[fidgewidge]

Yeah that's interesting but seems like an incredibly technical reading of the term "political spying operation". They argue that it's an operation because it was planned. It was spying because the undercover journalist was recording everything secretly. And it was political because:

> Defendants make clear that they researched plaintiffs and developed the plan for this operation in response to plaintiffs’ activities related to supposed voter fraud and campaign events, supporting the “political” nature of their conduct

That's pretty nuts, saying that investigating voting fraud is "political". Any police force that enforces ballot laws would then be considered political too? They seem to be using it to mean "something related to politics" instead of the more obvious meaning of politically biased.

They also make a big deal out of some passages from a book O'Keefe wrote where he compares an undercover journalist living out a character to the same strategy as used by Soviet spies. Any undercover investigation could be described as spying in this way.

Doesn't seem very convincing overall? I can think of lots of investigations by big media orgs that could be described exactly the same way. The UK had one called cash for questions some years ago where politicians were recorded accepting bribes. Guess that was also a political spying operation lol.

[Erem]

I disagree with your reading of the evidence and agree with the reading of the presiding judge. But I included the root document so that the rest of the thread can form an opinion.

In all, starting from the court's high bar of impartiality then continuing to the many, less impartial resources on the Internet which nonetheless largely support the point it feels like a situation of: "Who will you trust -- Veritas or your lying eyes"

[fidgewidge]

There isn't any evidence to disagree over. It's just a dispute over whether "political spying operation" is a reasonable description of what they do or exaggerated. I don't think it's reasonable unless all undercover journalism about politicians gets described that way, which it isn't, and you do think it's reasonable. Don't think there's much that can be debated there.

[Erem]

The court disagreed that the term was an exaggeration, and the fact that, as you note, not all undercover journalism is called this way in court should hopefully send a signal that there's something real you are choosing not to see that distinguishes Veritas from more honorable investigation journalism.

But I can't make you see what you choose not to see.