[lettergram]

That's a straw man argument. I wont necessarily dispute the axe to grind, but can you provide proof when "deceptive editing" occurred?

Currently Project Veritas is in multiple lawsuits disputing that claim.

Most recently, in Project Veritas vs New York Times, the NYT claimed their articles contain journalistic "opinions" without notifying readers. Meaning they made claims they can't back up:

https://assets.ctfassets.net/syq3snmxclc9/maEy58HDFCR7qdtFOb...

I don't think it's fair to dismiss the content of their videos out of hand. While I disagree with the tactics, this is essentially undercover journalism and you can hear longs stretches of the CNN technical director discussing the mood / methods on set.

[crooked-v]

> but can you provide proof when "deceptive editing" occurred?

The Wikipedia page has plenty of examples and sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas#Content

[lettergram]

I've reviewed this and none of them seem either (a) claim they are deceptive at all or (b) are proven deceptive. You also have to ignore the pending lawsuits (Project Veritas vs NYT) and the fact Project Veritas hasn't been successfully sued for defamation or anything like that.

Wikipedia itself is not a reputable source and frankly the examples don't actually show deception to the audience. I'll repeat what I asked someone else.

> Who edits wikipedia? There's some serious concerns there, by the co-founder of wikipedia. Basically, you can hire firms to edit wikipedia relatively easily and there's some extreme bias on anything even remotely political.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWQaVx5mGco

On the topic of deception...

The main "deception" I see is editing out sections of the video which had no bearing on the story. This is how all news is conducted.

One example labeled as a deception appears to be mentioning the thumbnail of a video:

> He framed the undercover recordings with a preface of him dressed in a "pimp" outfit, which he also wore in TV media interviews. This gave viewers, including the media, the impression that he had dressed that way when speaking to ACORN workers. However, he actually entered the ACORN offices in conservative street clothes (the sleeve of his dress shirt is visible on camera)

Does that change how the ACORN employees reacted? Is it better that they broke the law with him in different clothes (he also went to 6 different locations, dressed differently each time). This has no bearing on the story, because the ACORN employee(s) were still breaking the law - the point. The story was not about how they treated people differently based on attire.

[comrh]

Their wikipedia has a long list of incidents that I won't relist but it's not a straw man to discuss the credibility of a source.

[lettergram]

Who edits wikipedia? There's some serious concerns there, by the co-founder of wikipedia. Basically, you can hire firms to edit wikipedia relatively easily and there's some extreme bias on anything even remotely political.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWQaVx5mGco

[comrh]

There are links at the bottom under References if you're interested in learning more about the context. Tim Poole and Project Veritas videos aren't going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.