|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 18 2023 20:40 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2023 20:03 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 18:57 Acrofales wrote:I've been following the reveal of Team Jorge. It hasn't had anything much to do with US politics, but I was asked by Blackjack the other day if I would want a bunch of stuff that was probably just fake news, but could hurt a politician I disagree with banned from Twitter. I agreed that I did, but the discussion is a bit broader than that. Maybe this Guardian article will give people a window into the pernicious world of fake news generation.It's an opinion column, but it discusses some of the main "achievements" of Team Jorge, and draws conclusions from that. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/17/the-guardian-view-on-disinformation-online-a-21st-century-growth-industryThe healthy functioning of democracies depends on the quality of the information that frames debate within them. But
digitalisation, the rise of social media and increasingly sophisticated forms of artificial intelligence are delivering new opportunities to poison the well of public discourse. Unfortunately, as a Guardian investigation this week illustrates, exploiting these is a 21st-century growth industry.
Alongside state-sponsored actors, increasing numbers of private firms are profiting from the dissemination of disinformation on behalf of political and corporate clients. Undercover research, in conjunction with 30 other media organisations, has exposed the inner workings of one such outfit – an Israeli black ops unit which combines the use of automated disinformation on social media with hacking and the seeding of fabricated stories in mainstream news outlets. The resulting revelations offer the deepest, most detailed insight yet into evolving forms of digital malpractice.
I think it's also worth mentioning the difference between disinformation and minsinformation. I think most people are actually on board with not allowing some black ops group to completely fabricate news to spread disinformation in an effort to influence foreign countries. What's baffling to some people is when you want to go many steps further and suppress news stories for reasons like you disagree with the editoralization of the subject matter or whatever reason you actually use. I think most people are actually not on board with that type of suppression for good reason. Should it be allowed to interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it?
Like if someone asked someone a question and then answer "no" but instead they edit it a "yes" from a different question that was answered? Yeah I would consider that a fabrication that shouldn't be allowed unless it's an obvious parody
|
On February 18 2023 20:52 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2023 20:40 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2023 20:03 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 18:57 Acrofales wrote:I've been following the reveal of Team Jorge. It hasn't had anything much to do with US politics, but I was asked by Blackjack the other day if I would want a bunch of stuff that was probably just fake news, but could hurt a politician I disagree with banned from Twitter. I agreed that I did, but the discussion is a bit broader than that. Maybe this Guardian article will give people a window into the pernicious world of fake news generation.It's an opinion column, but it discusses some of the main "achievements" of Team Jorge, and draws conclusions from that. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/17/the-guardian-view-on-disinformation-online-a-21st-century-growth-industryThe healthy functioning of democracies depends on the quality of the information that frames debate within them. But
digitalisation, the rise of social media and increasingly sophisticated forms of artificial intelligence are delivering new opportunities to poison the well of public discourse. Unfortunately, as a Guardian investigation this week illustrates, exploiting these is a 21st-century growth industry.
Alongside state-sponsored actors, increasing numbers of private firms are profiting from the dissemination of disinformation on behalf of political and corporate clients. Undercover research, in conjunction with 30 other media organisations, has exposed the inner workings of one such outfit – an Israeli black ops unit which combines the use of automated disinformation on social media with hacking and the seeding of fabricated stories in mainstream news outlets. The resulting revelations offer the deepest, most detailed insight yet into evolving forms of digital malpractice.
I think it's also worth mentioning the difference between disinformation and minsinformation. I think most people are actually on board with not allowing some black ops group to completely fabricate news to spread disinformation in an effort to influence foreign countries. What's baffling to some people is when you want to go many steps further and suppress news stories for reasons like you disagree with the editoralization of the subject matter or whatever reason you actually use. I think most people are actually not on board with that type of suppression for good reason. Should it be allowed to interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it? Like if someone asked someone a question and then answer "no" but instead they edit it a "yes" from a different question that was answered? Yeah I would consider that a fabrication that shouldn't be allowed unless it's an obvious parody Good, glad we agree that project Veritas spread disinformation that should not be allowed.
|
On February 18 2023 21:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2023 20:52 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 20:40 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2023 20:03 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 18:57 Acrofales wrote:I've been following the reveal of Team Jorge. It hasn't had anything much to do with US politics, but I was asked by Blackjack the other day if I would want a bunch of stuff that was probably just fake news, but could hurt a politician I disagree with banned from Twitter. I agreed that I did, but the discussion is a bit broader than that. Maybe this Guardian article will give people a window into the pernicious world of fake news generation.It's an opinion column, but it discusses some of the main "achievements" of Team Jorge, and draws conclusions from that. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/17/the-guardian-view-on-disinformation-online-a-21st-century-growth-industryThe healthy functioning of democracies depends on the quality of the information that frames debate within them. But
digitalisation, the rise of social media and increasingly sophisticated forms of artificial intelligence are delivering new opportunities to poison the well of public discourse. Unfortunately, as a Guardian investigation this week illustrates, exploiting these is a 21st-century growth industry.
