American Pravda, NYT- Project Veritas

O'Keefe's new video is out on the NYT.

As expected, it shows how far we really have fallen.

American Pravda indeed. Now, I'll admit this sounds like a rogue employee who is full of it, but I have little doubt he's just the tip of the iceberg.

For more detail, read here.

a reply to: loam

So he lied to a young woman he was trying to impress about being Comey's godson? And that's the NYT's fault for not sending a young woman to feign interest in him to see what line of bull# he might feed her?

Don't you find it ironic that O'Keefe, who was funded by Donald Trump during the campaign to generate propaganda, who has been busted deceiving his audience not once, not twice but on several occasions, calling himself and all of his cohorts "journalists" in a video where he's admonishing this kid for a lack of objectivity and editorial bias?

You think "Project Veritas" has a handbook with an ethical code or in fact, any concern over objectivity let alone honesty? No? This isn't even the pot calling the kettle black, O'Keefe makes this guy look like an absolute Boy Scout.

Seems mentally ill to me. To just make up stuff like that, then when questioned, is like "yea, uh huh I lied, dunno" wtf? But Verita's did show in other videos that the DNC purposely hires those with mental illness, because well duh, normal people would not do this stuff.

a reply to: theantediluvian

The Trump Foundation also sent money to the New Jersey Boxing Hall of Fame, and the Indiana Golf Foundation on the very same day—I'm assuming to generate propaganda, because there is no other possible reason.

a reply to: theantediluvian

In a more rational world, there would be no question which source was more trustworthy.

That world apparently doesn't exist.

a reply to: loam

Some other medias are starting to take on the story :

New York Times video editor caught trashing Trump in new James O'Keefe sting

The Times did not return a request for comment from the Washington Examiner.

Project Veritas? TMZ has better and more credibility than these guys or this guy.

The worse of it all is people will look at this is hold up as some kind of standard of integrity, Project Veritas, haha!

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: theantediluvian

The Trump Foundation also sent money to the New Jersey Boxing Hall of Fame, and the Indiana Golf Foundation on the very same day—I'm assuming to generate propaganda, because there is no other possible reason.

The sole function of Project Veritas is to generate propaganda. So any money going to Project Veritas could only be for that purpose.

a reply to: loam

The NYT has zero credibility now, not that they had much
left anyways. This guy may have lied about Comey
but his connections to Clinton and Obama are disturbing.

The NYT is officially nothing but a Propaganda outlet.

Are people really so blind that they buy this carp?
Apparently some are.

a reply to: theantediluvian

The sole function of Project Veritas is to generate propaganda. So any money going to Project Veritas could only be for that purpose.

According to Project Veritas, its purpose is "investigations of corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud and other misconduct". It's a §501(c)3 organization and relies on donations for its operation. The donation was made before Trump entered the campaign, not during.

Assuming the lowest possible motives, and also assuming that those motives are the correct ones, is a feat of mind-reading I have not seen in a while.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: loam

Are people really so blind that they buy this carp?
Apparently some are.

Indeed.

Baffling, really.

It has been obvious for quite some time that NYT is simply a propaganda machine and deep state operative. I highly recommend reading this one year old article by the Swedish journalist Johannes Wahlstrøm, "An Obituary of The New York Times":

A few years ago I had the pleasure of meeting Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. and Bill Keller at The New York Times building on Manhattan. Keller was the long time editor in chief of the newspaper and Sulzberger its proprietor. We met at what must have been the 50th floor of the company headquarters, on 8th Avenue. I write company headquarters, instead of newspaper, because this part of the building was accessible only through a separate elevator-system and was strictly off-limits for the regular New York Times reporters. We spoke for about an hour and a half for the film Mediastan that I was shooting at the time, and now in hindsight, I’m both grateful and surprised by how honestly the administrative and real heads of the enterprise described the nature of their work. Grateful, because the degree of openness they exhibited is a rarity in the backrooms of journalism. Surprised, because what they were doing wasn’t journalism, at least not in the sense that I had been taught in journalism school in Sweden. No, the work that Keller and Sulzberger were describing was something entirely different, and as such it was a shame that this part of the building was off-limits to the journalists of their own newspaper. Because, as I would soon realize, the upper levels of the New York Times building was a place where a variety of important political decisions were negotiated and taken. A space, ironically, very far from scrutiny of the public eye.

Read the rest here:
www.unz.com...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

According to Project Veritas

That's nice. According to me, I'm the world's greatest sword fighter. You should totally take me at my word.

The donation was made before Trump entered the campaign, not during.

It appears that I was wrong about the date of the donation. It was a month prior to Trump entering the race. Thank you for pointing that out.

Assuming the lowest possible motives, and also assuming that those motives are the correct ones, is a feat of mind-reading I have not seen in a while.

All assumptions are not equal. Are you saying that it's never appropriate to assume a motive? If a man robs an armored car, isn't it reasonable to assume that he was motivated by a desire to steal its contents? More reasonable than assuming that he was motivated by the fact that it was 80 degrees on the day of the heist?

Or should we just shrug our shoulders and concede that we'll never know the true motives for the heist because we can't every really know what a person is actually thinking? Or should we accept that we can infer motives with success in many instances, particularly when there is ample evidence from which to infer the motive?

What do O'Keefe's targets share in common?

If O'Keefe deceives his audience intentionally when producing a video, to create the appearance of corruption that wasn't taking place, he's clearly not uncovering corruption. What then is he doing? What high minded service was he performing? I would argue that creating propaganda is actually not the lowest possible motive. His actions have led to people losing their jobs. He's wrongly defamed people and organizations. His actions led to an entire organization losing its funding before it could be determined that he had misled people.

I argue that of all the possible motives that could be inferred, generating propaganda is far from the lowest.

The Times Responds to Project Veritas Video

A Times spokeswoman, Danielle Rhoades Ha, released a statement in response to the video:

Based on what we’ve seen in the Project Veritas video, it appears that a recent hire in a junior position violated our ethical standards and misrepresented his role. In his role at The Times, he was responsible for posting already published video on other platforms and was never involved in the creation or editing of Times videos. We are reviewing the situation now.

We will update our readers on the situation when possible.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I posted that in the spirit of fairness, which is a fundamental principle of journalism.

I see nothing wrong with that assumption, so long as you know it is an assumption, admit that is an assumption, and given the resemblance of the sentiment, one handed to you by Soros-funded ThinkProgress, the propaganda arm of the democratic party.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: theantediluvian

I posted that in the spirit of fairness, which is a fundamental principle of journalism.

I see nothing wrong with that assumption, so long as you know it is an assumption, admit that is an assumption, and given the resemblance of the sentiment, one handed to you by Soros-funded ThinkProgress, the propaganda arm of the democratic party.

As I'm not James O'Keefe, that I can only infer his motivation is self-evident, isn't it? Speaking of assumptions, yours above is almost entirely incorrect.

I believe I may be able to guess why you said it though. You probably turned to a search engine because you didn't have any idea what I was talking about when I referenced the two voters who were incorrectly identified as having been non-citizens? That led you to TP? Just a guess.

Or maybe, you searched ATS and saw this post of mine where I linked the TP piece about it 4 months ago?

It's one thing for you to go meandering through a maze of pretentious pedantry — I'm happy to oblige despite the immateriality — but if you're going to insult me, why waste your time or mine? Particularly with such an unsophisticated jab at my ego.

Parts 2 & 3: