Media Bias

[pErvinalia]

[Seabass]

[Cunt]

Project Veritas released an Assange recording.

If the media is biased, they will probably not cover it in your main channels.

[Sean Hayden]

Project Veritas has zero credibility. If avoiding bias is our goal shouldn't we avoid them?

[Sean Hayden]

The guy's like a fucking robot man. I mean, what are the odds that he's completely unaware of what he's doing?

[Cunt]

Project Veritas has zero credibility. If avoiding bias is our goal shouldn't we avoid them?

There have been a lot of people making that claim. Some are listed here.

Welcome to the Project Veritas 'Wall of Shame', a place where blue checkmark mainstream media "journalists" reputations go to die. The 'Wall of Shame' is the place where we post retractions that these "journalists" have had to print over the years about James O'Keefe or Project Veritas. To date, over 300 "journalists" just couldn't stick to the facts in their reporting and were forced to print the glorious retractions you see here. Enjoy.

Of course, the media bias against his 'hidden camera' stuff is understandable. Especially since they turn out to be very skeezy behind the curtain.

[Sean Hayden]

His 'hidden camera' stuff has been proven to be edited to amplify his message, often without regard to what's lost in the process. He's been caught doing so even while claiming the footage is unedited. When journalist engage in this kind of behavior they lose credibility. Of course he's done worse, but that should be enough for someone claiming to be so sensitive to bias.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, but Veritas is Latin for truth so they can't be lying, right?

[Sean Hayden]

Exactly --and, there's that odd language again, every time man...

[Cunt]

His 'hidden camera' stuff has been proven to be edited to amplify his message, often without regard to what's lost in the process. He's been caught doing so even while claiming the footage is unedited. When journalist engage in this kind of behavior they lose credibility. Of course he's done worse, but that should be enough for someone claiming to be so sensitive to bias.

What was he dishonest about? I get that you don't trust him. I trust declared bias a lot more than I trust those who are skilled at hiding their bias.

[Seabass]

I mean, what are the odds that he's completely unaware of what he's doing?

It's an interesting question. Naturally, I'm inclined to think he knows he's full of shit but does it anyway because he's cynical and wants the ratings and money. But according to Bob Altemeyer's research, Right-Wing Authoritarians are just really good at compartmentalization. There's no self-awareness, no self-reflection, no scrutinizing of one's own beliefs, none of that internal dialogue that says "these two conflicting beliefs can't both be true". It's how RWAs can have all those crazy religious beliefs and how guys like this:



can be white supremacists.

Perhaps trying to apply normal-person logic to RWAs is simply pointless...

[Cunt]

Yes, left-wing nut-jobs and those on the political right do live in different universes.

[Sean Hayden]

His 'hidden camera' stuff has been proven to be edited to amplify his message, often without regard to what's lost in the process. He's been caught doing so even while claiming the footage is unedited. When journalist engage in this kind of behavior they lose credibility. Of course he's done worse, but that should be enough for someone claiming to be so sensitive to bias.

What was he dishonest about? I get that you don't trust him. I trust declared bias a lot more than I trust those who are skilled at hiding their bias.

Of course his dishonesty might be considered worse. It has lead to the firing of innocent people, and pointless criminal investigations, some of which have come back to bite him e.g. he had to pay $100,000 to a victim of the ACORN scandal.

Please keep in mind that you have given the impression that you're very sensitive to bias. You don't like it.

[Cunt]

Can't stream your vid right now, but I noticed that you didn't address his release of Zucker's morning calls.

Nor the retraction wall where incidences might outweigh your one example (I'll check into acorn a bit, but have to skip vid)

The story is about his exposure of wealthy elites like Zucker who steer public opinion by deciding what narrative to apply and which stories to suppress.

I don't like bias, but it's a lot harder to detect with folks who are more skilled at deceptively obscuring their bias. (i.e. - corporatespeak) so I prefer a declared bias, to one in denial about their bias. Why is THAT so hard for you to grasp?

The 'left bias' is rather invisible, until you can see the other perspective fairly.

[Cunt]

Starting with PV's info about it...
https://www.projectveritas.com/investigation/acorn/

I did see this report...

The settlement, first reported by Wonkette, states that "Mr O'Keefe regrets any pain suffered by Mr Vera or his family." It notes that the payment is "in no way representative of any actual or implied admissions of liability".

The statement of regret seemed to be undercut by a statement posted Friday on O'Keefe's website, Project Veritas, in which he calls the lawsuit "meritless".

O'Keefe's activism against Acorn led to a national controversy, the withdrawal of funding and ultimately the organization's demise.

So it looks like he paid due to damaging someone's career, for not including facts about how the employee followed up...

Still doesn't discredit his ACORN report, nor the Zucker calls.