Alongside state-sponsored actors, increasing numbers of private firms are profiting from the dissemination of disinformation on behalf of political and corporate clients. Undercover research, in conjunction with 30 other media organisations, has exposed the inner workings of one such outfit – an Israeli black ops unit which combines the use of automated disinformation on social media with hacking and the seeding of fabricated stories in mainstream news outlets. The resulting revelations offer the deepest, most detailed insight yet into evolving forms of digital malpractice.
I think it's also worth mentioning the difference between disinformation and minsinformation. I think most people are actually on board with not allowing some black ops group to completely fabricate news to spread disinformation in an effort to influence foreign countries. What's baffling to some people is when you want to go many steps further and suppress news stories for reasons like you disagree with the editoralization of the subject matter or whatever reason you actually use. I think most people are actually not on board with that type of suppression for good reason. Should it be allowed to interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it? Like if someone asked someone a question and then answer "no" but instead they edit it a "yes" from a different question that was answered? Yeah I would consider that a fabrication that shouldn't be allowed unless it's an obvious parody Good, glad we agree that project Veritas spread disinformation that should not be allowed.
If you say so, I dont know what you are referencing
|
On February 18 2023 21:14 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2023 21:05 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2023 20:52 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 20:40 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2023 20:03 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 18:57 Acrofales wrote:I've been following the reveal of Team Jorge. It hasn't had anything much to do with US politics, but I was asked by Blackjack the other day if I would want a bunch of stuff that was probably just fake news, but could hurt a politician I disagree with banned from Twitter. I agreed that I did, but the discussion is a bit broader than that. Maybe this Guardian article will give people a window into the pernicious world of fake news generation.It's an opinion column, but it discusses some of the main "achievements" of Team Jorge, and draws conclusions from that. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/17/the-guardian-view-on-disinformation-online-a-21st-century-growth-industryThe healthy functioning of democracies depends on the quality of the information that frames debate within them. But
digitalisation, the rise of social media and increasingly sophisticated forms of artificial intelligence are delivering new opportunities to poison the well of public discourse. Unfortunately, as a Guardian investigation this week illustrates, exploiting these is a 21st-century growth industry.
Alongside state-sponsored actors, increasing numbers of private firms are profiting from the dissemination of disinformation on behalf of political and corporate clients. Undercover research, in conjunction with 30 other media organisations, has exposed the inner workings of one such outfit – an Israeli black ops unit which combines the use of automated disinformation on social media with hacking and the seeding of fabricated stories in mainstream news outlets. The resulting revelations offer the deepest, most detailed insight yet into evolving forms of digital malpractice.
I think it's also worth mentioning the difference between disinformation and minsinformation. I think most people are actually on board with not allowing some black ops group to completely fabricate news to spread disinformation in an effort to influence foreign countries. What's baffling to some people is when you want to go many steps further and suppress news stories for reasons like you disagree with the editoralization of the subject matter or whatever reason you actually use. I think most people are actually not on board with that type of suppression for good reason. Should it be allowed to interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it? Like if someone asked someone a question and then answer "no" but instead they edit it a "yes" from a different question that was answered? Yeah I would consider that a fabrication that shouldn't be allowed unless it's an obvious parody Good, glad we agree that project Veritas spread disinformation that should not be allowed. If you say so, I dont know what you are referencing
Project Veritas regularly splices and edits video footage in deceiving ways to provide "evidence" for their conspiracies. That's one of the reasons why so many of us refused to take your PV bait in the covid thread, and why there was immediate cautioning against using PV as an example of a supposedly reasonable source that is graciously talking about important issues that the mainstream media is covering up.
Here is an example of four videos about the same topic (when PV asserted that Hillary Clinton was rigging the 2016 election):
"The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's, work somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions. ...
California’s then-attorney general Jerry Brown noted after an investigation into the tapes and the organization that “sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.” Those same words now seem applicable to the latest O’Keefe sting, which further tarnished NPR’s reputation and took down its CEO. As we noted, Glenn Beck’s conservative website, The Blaze, was first to report on discrepancies between the first edited eleven-and-a-half minute video released on the Project Veritas website and a later, unedited two-hour version ... NPR media reporter David Folkenflik addressed the dubious editing on Morning Edition and in a written report for NPR’s website. ...
“I tell my children there are two ways to lie,” Tompkins said. “One is to tell me something that didn’t happen, and the other is not to tell me something that did happen. I think they employed both techniques in this.” Columbia Journalism Review reiterated assessments and warnings about O'Keefe's methods in a 2011 piece targeting NPR. That article noted that the time-consuming nature of fact-checking (particularly when source material is obscured) has led to Project Veritas efforts skating past cursory review ...
It is now clear that O’Keefe’s editing of the raw video from his interview with NPR’s top fundraiser, Ron Schiller, was selective and deceptive. The full extent of this distortion was exposed by a rising conservative Web site, the Blaze. O’Keefe’s final product excludes explanatory context, exaggerates Schiller’s tolerance for Islamist radicalism and attributes sentiments to Schiller that are actually quotes by others — all the hallmarks of a hit piece ... In this case, O’Keefe did not merely leave a false impression; he manufactured an elaborate, alluring lie. ...
