[crooked-v]

Project Veritas has a history of being so wildly deceitful[1] that if they said the sky was blue, I'd want to look outside to check myself first before I believed them.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas#Content

[throwaway4china]

Linking to a Wikipedia article doesn't seem like a great way to convey an accusation, especially when you don't want to address the content.

I suppose you don't want to also link to the defamation lawsuit Project Veritas recently won against The New York Times.

Concerning the actual content, I don't see how you can chalk this up to selective editing, the guy goes on for quite a while describing CNN's tactics.

What context do you think was left out?

[crooked-v]

> recently won

No, that's ongoing. All they've "won" was that a judge denied a motion to dismiss the suit.

> What context do you think was left out?

I'm not going to waste time looking at the video in the first place, so don't bother asking.

[throwaway3699]

Maybe, but ignore Vertias involvement and just concentrate on the raw footage they captured. You can't just fake a conversation like that without fearsome technology or maybe bribery.

[crooked-v]

> ignore Vertias involvement

Sorry, no. They've tainted the well too much to do that.

[briefcomment]

I’m guessing you’re probably infinitely less critical of the standard ‘respected’ mainstream media.

‘Project Veritas Bad’ is a becoming an increasingly myopic heuristic. Probably something better would be to think that PV is complicated, and institutions have the potential to be seriously predatory and anti-social in the broadest sense.

[throwaway3699]

So you'll blindly reject data based on ideological disagreement with the person filming? Sounds like Veritas isn't the biased one here.

[acmdas]

translation: I don't like what Project Veritas presents, so it must be wildly deceitful, and I need not consider the issue any further.