SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Project Veritas
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1606953581

Message started by WebsterMark on 12/02/20 at 15:59:40

Title: Project Veritas
Post by WebsterMark on 12/02/20 at 15:59:40

https://www.projectveritas.com/

Gotta love this guy James O’Keefe. He had someone on the inside linking him into CNN editorial calls for the past two months. Loved the one where he finally unmuted himself and revealed he’d been listening in on them. You could almost hear everyone $hitting in their pants and then wondering who the Judas was.

No surprises in the tapes he’s released so far. Jeff Zucker and gang are Democratic Party advocates attacking the USA under the guise of journalism. Again, in a more civilized time, they’d all be hung.

Check them out on website or on Twitter. He’s trickling out the recordings one or two a day.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by eau de sauvage on 12/02/20 at 16:15:53

http://https://i.postimg.cc/BbwHSBQj/tfh.jpg

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by Eegore on 12/02/20 at 17:19:15

Gotta love when O'Keefe issues a "correction" on that. Again.

O'Keefe is an example of someone with good ideas but extremely poor implementation.

Once he started cutting apart and manipulating his videos, altering, without disclosure, the chronology of his videos etc. he lost a tremendous amount of credibility.

Anyone can record conversations, cut them apart and restructure them and get money forked over to them by people too caught up in their beliefs to even consider that maybe they are being manipulated by the very people they think are exposing truth.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by WebsterMark on 12/02/20 at 18:42:46

Bull$hit Switzerland. If you’re referring to a minor instance of misidentifying a CNN employee today, that hardly matches your over the top claim.

If you’re talking about media outlets pursuing legal challenges using any and all methods in an attempt to take advantage of the media’s partisanship to limit the damage, they to hell with that.

In any other situation where undercover “acceptable media” uses various techniques to target typical conservatives or Republicans, whatever minor sins were committed, are not just ignored, but celebrated.

Focus on the information, the truth, released.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by WebsterMark on 12/02/20 at 18:50:50

Did you listen to any of the recent CNN tapes?

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by Eegore on 12/02/20 at 19:42:00

"If you’re referring to a minor instance of misidentifying a CNN employee today, that hardly matches your over the top claim."

Over the top? So he didn't "correct" his video, the exact and only word I used to describe what his actions today were?

Lets just quote him then so as to not be confused about what I was referring to when I said "correction", literally the first word in O'Keefe's post:

"CORRECTION: @CNNPR has just informed @Project_Veritas that the executive on this tape is in fact their GENERAL COUNSEL David Vigilante, not @marcusmabry. As if that somehow makes it better for them… We apologize for the misidentification. More tapes dropping soon"

"Did you listen to any of the recent CNN tapes?"

Yes. I also watched all of the "American Pravda" in 2017 and those were a bunch of chopped up videos with altered chronology, without disclosure. Why did he have to do that? O'Keefe acknowledged this after he was challenged on it.

Do you follow PV's funding background? Are you on O'Keefe's Twitter? I am.

If you are going to use a source that has a "recording" of a conversation do you want a beginning to end recording (or at least the option to access it) or one that is edited and out of order?

Is that the "truth, released" standard you are willing to accept just because you don't like what CNN is doing?

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by WebsterMark on 12/03/20 at 04:55:44

Listened to all 300 plus hours of Watergate Tapes did ya?....

Telling the story behind a long recording always involves editing. And a story told doesn’t always follow chronological order. I don’t know anything about American Pravda. I know the topic was ACORN but I didn’t listen to anything.

No, I don’t know the entire details behind their funding, do you? Are you suggesting he lies based up who gives him money? Is that your point? So if CNN gibes him a million dollar donation, he’ll go record Fox?

A climate scientist who challenges some warming theories is supported by big oil, but climate scientists who run enormous organizations supported by government grants and guaranteed tenure at major universities are above reproach, honest, practically saints? That’s how you first judge content?

It’s clear his motivation is to reveal the corruptness behind liberal politics. Behind democratic politics. Behind the democratic controlled and run media. Or actually it might be the liberal media runs and controls democratic politics. That actually might be more accurate.