The October 2016 releases weren't Project Veritas' first foray into the 2016 elections and the political climate of the day. In March 2016, O'Keefe infamously bungled an attempted "investigation" by failing to hang up his phone after calling a target (thereby exposing his plot to those whom he was trying to fool). ...
“It seems like most of the fraud O’Keefe uncovers he commits himself,” Richard Hasen, a professor of election law at the University of California, Irvine, says. ...
Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible."
https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/
|
On February 18 2023 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2023 21:14 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 21:05 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2023 20:52 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 20:40 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2023 20:03 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 18:57 Acrofales wrote:I've been following the reveal of Team Jorge. It hasn't had anything much to do with US politics, but I was asked by Blackjack the other day if I would want a bunch of stuff that was probably just fake news, but could hurt a politician I disagree with banned from Twitter. I agreed that I did, but the discussion is a bit broader than that. Maybe this Guardian article will give people a window into the pernicious world of fake news generation.It's an opinion column, but it discusses some of the main "achievements" of Team Jorge, and draws conclusions from that. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/17/the-guardian-view-on-disinformation-online-a-21st-century-growth-industryThe healthy functioning of democracies depends on the quality of the information that frames debate within them. But
digitalisation, the rise of social media and increasingly sophisticated forms of artificial intelligence are delivering new opportunities to poison the well of public discourse. Unfortunately, as a Guardian investigation this week illustrates, exploiting these is a 21st-century growth industry.
Alongside state-sponsored actors, increasing numbers of private firms are profiting from the dissemination of disinformation on behalf of political and corporate clients. Undercover research, in conjunction with 30 other media organisations, has exposed the inner workings of one such outfit – an Israeli black ops unit which combines the use of automated disinformation on social media with hacking and the seeding of fabricated stories in mainstream news outlets. The resulting revelations offer the deepest, most detailed insight yet into evolving forms of digital malpractice.
I think it's also worth mentioning the difference between disinformation and minsinformation. I think most people are actually on board with not allowing some black ops group to completely fabricate news to spread disinformation in an effort to influence foreign countries. What's baffling to some people is when you want to go many steps further and suppress news stories for reasons like you disagree with the editoralization of the subject matter or whatever reason you actually use. I think most people are actually not on board with that type of suppression for good reason. Should it be allowed to interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it? Like if someone asked someone a question and then answer "no" but instead they edit it a "yes" from a different question that was answered? Yeah I would consider that a fabrication that shouldn't be allowed unless it's an obvious parody Good, glad we agree that project Veritas spread disinformation that should not be allowed. If you say so, I dont know what you are referencing Project Veritas regularly splices and edits video footage in deceiving ways to provide "evidence" for their conspiracies. That's one of the reasons why so many of us refused to take your PV bait in the covid thread, and why there was immediate cautioning against using PV as an example of a supposedly reasonable source that is graciously talking about important issues that the mainstream media is covering up. Here is an example of four videos about the same topic (when PV asserted that Hillary Clinton was rigging the 2016 election): Show nested quote +"The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's, work somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions. ...
California’s then-attorney general Jerry Brown noted after an investigation into the tapes and the organization that “sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.” Those same words now seem applicable to the latest O’Keefe sting, which further tarnished NPR’s reputation and took down its CEO. As we noted, Glenn Beck’s conservative website, The Blaze, was first to report on discrepancies between the first edited eleven-and-a-half minute video released on the Project Veritas website and a later, unedited two-hour version ... NPR media reporter David Folkenflik addressed the dubious editing on Morning Edition and in a written report for NPR’s website. ...
“I tell my children there are two ways to lie,” Tompkins said. “One is to tell me something that didn’t happen, and the other is not to tell me something that did happen. I think they employed both techniques in this.” Columbia Journalism Review reiterated assessments and warnings about O'Keefe's methods in a 2011 piece targeting NPR. That article noted that the time-consuming nature of fact-checking (particularly when source material is obscured) has led to Project Veritas efforts skating past cursory review ...
It is now clear that O’Keefe’s editing of the raw video from his interview with NPR’s top fundraiser, Ron Schiller, was selective and deceptive. The full extent of this distortion was exposed by a rising conservative Web site, the Blaze. O’Keefe’s final product excludes explanatory context, exaggerates Schiller’s tolerance for Islamist radicalism and attributes sentiments to Schiller that are actually quotes by others — all the hallmarks of a hit piece ... In this case, O’Keefe did not merely leave a false impression; he manufactured an elaborate, alluring lie. ...
The October 2016 releases weren't Project Veritas' first foray into the 2016 elections and the political climate of the day. In March 2016, O'Keefe infamously bungled an attempted "investigation" by failing to hang up his phone after calling a target (thereby exposing his plot to those whom he was trying to fool). ...
“It seems like most of the fraud O’Keefe uncovers he commits himself,” Richard Hasen, a professor of election law at the University of California, Irvine, says. ...
Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible." https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/
I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things. I said if something is shown to be a fabrication, e.g. someone asks Hillary Clinton if she tried to rig the 2106 election and she says no but they splice in video footage of her answering yes to a different question.
