Jump to content

Talk:Project Veritas: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 36: Line 36:
:::Here's Newsweek[https://www.newsweek.com/james-okeefe-expand-his-war-cnn-lawsuits-more-video-1583722] with a third-party report on one of the videos in their possession. The general assessment seems to be that this expose is a pretty big hit to CNN's credibility. [[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] ([[User talk:Pkeets|talk]]) 01:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
:::Here's Newsweek[https://www.newsweek.com/james-okeefe-expand-his-war-cnn-lawsuits-more-video-1583722] with a third-party report on one of the videos in their possession. The general assessment seems to be that this expose is a pretty big hit to CNN's credibility. [[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] ([[User talk:Pkeets|talk]]) 01:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
::::{{re|Pkeets}} Please note [[WP:RSP#Newsweek (2013–present)]]. When you are saying "the general assessment" do you mean in that ''Newsweek'' source, or among other stuff you're reading? Because I definitely do not get that impression that the ''Newsweek'' article is drawing that conclusion. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 01:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
::::{{re|Pkeets}} Please note [[WP:RSP#Newsweek (2013–present)]]. When you are saying "the general assessment" do you mean in that ''Newsweek'' source, or among other stuff you're reading? Because I definitely do not get that impression that the ''Newsweek'' article is drawing that conclusion. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 01:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::I've read several articles on this today, so that's my take on the "general assessment." See Newsweek third-party report on what Chester said at the link.[[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] ([[User talk:Pkeets|talk]]) 01:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
::You mean have a court hearing where CNN is sued, takes the stand and a jury decides? Sounds good to me. Maybe we should get some class action stuff started.[[User:Airpeka|Airpeka]] ([[User talk:Airpeka|talk]]) 15:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
::You mean have a court hearing where CNN is sued, takes the stand and a jury decides? Sounds good to me. Maybe we should get some class action stuff started.[[User:Airpeka|Airpeka]] ([[User talk:Airpeka|talk]]) 15:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
:::No I mean where an RS is given access to the full, unedited, video and then has an analysis of what is in fact actually said in response to what.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
:::No I mean where an RS is given access to the full, unedited, video and then has an analysis of what is in fact actually said in response to what.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:32, 17 April 2021


Expose CNN

So one of CNN executives admitted on video they are propaganda and has been seen by hundreds of thousands of people. Yet no mention here yet? That's kinda big. I would say it is notable and reliable information, being that it has been seen by soon to be millions of people, and came directly from the guys mouth on video.Airpeka (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given how they operate I would rather wait till we see third-party analysis of what was actually said by whom and in what context.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Newsweek[1] with a third-party report on one of the videos in their possession. The general assessment seems to be that this expose is a pretty big hit to CNN's credibility. Pkeets (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pkeets: Please note WP:RSP#Newsweek (2013–present). When you are saying "the general assessment" do you mean in that Newsweek source, or among other stuff you're reading? Because I definitely do not get that impression that the Newsweek article is drawing that conclusion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've read several articles on this today, so that's my take on the "general assessment." See Newsweek third-party report on what Chester said at the link.Pkeets (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mean have a court hearing where CNN is sued, takes the stand and a jury decides? Sounds good to me. Maybe we should get some class action stuff started.Airpeka (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No I mean where an RS is given access to the full, unedited, video and then has an analysis of what is in fact actually said in response to what.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Newsweek link here [2] Pkeets (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a, "you show yours and I'll show mine" type thing would be possible... during discovery... in a court of law? Sounds good to me. Maybe Jeff should just sign some checks and we'll write in the zeros. We'll be fair!Airpeka (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What? OK, lets wait for inclusion when (and if) this has been taken to court.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Airpeka, what are the multiple RS which document this? Please provide them so we know what you're talking about. For curiosity's sake, please provide the PV source as well. -- Valjean (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has this been reported in any reliable sources yet? (And no, Project Veritas is not a reliable source.) I don't see it. Saxones288 (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's none of your "reliable sources" (read: only left wing sources) because project veritas is exposing their far-left agenda. There is a clear conflict of interest.

