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.

"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?  

"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.  

"So watching the weather models this morning,"

What models from what source?


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

 No.

Eegore wrote on 12/03/20 at 07:39:18:

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 ?)

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.