It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here. It sounds like in some instances we have the raw video and the edited video so we should have some examples to show.
|
|
|
On February 18 2023 20:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2023 18:57 Acrofales wrote:I've been following the reveal of Team Jorge. It hasn't had anything much to do with US politics, but I was asked by Blackjack the other day if I would want a bunch of stuff that was probably just fake news, but could hurt a politician I disagree with banned from Twitter. I agreed that I did, but the discussion is a bit broader than that. Maybe this Guardian article will give people a window into the pernicious world of fake news generation.It's an opinion column, but it discusses some of the main "achievements" of Team Jorge, and draws conclusions from that. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/17/the-guardian-view-on-disinformation-online-a-21st-century-growth-industryThe healthy functioning of democracies depends on the quality of the information that frames debate within them. But
digitalisation, the rise of social media and increasingly sophisticated forms of artificial intelligence are delivering new opportunities to poison the well of public discourse. Unfortunately, as a Guardian investigation this week illustrates, exploiting these is a 21st-century growth industry.
Alongside state-sponsored actors, increasing numbers of private firms are profiting from the dissemination of disinformation on behalf of political and corporate clients. Undercover research, in conjunction with 30 other media organisations, has exposed the inner workings of one such outfit – an Israeli black ops unit which combines the use of automated disinformation on social media with hacking and the seeding of fabricated stories in mainstream news outlets. The resulting revelations offer the deepest, most detailed insight yet into evolving forms of digital malpractice.
I think it's also worth mentioning the difference between disinformation and minsinformation. I think most people are actually on board with not allowing some black ops group to completely fabricate news to spread disinformation in an effort to influence foreign countries. What's baffling to some people is when you want to go many steps further and suppress news stories for reasons like you disagree with the editoralization of the subject matter or whatever reason you actually use. I think most people are actually not on board with that type of suppression for good reason.
Fair enough. I think the problem is that there's a large grey zone between what is "obviously factual" and "obviously false". We agree that the obviously factual should be reported and the obviously false should be banned. But we disagree a lot on where in the "truthiness" spectrum to draw the line. You want to draw it closer to the "obviously false" zone and are happy to let lots of "probably false, but who knows" stories through. I want the line closer to the "obviously true" zone, and am happy to miss out on some "possibly true, but not sufficiently sourced" stories.
|
On February 18 2023 22:52 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2023 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2023 21:14 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 21:05 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2023 20:52 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 20:40 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2023 20:03 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 18:57 Acrofales wrote:I've been following the reveal of Team Jorge. It hasn't had anything much to do with US politics, but I was asked by Blackjack the other day if I would want a bunch of stuff that was probably just fake news, but could hurt a politician I disagree with banned from Twitter. I agreed that I did, but the discussion is a bit broader than that. Maybe this Guardian article will give people a window into the pernicious world of fake news generation.It's an opinion column, but it discusses some of the main "achievements" of Team Jorge, and draws conclusions from that. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/17/the-guardian-view-on-disinformation-online-a-21st-century-growth-industryThe healthy functioning of democracies depends on the quality of the information that frames debate within them. But
digitalisation, the rise of social media and increasingly sophisticated forms of artificial intelligence are delivering new opportunities to poison the well of public discourse. Unfortunately, as a Guardian investigation this week illustrates, exploiting these is a 21st-century growth industry.
Alongside state-sponsored actors, increasing numbers of private firms are profiting from the dissemination of disinformation on behalf of political and corporate clients. Undercover research, in conjunction with 30 other media organisations, has exposed the inner workings of one such outfit – an Israeli black ops unit which combines the use of automated disinformation on social media with hacking and the seeding of fabricated stories in mainstream news outlets. The resulting revelations offer the deepest, most detailed insight yet into evolving forms of digital malpractice.
I think it's also worth mentioning the difference between disinformation and minsinformation. I think most people are actually on board with not allowing some black ops group to completely fabricate news to spread disinformation in an effort to influence foreign countries. What's baffling to some people is when you want to go many steps further and suppress news stories for reasons like you disagree with the editoralization of the subject matter or whatever reason you actually use. I think most people are actually not on board with that type of suppression for good reason. Should it be allowed to interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it? Like if someone asked someone a question and then answer "no" but instead they edit it a "yes" from a different question that was answered? Yeah I would consider that a fabrication that shouldn't be allowed unless it's an obvious parody Good, glad we agree that project Veritas spread disinformation that should not be allowed. If you say so, I dont know what you are referencing Project Veritas regularly splices and edits video footage in deceiving ways to provide "evidence" for their conspiracies. That's one of the reasons why so many of us refused to take your PV bait in the covid thread, and why there was immediate cautioning against using PV as an example of a supposedly reasonable source that is graciously talking about important issues that the mainstream media is covering up. Here is an example of four videos about the same topic (when PV asserted that Hillary Clinton was rigging the 2016 election): "The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's, work somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions. ...