New York Times is citing this Wikipedia article in their lawsuit. So you are actually influencing actual lawsuits by spreading lies about project veritas here. User:Sal at PV come help your company from slander dude. 2605:B100:D10:5DD6:F5E8:9044:9D5D:4D2C (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See? You can't even talk here without getting reverted, if you say something local censors don't like. They will just whine about their "reliable sources", which is just an arbitrary demand to make writing non defamatory things about PV and other organizations impossible. And also to make criticism of CNN and other progressive media impossible, since they are those "reliable sources" and of course they won't inform about themselves being exposed for manipulating the public discourse and the election. THese people don't accept a video of CCN leadership saying they manipulated the election, just because PV made it. But would accept it, if CNN reposted it, (since it is about them). And they don't even see this as weird in their doublethink. And now they also erase dissenting people from talk pages to create impression that their opinion is the only existing one. Kinda like when Twitter purged Keefe for that CNN gig.Vojtaruzek (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not want to follow the verifiability policy, which states that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable" and that "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source", then Wikipedia is not a good fit for your contributions. One of these alternative outlets may be a better fit. There are conservative sources that are considered reliable on Wikipedia. However, as a disinformation outlet, Project Veritas is not one of them. — Newslinger talk 03:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So basically CNN said that Veritas saying CNN lied are lies. Move along, nothing to see here. But when police say they don't think police did anything wrong, we should make an article about it. 2601:602:9200:1310:1566:8AD6:E36B:6609 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, confirm that Project Veritas has repeatedly propagated disinformation (including fake news) in its videos and operations. See the sources cited in Special:Permalink/1018085423 § cite note-disinformation-14 for details. — Newslinger talk 07:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CNN is not the only source we use.Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021

1- Project Veritas’ purpose is NOT Disinformation. They show videos of people actually talking, unlike our MSM that ask the public to trust “Sources”.

2- Project Veritas is NOT a Far-Right Organization. They actually expose the Right Wing Politicians and news outlets just the same.

3- (Personal attack removed)... you are hurting your image and driving it into the ground. 173.2.161.24 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Newslinger talk 01:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has for quite sometime been excellent at creating and using the 'broken feedback loop' method. unfortunately for them this is no longer and invisible hand. Project Veritas Wall of shame shows how successful they have been in their endeavors to expose the lies and falsities of those organisations that they have been stacked up against. Wiki is losing trust by the day here, and now that we have one of the founders explaining this problem within it on Tim Pool, it is obvious for all to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.166.80 (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the high-quality academic publications cited in this article. Here is a sample:

Despite seething antipathy toward journalism, Veritas assays to coopt the prestige of the profession and to penetrate its mainstream discourses (as flagged in the epigram). While the status of professional journalism has absorbed blows in recent decades, it retains the greatest reach for news discourse. In this view, Veritas seeks the prize of the mainstream's approval and its vestigial prestige that O'Keefe otherwise dismisses. Hence, "Project Veritas journalist" title cards in its videos tendentiously assert Veritas personnel's qualifications to mainstream specifications. Despite its bids for professional authority, Veritas manifestly defies the letter and the spirit of journalism ethics.

Goss, Brian Michael (March 12, 2018). "Veritable Flak Mill". Journalism Studies. 19 (4): 548–563. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2017.1375388. ISSN 1461-670X. S2CID 149185981.

In November 2017, for example, the right-wing disinformation outfit Project Veritas tried to trip up the Washington Post, offering the Post a fake informant who told the Post that Roy Moore had impregnated her when she was a teenager. The sting operation was intended to undermine the credibility of the Post’s reporting on Roy Moore's alleged pursuit and harassment of teens when he was a 30-something-year-old. Rather than jumping at the opportunity to develop the Moore story, the Washington Post's reporters followed the professional model—checked out the source, assessed her credibility, and ultimately detected and outed the attempt at manipulation. Mainstream media editors and journalists must understand that they are under a sustained attack, sometimes as premeditated and elaborate as this sting, usually more humdrum.

Benkler, Yochai; Faris, Rob; Roberts, Hal (October 2018). "What Can Men Do Against Such Reckless Hate?". Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford University Press. p. 358. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-092362-4. OCLC 1045162158. Archived from the original on January 26, 2021. Retrieved January 29, 2021.

False information can make movements defend the accuracy of their own claims and materials because of doubt sowed by countermovements and governments (Tufekci 2017). For instance, Project Veritas, an alt-right group, has a track record of attacking movements through misleading editing of videos and through fabricated 'sting' operations (Benkler et al. 2018).

Tumber, Howard; Waisbord, Silvio (March 24, 2021). The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-34678-7. Retrieved 19 March 2021 – via Google Books.

An additional example of the growing spread of fake news financed by billionaires is Project Veritas, an organization run by James O'Keefe that specializes in operations against the media (e.g., recently against the Washington Post and the New York Times). According to the Washington Post, relying on documents fielded with the International Revenue Service, Project Veritas received $1.7 million in 2017 from charity associated with the Koch brothers. Furthermore, other contributors to Project Veritas in recent years include Gravitas Maximus LLC, an organization controlled by the Mercer family.

