Right Wing Advocates Fail at Duping The Washington Post

Did they report their finding? That WaPo is very solid? Lol. The goal here is clear. Spin away though.

The good out of this is the WaPo shows that all organizations, other than those on the very right must be diligence in their work. And that the public see the shameless path taken to try to discredit real reporting and to manufacture bad reporting. Won't be the last. These people will continue to find new lows.

 

Sounds like spin on your part. I mean, even if you are right about the intentions, it still changes nothing because what was done was inherently a good thing. It's like b****ing about consumer reports because the person who exposes the company who was harming the people had beef with the company.

I'm not sure why you are clinging to irrelevant factors rather than looking at what is important when it comes to this story, that the Washington Post does their homework when it comes to vetting the rumors that they are fed.

 

Utter fail and amateurism by O'Keefe.

Meanwhile incredible professionalism and methodicalness by the Washington Post

Video says it all.

 

To piggy back on this @Bobbythegreat

Since apparently the "security testing" is complete. Will Veritas announce the Washington Post has sound journalistic procedures in place?

Just admit you are wrong. Lol

 

Nice try. Good spin / polishing a turd per usual.

Where the hell is the "consumer report" from the unbiased Veritas then?

 

Hopefully so. I mean, when the Washington Post vetted the story, they found out that Veritas was behind it and beat them to the punch. Hopefully we'd hear something giving them credit.

Again, you guys are kind of being ridiculous about this. It's a win for the Washington Post, why detract from that?

 

Because you're not being intellectually honest.

 

In what way? By pointing out that the Washington Post did what they should have done? Such odd gymnastics on your part.

 

By saying Veritas did it for the public good, and not driven by their own agenda.

The ends do not justify the means here.

 

I've said many times now that even if we assume that they had nefarious intent, the result is still in the public interest. You are hung up on why they did what they did, I'm more interested in what they did and the outcome. If someone points out that a child's toy creates a choking hazard and puts infants in danger, does it matter that they did it because they have beef with the company in question? Of course not.

In this instance, what was proven was that the Washington Post does their homework and doesn't just blindly print rumors. IMO that's valuable for the people to know, even if it wasn't their intent.

 

Soon. It's about how the WaPo set them up and that she was secretly working for Obama, not Veritas.

 

Now you're switching the example from airport screening to children's toy choking hazards.

And yes, even in your example, it is terrible for someone to spread "fake news" regarding a toy manufacturer's safety standards for nefarious reasons; such as to benefit a competitor, or one-self.

 

It's not "fake news" if it's accurate. Spreading accurate news for a nefarious reason still benefits the public.

 

A lot of premises and narratives have been created by 'project veritas'. Many of these premises are actually used in making many legisltetive decisions. Some of these premises have been used to murder people.

 

Agreed that it's good that people see that the Post vets its stories. We wouldn't have known if the Post hadn't told us, but whatever. The problem is O'Keefe was trying to make a test WaPo couldn't pass. He failed this time. But, it is going to be possible to make a conspiracy large enough and smart enough that it will be able to trick a legitimate, professional, and well-meaning newspaper to print a falsehood despite them doing all reasonable due diligence. So the intentions of the tester and the parameters of the test matter. We can't expect infallibility from journalists, just like we can't expect it from Trump or anyone else. If O'Keefe succeeds in laying a trap for WaPo, the right will all descend upon it to destroy their reputation and credibility on the basis of a trick. This is not a good way to enforce reasonable standards.

 

Agree with JV that they will eventually fool the WaPo or NYT. And the only real goal of that can be to discredit these outlets, to tear down institutions that are trying to report the truth to the public.

This "Veritas" business is just another flavor of what Russia is trying to do to weaken their perceived enemies around the globe: attack the nature of truth. Makes their name a delicious and horrifying kind of ironic, I guess.

You (Russia, or say, Breitbart) make up whatever the hell you want as long as it fits your agenda. Doesn't need to have any relation to truth. Then, you undermine public confidence in those who are actually trying to report the truth. The public, in your endgame, gets completely confused about what is true, or at the very least, they look at the agenda-driven completely fake stories as equivalent to actually reported stories.

Sure, liberals gets too excited and dire about these things, but I do wonder: how much erosion in basic truth agreement can a society weather? I guess we will find out, in our lifetimes. It's very hard to reverse all these kinds of trends, and a good number of people have found that it's very profitable (economically and politically) to distort and disguise and discredit actual facts.

 

Pretty much this. Bobby's defense of PV's "actions" is sickening. The "why" of Project Veritas matters because the "why" suggests that their mission is to continue doing this, improving, and making stories that will deceive even the best reporters that this country has to offer. A journalist can only follow certain, tried and true principles, and rely on their gut. This is why having well-meaning reporters, along with well-meaning subjects to investigate, is required. It's a 2-way street, if society wants news organizations to provide accurate news all the time, then it is their duty to feed them accurate information that is genuine.

 

There are political non-profits (527s?).

 

I hope they do, if anything it'll keep them on their toes and prevent them from getting lazy about vetting sources. I'm not sure why that worries you, but it shouldn't. If they manage to get one over on "the best" reporters, it just means that they need to step their game up.

 

As he said the why is not important. He now needs to attempt an assassination on Trump to show how well the secret service is able to provide protection.

The why (to prove a ignorant post on a message board) is not important.