a lesson in how critical ethics are for journalist. When you have zero standards, you can do a lot of harm. In today's world, even the little guy can crush it.

Why didn't you answer my question about whether you apply this standard to all news?

That the left gets this wrong too is no excuse to elevate Veritas. Why are they important?

Same reason any news source is important.

Do you have something against 'whistleblower journalism'?

[Sean Hayden]

But "any" news source isn't important.

A whistleblower necessarily needs a flawless record.

If you want to say that Veritas serves as a data point for you, and you cast a wide net, fine. There may even be some wisdom in that.

But it doesn't exactly square with how you choose to bring them up and defend them here at Rationalia. You definitely seem to use them --or more accurately, the controversy surrounding them-- more as means to demonstrate our flaws, than anything else.

But that's your thing, innit?

[Cunt]

But "any" news source isn't important.

Correct. The 'news' may be, though.

A whistleblower necessarily needs a flawless record.

This sounds like something you and I might disagree on.

I think a whistleblowing criminal, who rolls over on his criminal co-conspirators, is the clearest example I can think of.

If you want to say that Veritas serves as a data point for you, and you cast a wide net, fine. There may even be some wisdom in that.

Did you see what they reported on? Or just who was reporting?

I brought them up because of the media bias against them. Can you see it?

But it doesn't exactly square with how you choose to bring them up and defend them here at Rationalia. You definitely seem to use them --or more accurately, the controversy surrounding them-- more as means to demonstrate our flaws, than anything else.

But that's your thing, innit?

Not YOUR flaws, but the media bias.

For example, everyone has shown (and re-shown) me the ACORN example, but they have a number of reports.

Doesn't it seem odd that there is SO much media bias against them, with just one example to trot out? Could it be that the whistleblower videos showing the media being corrupt, are pissing off the corrupt media, who do their best to discredit PV?

Or does it make more sense to trust twitter and facebook? (a recent story was about facebook)

[Sean Hayden]

But "any" news source isn't important.

Correct. The 'news' may be, though.

A whistleblower necessarily needs a flawless record.

This sounds like something you and I might disagree on.

I think a whistleblowing criminal, who rolls over on his criminal co-conspirators, is the clearest example I can think of.

If you want to say that Veritas serves as a data point for you, and you cast a wide net, fine. There may even be some wisdom in that.

Did you see what they reported on? Or just who was reporting?

I brought them up because of the media bias against them. Can you see it?

But it doesn't exactly square with how you choose to bring them up and defend them here at Rationalia. You definitely seem to use them --or more accurately, the controversy surrounding them-- more as means to demonstrate our flaws, than anything else.

But that's your thing, innit?

Not YOUR flaws, but the media bias.

For example, everyone has shown (and re-shown) me the ACORN example, but they have a number of reports.

Doesn't it seem odd that there is SO much media bias against them, with just one example to trot out? Could it be that the whistleblower videos showing the media being corrupt, are pissing off the corrupt media, who do their best to discredit PV?

Or does it make more sense to trust twitter and facebook? (a recent story was about facebook)

A criminal's testimony is problematic.

A prosecutor who does not appreciate the perils of using rewarded criminals as
witnesses risks compromising the truth-seeking mission of our criminal justice
system. Because the Government decides whether and when to use such
witnesses, and what, if anything, to give them for their service, the Government
stands uniquely positioned to guard against perfidy. By its action the
Government can either contribute to or eliminate the problem. Accordingly, we
expect prosecutors and investigators to take all reasonable measures to safeguard
the system against treachery.

United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333-34 (9th Cir. 1993)

Thankfully, when deciding on what news to trust we are not in so difficult a position as the criminal courts! If you're a journalist, and want to be a whistleblower, then you best not get caught lying.

--//--

I may look at the rest later, need to get some work done.

[Cunt]