Jeff Zucker and CNN’s motivation is to destroy the conservative Republican party. PERIOD. That’s the only reason they exist. The news that they present is first run through their filter to determine if this is good for liberals or bad for liberals. Is this harmful to Republicans or helpful to Republicans. That’s what they do and that’s what his attempt is to reveal. I applaud that.

CNN is garbage. They are slowly killing the nation by pretending to follow journalistic principles but who clearly don’t. We went through three years of Russian collusion garbage based on pennies spent on Facebook ads but CNN worked tirelessly to get their candidate elected using their enormous platform. That’s what these tapes are revealing.

If you want to play your regular Switzerland roll and try to take the opposite side just because that keeps you above the fray on this forum, go right ahead.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by Eegore on 12/03/20 at 07:33:05

"Listened to all 300 plus hours of Watergate Tapes did ya?...."

No. You really think O'Keefe on a 4 hour sting operation will have 300 hours of recording?

"Telling the story behind a long recording always involves editing. And a story told doesn’t always follow chronological order. I don’t know anything about American Pravda. I know the topic was ACORN but I didn’t listen to anything."

Telling a story is different than re-arranging things to convey a different message. Like taking footage of a biker prayer rally in S America and showing that footage while running audio that it is for a Trump event. Tells a story but is it not pertinent to disclose that the video footage is "representative of" or anything similar instead of just saying "actual footage"? O'Keefe regularly does this and has admitted it.

"No, I don’t know the entire details behind their funding, do you? Are you suggesting he lies based up who gives him money? Is that your point? So if CNN gibes him a million dollar donation, he’ll go record Fox?"

I've followed it for years and I do not know the "entire details" of any funding in any location and you know that since it's impossible. I am suggesting that he alters his presented material to better stimulate profit, without disclosure of the altered material. I am not saying he has no standards, I am saying that if a video that is altered to convey a statement from CNN out of context will make more ad revenue he will do it. Once a video type becomes monetized over a certain threshold that video type cycles more often.

"A climate scientist who challenges some warming theories is supported by big oil, but climate scientists who run enormous organizations supported by government grants and guaranteed tenure at major universities are above reproach, honest, practically saints? That’s how you first judge content?

No I judge it based off of multiple models including placebo ones. I outlined this in detail the last time we had this conversation and you stated I should "go to a party" instead of validating the 3 million data points used to create an average. Don't pretend I grab any source and just say "this one is correct" because I consistently outline the importance of averaging data across multiple sources. Maybe if you didn't dismiss my methods you wouldn't re-question them each time.

"It’s clear his motivation is to reveal the corruptness behind liberal politics. Behind democratic politics. Behind the democratic controlled and run media."

I agree. I do wonder why he won't provide raw material, or even mention until after he's confronted, that the material is often times taken out of context. "Senator X said this in response to subject matter A" and the video shows Senator X making a statement about subject matter Q. That's intentionally misleading. He needs to just complete his projects without the added manipulation on the presentation end.

"CNN is garbage."

I have literally said CNN is "garbage news" on here before, but let's just pretend I didn't so you can call me Switzerland. CNN being trash doesn't mean I am ok with any and all strategies used to expose this. If O'Keefe maintains his current strategy he won't convince anyone that isn't already against CNN because he uses a poor strategy. All he is doing is maintaining his supporters.

"If you want to play your regular Switzerland roll and try to take the opposite side just because that keeps you above the fray on this forum, go right ahead."

I don't care about any "fray". I just think O'Keefe has admitted to presenting material out of context too many times, and the video development pattern syncs too closely with monetization patterns for me to ignore just because CNN is his target.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by MnSpring on 12/03/20 at 07:35:28

7D5D5F574A5D380 wrote:

" ... If you are going to use a source that has ... "

So watching the weather models this morning,
One US 'model' says one thing.
One UK 'model' says something else.
For the SAME area, for the SAME time frame.

Which one is correct,
which one is incorrect ?

Does, 'correctness', depend on which Media source, reports it ?

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by Eegore on 12/03/20 at 07:39:18

"So watching the weather models this morning,"

What models from what source?

"Does, 'correctness', depend on which Media source, reports it ?"

No.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by MnSpring on 12/03/20 at 07:45:39

6141434B5641240 wrote:

What models from what source?

One, the, 'NEWS', from Good Morning America tv program.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by MnSpring on 12/03/20 at 07:53:55

0F2F2D25382F4A0 wrote:

... "Does, 'correctness', depend on which Media source, reports it ?"
No.

I see, so if CNN 'reports' something, it is NOT, automatically, 'correct'.

And if Veritas 'reports' something, it is NOT, automatically, 'wrong'.

(Hey eds & the tt clones, are you listening ?)

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by Serowbot on 12/03/20 at 08:42:20

Weather reports are forecasts,.. or predictions, they are not reported as facts.
If you only want factual weather reporting,... you will never know it's gonna' rain until you are wet.
;D

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by WebsterMark on 12/03/20 at 09:56:59

Telling a story is different than re-arranging things to convey a different message. Like taking footage of a biker prayer rally in S America and showing that footage while running audio that it is for a Trump event. Tells a story but is it not pertinent to disclose that the video footage is "representative of" or anything similar instead of just saying "actual footage"? O'Keefe regularly does this and has admitted it.

“Regularly does this and has admitted to it”. You’re gonna have to prove that.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by WebsterMark on 12/03/20 at 10:12:48

Project Veritas has released the full, unedited, audio of U.S. Postal Service whistleblower Richard Hopkins being questioned by federal authorities after he disclosed ballot manipulation in Erie, Pennsylvania.

The interview was conducted by USPS Office of The Inspector General, Russell Strasser, and Postal Inspector Charles “Chris” Klein. This is the interview where the Washington Post falsely reported that whistleblower Hopkins recanted his statement.

In fact, I see nothing except settling a suit for $100k over the ACORN videos. Actually, a comment in one of the articles I was reading, said they were 6-0 in winning lawsuits against them.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by WebsterMark on 12/03/20 at 10:18:48

1) https://www.projectveritas.com/news/lie-4-james-okeefe-was-guilty-of-and-settled-a-lawsuit-about-misrepresenting/

2) https://www.projectveritas.com/news/lie-2-okeefe-and-project-veritas-deceptively-edit-tapes-acorn-and-other/

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by WebsterMark on 12/03/20 at 11:08:10

There’s something else about publishing the entire contents of a video or a hearing for that matter. I watched about 2 1/2 hours of the Michigan hearing last night and was lucky enough to catch some of the key parts of it. This morning, I get up and read that it was a joke and a complete waste of time. That’s not what I saw. That’s not what the multiple witnesses testified to. What they said does not resemble at all what was published in the mainstream media. So James O’Keefe could put 20 hours a video online and let’s face it about 1/10 of 1% would watch even half of that.

We have a crooked, corrupt news media and anything that brings them down I’m in favor of.

What do you call a journalist, a rope, and a tree?
A good start.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by Eegore on 12/03/20 at 11:34:26

"One, the, 'NEWS', from Good Morning America tv program."

Those aren't the weather models I am talking about. Those are weather reports from mainstream news.

"I see, so if CNN 'reports' something, it is NOT, automatically, 'correct'.

And if Veritas 'reports' something, it is NOT, automatically, 'wrong'."

Exactly. The issue is the resistance to accepting that Veritas has admitted to altering video for the purpose of altering the context. Veritas has been wrong and manipulative multiple times, just like CNN, and people want to defend Veritas as if they have done some version of superior journalism. For some reason I am expected to ignore all the manipulated videos this one time because they are exposing CNN.

I see no reason to ignore that my neighbor lied to me in the past because he is telling me something I want to hear now.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by Eegore on 12/03/20 at 11:47:19

Project Veritas has released the full, unedited, audio of U.S. Postal Service whistleblower Richard Hopkins being questioned by federal authorities after he disclosed ballot manipulation in Erie, Pennsylvania.

Actually they did not release it, they did however link to it. Listen to it if you want to see classic interrogation methods.

I never said O'Keefe only manipulates his video footage, I am saying he has. I am saying he has refused to provide raw footage, not that he always does.

I am saying that after initially following the group in 2010 there were a string of videos that all the sudden started being conveyed in a different format. Then the discrepancies started occurring more frequently and I couldn't just say it was chance or honest mistakes.

The difference here is I am not so caught up in the mission of PV that I ignore when they do some things I would not agree meets my standard of honest presentation.

"What they said does not resemble at all what was published in the mainstream media."

Of course not. Mainstream media is garbage as they appeal to customers for revenue. I choose not to use it as a primary source of information, I have stated that here for years.

"We have a crooked, corrupt news media and anything that brings them down I’m in favor of."

This is where I disagree. If an organization wants to expose something the minute they resort to crime, manipulation, lies etc. they lose their credibility and actually help the other side. Do things that helps change, not just drive up profit from the people that already agree with you.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by MnSpring on 12/03/20 at 13:05:15

4A6A68607D6A0F0 wrote:

... This is where I disagree. If an organization wants to expose something the minute they resort to crime, manipulation, lies etc. they lose their credibility and actually help the other side. ...

(in response to: "We have a crooked, corrupt news media and anything that brings them down I’m in favor of."

So the UL, FDS, DFI Socialistic people,
when they CRY that a current POTUS is corrupt,
and do Anything and Everything they can possibly can to bring him down.
Have lost their credibility ?

Good to know how you feel about the tt clones and the TDS affected !

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by MnSpring on 12/03/20 at 13:11:04

0E2E2C24392E4B0 wrote:

... Those are weather reports from mainstream news....

Thinking that a person named Al Roker, would disagree with you,
as he called them models.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by WebsterMark on 12/03/20 at 13:37:43

Exactly. The issue is the resistance to accepting that Veritas has admitted to altering video for the purpose of altering the context. Veritas has been wrong and manipulative multiple times,

I do not see where they’ve admitted altering video for the purpose of altering the context - multiple times.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by Eegore on 12/03/20 at 15:03:10

"Thinking that a person named Al Roker, would disagree with you,
as he called them models."

He can call them whatever he wants. I don't consider them climate change models, and they aren't the models I am talking about. That is why I used the phrase:

"Those aren't the weather models I am talking about."

To clarify, I am not talking about Al Roker's models. I am talking about extensive long-term weather models specific to change over time.

"So the UL, FDS, DFI Socialistic people,
when they CRY that a current POTUS is corrupt,
and do Anything and Everything they can possibly can to bring him down.
Have lost their credibility ?"

Yes. I have said that before but you conveniently ignore it. Just like ignoring that I worked to get gun control measures reduced in CO, and was part of the lawsuit that defunded Government takeover of private ranch land and when I worked to, and successfully had politicians recalled, but instead you want to claim the only way someone would want to restructure the phrasing of the Second Amendment is to get rid of guns. So that means I am pro-gun control.

You see what you want and ignore the rest.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by Eegore on 12/03/20 at 15:23:21

"I do not see where they’ve admitted altering video for the purpose of altering the context - multiple times."

The "for the purpose of" is my assessment. Let me re-word it:

They’ve admitted altering video, by my assessment to alter context.

If you don't consider the response to that ACORN ruling and the NPR quote cutting to be altering video that changes the context then we simply will not agree.

O'Keefe has discussed that, the NPR quote, and the Medicaid videos.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by WebsterMark on 12/04/20 at 05:28:32

They’ve admitted altering video, by my assessment to alter context.

Then every news story that uses less than full length video does it to alter context. ACORN demonstrated a willingness to look past the proposed criminal behavior of their potential clients in order to achieve their goal. That’s what the video portrayed. The fact one of the acorn members showed some concern for one of the women later on doesn’t change that fact.

A thief who robs your home but leaves personal pictures is still not a good guy. If you were to do a story on video and the owner of the home said family pictures were left behind on camera but you as the editor, left that out, are you guilty of “the Eegore sin” of video manipulation to alter context?

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by MnSpring on 12/04/20 at 06:17:35

133331392433560 wrote:

... like ignoring that I worked to get gun control measures reduced in CO ...

Don't know what you did, don't know what it was before and what changed.
Perhaps it was before my time here.

... was part of the lawsuit that defunded Government takeover of private ranch land ...

Again, don't know what you did, don't know what it was before and what changed.
Perhaps it was before my time here.

... worked to, and successfully had politicians recalled ...

And yet again, don't know what you did, don't know what it was before and what changed.
Perhaps it was before my time here.
I am still involved with recalling the highly Socialistic Gov in Minn
What does that count for ?

... but instead you want to claim the only way someone would want to restructure the phrasing of the Second Amendment is to get rid of guns.

Not all, (now), but certain models.
And guns that, 'Look Like', them !
After-all, the, 'semi-auto', with a detachable clip,
was not aground in 1776.
It was only a functional Firearm, widely used for hunting,
for the past 120 YEARS !

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by Eegore on 12/04/20 at 08:43:52

Don't know what you did, don't know what it was before and what changed.
Perhaps it was before my time here.

It wasn't as I have brought it up multiple times in response to your posts. Just like all the other activities I brought up.

"Not all, (now), but certain models.
And guns that, 'Look Like', them !
After-all, the, 'semi-auto', with a detachable clip,
was not aground in 1776.
It was only a functional Firearm, widely used for hunting,
for the past 120 YEARS !"

So it is impossible to rephrase the Second Amendment in ways that can modernize, and strengthen it? That makes no sense to me.

If I propose:

"All firearms can be owned by legal US citizens without restriction. This can not be altered in any way by any Government action."

That is a gun control measure?

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by Eegore on 12/04/20 at 09:02:04

"Then every news story that uses less than full length video does it to alter context"

Incorrect. One can edit to alter the timeframe but maintain context.

If I video tape you saying:

"I love going to Wal-Mart but after the recent changes I will no longer be a customer."

Then edit it to say:

"I love going to Wal-mart" AND include that you are no longer a customer due to changes by another medium I am editing and maintaining context.

If I edit to say: "I love going to Wal-mart"

That clearly alters the context.

The NPR edit is an example of reporting the bad, but going overboard to make it seem worse. So basically it's saying the news story not only leaves out the family photos, but edits it to make it seem like the burglar is also racist.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by WebsterMark on 12/04/20 at 10:28:23

I don’t view the NPR video like that and your characterization that this is typical is false. If so, I would imagine he would have paid out millions in settlements by now.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by Eegore on 12/04/20 at 12:00:55

Not everyone is going to sue over PV videos, lack of lawsuits is not a strong assessment of accuracy. I've been watching PV's and O'Keefe's footage and audio change for over a decade.

When you watch the short NPR video PV states that an Islamic group website says:

"the organization sought to spread the acceptance of sharia across the world."

They then show Ron Schiller laughing and saying "Really, that's what they said?".

That response was to a different event. Why did it have to be edited that way? We know why, but choose to justify it because Shiller is a dirt bag. He wasn't reacting to that statement but the video leads us to believe he was. That's out of context.

After the Palestinian radio comment they cut out the "There is such a big firewall between funding and reporting. Reporters will not be swayed in any way, shape or form." part of his response. I think the immediate response holds more bearing to the conversation than choosing a response later and then editing it so it plays as if they were in sequence.

Answers to questions were out of sequence. To me that's altering the context.

So, to me, just because I don't care for Schiller or NPR doesn't mean I am going to ignore that the responses shown are not the immediate responses to the questions or statements given.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by WebsterMark on 12/04/20 at 15:06:37

2606040C1106630 wrote:

People loath PV and James O’Keefe. If they had a case, they’d sue. They don’t.

Title: Re: Project Veritas
Post by Eegore on 12/04/20 at 15:49:32

People loath PV and James O’Keefe. If they had a case, they’d sue. They don’t.

Possibly, but they still need a case.

I don't use lawsuit frequency to evaluate the manipulation of videos, I use the actual videos.

The NPR video, the Medicaid videos, all show answers out of sequence. This obviously has not resulted in a lawsuit but how can you watch the long versions and not see the changes?

When people do this with Trump it's fake news and poor conduct. But if it's for Trump all the sudden it's all good.

I am still not impressed by any means with NPR, or CNN but I am not going to pretend PV is presenting videos completely in context.