California’s then-attorney general Jerry Brown noted after an investigation into the tapes and the organization that “sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.” Those same words now seem applicable to the latest O’Keefe sting, which further tarnished NPR’s reputation and took down its CEO. As we noted, Glenn Beck’s conservative website, The Blaze, was first to report on discrepancies between the first edited eleven-and-a-half minute video released on the Project Veritas website and a later, unedited two-hour version ... NPR media reporter David Folkenflik addressed the dubious editing on Morning Edition and in a written report for NPR’s website. ...
“I tell my children there are two ways to lie,” Tompkins said. “One is to tell me something that didn’t happen, and the other is not to tell me something that did happen. I think they employed both techniques in this.” Columbia Journalism Review reiterated assessments and warnings about O'Keefe's methods in a 2011 piece targeting NPR. That article noted that the time-consuming nature of fact-checking (particularly when source material is obscured) has led to Project Veritas efforts skating past cursory review ...
It is now clear that O’Keefe’s editing of the raw video from his interview with NPR’s top fundraiser, Ron Schiller, was selective and deceptive. The full extent of this distortion was exposed by a rising conservative Web site, the Blaze. O’Keefe’s final product excludes explanatory context, exaggerates Schiller’s tolerance for Islamist radicalism and attributes sentiments to Schiller that are actually quotes by others — all the hallmarks of a hit piece ... In this case, O’Keefe did not merely leave a false impression; he manufactured an elaborate, alluring lie. ...
The October 2016 releases weren't Project Veritas' first foray into the 2016 elections and the political climate of the day. In March 2016, O'Keefe infamously bungled an attempted "investigation" by failing to hang up his phone after calling a target (thereby exposing his plot to those whom he was trying to fool). ...
“It seems like most of the fraud O’Keefe uncovers he commits himself,” Richard Hasen, a professor of election law at the University of California, Irvine, says. ...
Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible." https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/ I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things. I said if something is shown to be a fabrication, e.g. someone asks Hillary Clinton if she tried to rig the 2106 election and she says no but they splice in video footage of her answering yes to a different question. It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here. It sounds like in some instances we have the raw video and the edited video so we should have some examples to show.
I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices.
"I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you.
"It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here."
Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to.
|
|
|
is going to canada optional for these folks?
was it optional when the republican governors did it?
a cursory read suggests the NYC mayor is offering to buy bus tickets for those seeking to go to Canada, while the venezuelans who were shipped to martha’s vineyard were duped into it.
but i’m open to other interpretations. i’m not against giving migrants welfare to move about, but i don’t think these are comparable from what i think i know.
if the canadian officials aren’t happy about it, that’s their prerogative, definitely something warranting a conversation, but let’s not pretend we’re treating the people badly in this circumstance.
frankly if i were homeless i wouldn’t be trying to move further north in the winter but it’s entirely their own choice. and i also think NYC could do more for them at home, as well. something tells me texans don’t think they should be doing more for them in Texas, though.
i’m open to feedback if i’m wrong on this, knowing we’re certainly failing these people on some level regardless of the circumstance.
|
Hanlon's Razor is the view to "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." In other words, if someone says or does something wrong or dumb, it's probably a wise and compassionate move to first assume they merely made an honest mistake, as opposed to jumping to the immediate conclusion that they were purposely operating in bad faith and with evil intent. Of course, it is possible for some scenarios to have enough evidence to conclude that a person or organization really was acting with malice and ill-intent, as opposed to merely being ignorant.
Cue this story about Fox News, and how its executives, producers, and anchors have all admitted that they weren't simply making mistakes or accidentally peddling falsehoods that supported Trump's election fraud claims. By their own admission, they were purposely deceiving their viewers and pushing a narrative they knew to be false. They were lying simply to keep Trump happy and earn higher ratings for their television shows.
"Off the air, Fox News stars blasted the election fraud claims they peddled"
"Fox leaders worried turning away from false allegations of voter fraud would hurt their brand"
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/16/1157558299/fox-news-stars-false-claims-trump-election-2020?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR20p6I6zhmH6x9R51s4VjI4RwnTQ2pKAnHjGMm7WJLy2VQVETRfmogBRs4
|
On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2023 22:52 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2023 21:14 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 21:05 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2023 20:52 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 20:40 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2023 20:03 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 18:57 Acrofales wrote:I've been following the reveal of Team Jorge. It hasn't had anything much to do with US politics, but I was asked by Blackjack the other day if I would want a bunch of stuff that was probably just fake news, but could hurt a politician I disagree with banned from Twitter. I agreed that I did, but the discussion is a bit broader than that. Maybe this Guardian article will give people a window into the pernicious world of fake news generation.It's an opinion column, but it discusses some of the main "achievements" of Team Jorge, and draws conclusions from that. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/17/the-guardian-view-on-disinformation-online-a-21st-century-growth-industryThe healthy functioning of democracies depends on the quality of the information that frames debate within them. But
digitalisation, the rise of social media and increasingly sophisticated forms of artificial intelligence are delivering new opportunities to poison the well of public discourse. Unfortunately, as a Guardian investigation this week illustrates, exploiting these is a 21st-century growth industry.
Alongside state-sponsored actors, increasing numbers of private firms are profiting from the dissemination of disinformation on behalf of political and corporate clients. Undercover research, in conjunction with 30 other media organisations, has exposed the inner workings of one such outfit – an Israeli black ops unit which combines the use of automated disinformation on social media with hacking and the seeding of fabricated stories in mainstream news outlets. The resulting revelations offer the deepest, most detailed insight yet into evolving forms of digital malpractice.
I think it's also worth mentioning the difference between disinformation and minsinformation. I think most people are actually on board with not allowing some black ops group to completely fabricate news to spread disinformation in an effort to influence foreign countries. What's baffling to some people is when you want to go many steps further and suppress news stories for reasons like you disagree with the editoralization of the subject matter or whatever reason you actually use. I think most people are actually not on board with that type of suppression for good reason. Should it be allowed to interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it? Like if someone asked someone a question and then answer "no" but instead they edit it a "yes" from a different question that was answered? Yeah I would consider that a fabrication that shouldn't be allowed unless it's an obvious parody Good, glad we agree that project Veritas spread disinformation that should not be allowed. If you say so, I dont know what you are referencing Project Veritas regularly splices and edits video footage in deceiving ways to provide "evidence" for their conspiracies. That's one of the reasons why so many of us refused to take your PV bait in the covid thread, and why there was immediate cautioning against using PV as an example of a supposedly reasonable source that is graciously talking about important issues that the mainstream media is covering up. Here is an example of four videos about the same topic (when PV asserted that Hillary Clinton was rigging the 2016 election): "The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's, work somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions. ...
California’s then-attorney general Jerry Brown noted after an investigation into the tapes and the organization that “sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.” Those same words now seem applicable to the latest O’Keefe sting, which further tarnished NPR’s reputation and took down its CEO. As we noted, Glenn Beck’s conservative website, The Blaze, was first to report on discrepancies between the first edited eleven-and-a-half minute video released on the Project Veritas website and a later, unedited two-hour version ... NPR media reporter David Folkenflik addressed the dubious editing on Morning Edition and in a written report for NPR’s website. ...
“I tell my children there are two ways to lie,” Tompkins said. “One is to tell me something that didn’t happen, and the other is not to tell me something that did happen. I think they employed both techniques in this.” Columbia Journalism Review reiterated assessments and warnings about O'Keefe's methods in a 2011 piece targeting NPR. That article noted that the time-consuming nature of fact-checking (particularly when source material is obscured) has led to Project Veritas efforts skating past cursory review ...
It is now clear that O’Keefe’s editing of the raw video from his interview with NPR’s top fundraiser, Ron Schiller, was selective and deceptive. The full extent of this distortion was exposed by a rising conservative Web site, the Blaze. O’Keefe’s final product excludes explanatory context, exaggerates Schiller’s tolerance for Islamist radicalism and attributes sentiments to Schiller that are actually quotes by others — all the hallmarks of a hit piece ... In this case, O’Keefe did not merely leave a false impression; he manufactured an elaborate, alluring lie. ...
The October 2016 releases weren't Project Veritas' first foray into the 2016 elections and the political climate of the day. In March 2016, O'Keefe infamously bungled an attempted "investigation" by failing to hang up his phone after calling a target (thereby exposing his plot to those whom he was trying to fool). ...
“It seems like most of the fraud O’Keefe uncovers he commits himself,” Richard Hasen, a professor of election law at the University of California, Irvine, says. ...
Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible." https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/ I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things. I said if something is shown to be a fabrication, e.g. someone asks Hillary Clinton if she tried to rig the 2106 election and she says no but they splice in video footage of her answering yes to a different question. It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here. It sounds like in some instances we have the raw video and the edited video so we should have some examples to show. I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices. "I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you. "It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here." Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to.
Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe.
|
|
|
On February 18 2023 23:35 JimmiC wrote:Of course you want to call people hypocrits, its basically your favorite thing to do. The insults for trump and gulianni aside these fox news hosts have been peoven to be spreading election lies they knew were false. Give that you agree this is a wrong practice what consequence should befall the network and hosts? Or is it the lying on purpose that makes them not MSM and different rules should apply to them? https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/17/business/fox-news-dominion-lies/index.html
“Hey guy that’s been dunking on the MSM the last few pages and saying it’s their own fault that people don’t trust them anymore, what do you make of this story of the MSM behaving badly?”
I don’t know what you want me to say. “I told you so”?