Cagé, Julia (February 11, 2021). "From Philanthropy to Democracy: Rethinking Governance and Funding of High-Quality News in the Digital Age". In Bernholz, Lucy; Landemore, Hélène; Reich, Rob (eds.). Digital Technology and Democratic Theory. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-74860-3. Retrieved 27 March 2021 – via Google Books.

Key is if—and it is a big if—it is possible to verify the truth of the material through supporting documentation, including notes and raw footage, and expert or independent analysis, and the forthrightness of the editing of the report, tape, or transcript. In the end, these considerations, I think, matter more than the impetus for its creation. In the Ron Schiller instance, these standards were not met before the video got wide mainstream play. Although Project Veritas described the footage as "largely the raw video" redacted only in one brief section to ensure the safety of an NPR correspondent overseas, analysis by others (interestingly, the most impressive was done by fellow conservatives at Glenn Beck’s The Blaze) pinpointed instances of highly selective editing of the two-hour hidden camera taping—discrediting it, even though the slanted finesses did not concern the key comments that forced the two Schillers out.

Kroeger, Brooke (August 31, 2012). "Watchdog". Undercover Reporting: The Truth About Deception. Northwestern University Press. pp. 249–254. ISBN 978-0-8101-2619-0. JSTOR j.ctt22727sf.17. Archived from the original on December 6, 2020. Retrieved 7 November 2020 – via JSTOR.

— Newslinger talk 05:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CNN 2021 expose

Why all the hedging on this video expose? The content has now been reported widely by outlets including Newsweek and ABC News (especially after O'Keefe was suspended by Twitter for posting the videos), and the identity of the CNN employee is also verified. Wikipedia seems to be perfectly fine with posting possibly defamatory statements about other public figures and companies, so I don't understand the reluctance about CNN. Pkeets (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing this above.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pkeets: Can you clarify what change you think ought to be made? And if there are "possibly defamatory statements about other public figures" being made somewhere on Wikipedia, I would highly recommend raising your concerns at the relevant talk pages, although I would note that well-sourced but critical statements about a person is not the same as defamation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021 (2)

There are no logical/factual articles that show this group is far right. Just opinion pieces.

They have not restricted the speech of anybody. They also have not been discriminatory to anyone. They do not exhibit any far right tendencies by definition of the term, far right. This is totally illogical.

If a group of my friends get together and call you an apple, that doesn't make you an apple. That's not how that works. SilveradoNomads (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you posted this in the right article? Do we say they restrict free speech, or that they discriminate??Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


When you call someone or a group far right, you are saying they do far right things. One of the things that the far right does is called oppression. What does oppression do? It impacts your freedom of speech.. here, from wikipedia itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

"Far-right politics can lead to oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, or genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture, or ultraconservative Traditionalist conservatism social institutions.[3]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression

"Authoritarian oppression

The word oppress comes from the Latin oppressus, past participle of opprimere, ("to press against",[4] "to squeeze", "to suffocate").[5] Thus, when authoritarian governments use oppression to subjugate the people, they want their citizenry to feel that "pressing down", and to live in fear that if they displease the authorities they will, in a metaphorical sense, be "squeezed" and "suffocated", e.g., thrown in a dank, dark, state prison or summarily executed. Such governments oppress the people using restriction, control, terror, hopelessness, and despair.[b] The tyrant's tools of oppression include, for example, extremely harsh punishments for "unpatriotic" statements; developing a loyal, guileful secret police force; prohibiting freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press; controlling the monetary system and economy; and imprisoning or killing activists or other leaders who might pose a threat to their power.[6][7][8][9][10] "


Matter of fact, have they done any of the above?

You know exactly what we wanted to be edited out, stop being obtuse. They are not far right, edit that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilveradoNomads (talk • contribs) 18:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can, so it is one part of being far-right. We have RS say they are far-right, for a number of reasons.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SilveradoNomads: Please see Q2 of the FAQ at the top of the page. This has been discussed at great length, and your appeals to original research are not going to change the fact that Wikipedia reflects what is published in reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not reliable sources, sir.

Those are opinion articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilveradoNomads (talk • contribs) 18:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to us they are, if you disagree take it to wp:rsn.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"According to us they are" How far-right of you.

Thanks, I'll check it out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SilveradoNomads (talk • contribs) 19:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021 (3)

I apologise, but this page is wrong. Change right-wing to Right leaning. Change the all around verbiage of the practices of actual journalism, the current framing implies malice and ill-intent. This open the website to lawsuits 209.207.13.95 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_Veritas&oldid=1018250077"