|
On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2023 22:52 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2023 21:14 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 21:05 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2023 20:52 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 20:40 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2023 20:03 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 18:57 Acrofales wrote:I've been following the reveal of Team Jorge. It hasn't had anything much to do with US politics, but I was asked by Blackjack the other day if I would want a bunch of stuff that was probably just fake news, but could hurt a politician I disagree with banned from Twitter. I agreed that I did, but the discussion is a bit broader than that. Maybe this Guardian article will give people a window into the pernicious world of fake news generation.It's an opinion column, but it discusses some of the main "achievements" of Team Jorge, and draws conclusions from that. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/17/the-guardian-view-on-disinformation-online-a-21st-century-growth-industry[quote] I think it's also worth mentioning the difference between disinformation and minsinformation. I think most people are actually on board with not allowing some black ops group to completely fabricate news to spread disinformation in an effort to influence foreign countries. What's baffling to some people is when you want to go many steps further and suppress news stories for reasons like you disagree with the editoralization of the subject matter or whatever reason you actually use. I think most people are actually not on board with that type of suppression for good reason. Should it be allowed to interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it? Like if someone asked someone a question and then answer "no" but instead they edit it a "yes" from a different question that was answered? Yeah I would consider that a fabrication that shouldn't be allowed unless it's an obvious parody Good, glad we agree that project Veritas spread disinformation that should not be allowed. If you say so, I dont know what you are referencing Project Veritas regularly splices and edits video footage in deceiving ways to provide "evidence" for their conspiracies. That's one of the reasons why so many of us refused to take your PV bait in the covid thread, and why there was immediate cautioning against using PV as an example of a supposedly reasonable source that is graciously talking about important issues that the mainstream media is covering up. Here is an example of four videos about the same topic (when PV asserted that Hillary Clinton was rigging the 2016 election): "The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's, work somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions. ...
California’s then-attorney general Jerry Brown noted after an investigation into the tapes and the organization that “sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.” Those same words now seem applicable to the latest O’Keefe sting, which further tarnished NPR’s reputation and took down its CEO. As we noted, Glenn Beck’s conservative website, The Blaze, was first to report on discrepancies between the first edited eleven-and-a-half minute video released on the Project Veritas website and a later, unedited two-hour version ... NPR media reporter David Folkenflik addressed the dubious editing on Morning Edition and in a written report for NPR’s website. ...
“I tell my children there are two ways to lie,” Tompkins said. “One is to tell me something that didn’t happen, and the other is not to tell me something that did happen. I think they employed both techniques in this.” Columbia Journalism Review reiterated assessments and warnings about O'Keefe's methods in a 2011 piece targeting NPR. That article noted that the time-consuming nature of fact-checking (particularly when source material is obscured) has led to Project Veritas efforts skating past cursory review ...
It is now clear that O’Keefe’s editing of the raw video from his interview with NPR’s top fundraiser, Ron Schiller, was selective and deceptive. The full extent of this distortion was exposed by a rising conservative Web site, the Blaze. O’Keefe’s final product excludes explanatory context, exaggerates Schiller’s tolerance for Islamist radicalism and attributes sentiments to Schiller that are actually quotes by others — all the hallmarks of a hit piece ... In this case, O’Keefe did not merely leave a false impression; he manufactured an elaborate, alluring lie. ...
The October 2016 releases weren't Project Veritas' first foray into the 2016 elections and the political climate of the day. In March 2016, O'Keefe infamously bungled an attempted "investigation" by failing to hang up his phone after calling a target (thereby exposing his plot to those whom he was trying to fool). ...
“It seems like most of the fraud O’Keefe uncovers he commits himself,” Richard Hasen, a professor of election law at the University of California, Irvine, says. ...
Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible." https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/ I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things. I said if something is shown to be a fabrication, e.g. someone asks Hillary Clinton if she tried to rig the 2106 election and she says no but they splice in video footage of her answering yes to a different question. It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here. It sounds like in some instances we have the raw video and the edited video so we should have some examples to show. I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices. "I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you. "It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here." Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe.
No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore.
Kind of like:
Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC.
|
On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2023 22:52 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2023 21:14 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 21:05 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2023 20:52 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 20:40 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2023 20:03 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I think it's also worth mentioning the difference between disinformation and minsinformation. I think most people are actually on board with not allowing some black ops group to completely fabricate news to spread disinformation in an effort to influence foreign countries. What's baffling to some people is when you want to go many steps further and suppress news stories for reasons like you disagree with the editoralization of the subject matter or whatever reason you actually use. I think most people are actually not on board with that type of suppression for good reason.
Should it be allowed to interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it? Like if someone asked someone a question and then answer "no" but instead they edit it a "yes" from a different question that was answered? Yeah I would consider that a fabrication that shouldn't be allowed unless it's an obvious parody Good, glad we agree that project Veritas spread disinformation that should not be allowed. If you say so, I dont know what you are referencing Project Veritas regularly splices and edits video footage in deceiving ways to provide "evidence" for their conspiracies. That's one of the reasons why so many of us refused to take your PV bait in the covid thread, and why there was immediate cautioning against using PV as an example of a supposedly reasonable source that is graciously talking about important issues that the mainstream media is covering up. Here is an example of four videos about the same topic (when PV asserted that Hillary Clinton was rigging the 2016 election): "The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's, work somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions. ...
California’s then-attorney general Jerry Brown noted after an investigation into the tapes and the organization that “sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.” Those same words now seem applicable to the latest O’Keefe sting, which further tarnished NPR’s reputation and took down its CEO. As we noted, Glenn Beck’s conservative website, The Blaze, was first to report on discrepancies between the first edited eleven-and-a-half minute video released on the Project Veritas website and a later, unedited two-hour version ... NPR media reporter David Folkenflik addressed the dubious editing on Morning Edition and in a written report for NPR’s website. ...
“I tell my children there are two ways to lie,” Tompkins said. “One is to tell me something that didn’t happen, and the other is not to tell me something that did happen. I think they employed both techniques in this.” Columbia Journalism Review reiterated assessments and warnings about O'Keefe's methods in a 2011 piece targeting NPR. That article noted that the time-consuming nature of fact-checking (particularly when source material is obscured) has led to Project Veritas efforts skating past cursory review ...
It is now clear that O’Keefe’s editing of the raw video from his interview with NPR’s top fundraiser, Ron Schiller, was selective and deceptive. The full extent of this distortion was exposed by a rising conservative Web site, the Blaze. O’Keefe’s final product excludes explanatory context, exaggerates Schiller’s tolerance for Islamist radicalism and attributes sentiments to Schiller that are actually quotes by others — all the hallmarks of a hit piece ... In this case, O’Keefe did not merely leave a false impression; he manufactured an elaborate, alluring lie. ...
The October 2016 releases weren't Project Veritas' first foray into the 2016 elections and the political climate of the day. In March 2016, O'Keefe infamously bungled an attempted "investigation" by failing to hang up his phone after calling a target (thereby exposing his plot to those whom he was trying to fool). ...
“It seems like most of the fraud O’Keefe uncovers he commits himself,” Richard Hasen, a professor of election law at the University of California, Irvine, says. ...
Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible." https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/ I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things. I said if something is shown to be a fabrication, e.g. someone asks Hillary Clinton if she tried to rig the 2106 election and she says no but they splice in video footage of her answering yes to a different question. It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here. It sounds like in some instances we have the raw video and the edited video so we should have some examples to show. I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices. "I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you. "It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here." Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC.
“Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.”
See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't."
|
On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2023 22:52 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2023 21:14 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 21:05 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2023 20:52 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 20:40 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Should it be allowed to interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it?
Like if someone asked someone a question and then answer "no" but instead they edit it a "yes" from a different question that was answered? Yeah I would consider that a fabrication that shouldn't be allowed unless it's an obvious parody Good, glad we agree that project Veritas spread disinformation that should not be allowed. If you say so, I dont know what you are referencing Project Veritas regularly splices and edits video footage in deceiving ways to provide "evidence" for their conspiracies. That's one of the reasons why so many of us refused to take your PV bait in the covid thread, and why there was immediate cautioning against using PV as an example of a supposedly reasonable source that is graciously talking about important issues that the mainstream media is covering up. Here is an example of four videos about the same topic (when PV asserted that Hillary Clinton was rigging the 2016 election): "The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's, work somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions. ...
California’s then-attorney general Jerry Brown noted after an investigation into the tapes and the organization that “sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.” Those same words now seem applicable to the latest O’Keefe sting, which further tarnished NPR’s reputation and took down its CEO. As we noted, Glenn Beck’s conservative website, The Blaze, was first to report on discrepancies between the first edited eleven-and-a-half minute video released on the Project Veritas website and a later, unedited two-hour version ... NPR media reporter David Folkenflik addressed the dubious editing on Morning Edition and in a written report for NPR’s website. ...
“I tell my children there are two ways to lie,” Tompkins said. “One is to tell me something that didn’t happen, and the other is not to tell me something that did happen. I think they employed both techniques in this.” Columbia Journalism Review reiterated assessments and warnings about O'Keefe's methods in a 2011 piece targeting NPR. That article noted that the time-consuming nature of fact-checking (particularly when source material is obscured) has led to Project Veritas efforts skating past cursory review ...
It is now clear that O’Keefe’s editing of the raw video from his interview with NPR’s top fundraiser, Ron Schiller, was selective and deceptive. The full extent of this distortion was exposed by a rising conservative Web site, the Blaze. O’Keefe’s final product excludes explanatory context, exaggerates Schiller’s tolerance for Islamist radicalism and attributes sentiments to Schiller that are actually quotes by others — all the hallmarks of a hit piece ... In this case, O’Keefe did not merely leave a false impression; he manufactured an elaborate, alluring lie. ...
The October 2016 releases weren't Project Veritas' first foray into the 2016 elections and the political climate of the day. In March 2016, O'Keefe infamously bungled an attempted "investigation" by failing to hang up his phone after calling a target (thereby exposing his plot to those whom he was trying to fool). ...
“It seems like most of the fraud O’Keefe uncovers he commits himself,” Richard Hasen, a professor of election law at the University of California, Irvine, says. ...
Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible." https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/ I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things. I said if something is shown to be a fabrication, e.g. someone asks Hillary Clinton if she tried to rig the 2106 election and she says no but they splice in video footage of her answering yes to a different question. It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here. It sounds like in some instances we have the raw video and the edited video so we should have some examples to show. I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices. "I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you. "It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here." Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. Show nested quote +“Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't."
The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas.
|
On February 19 2023 01:30 brian wrote:is going to canada optional for these folks? was it optional when the republican governors did it? a cursory read suggests the NYC mayor is offering to buy bus tickets for those seeking to go to Canada, while the venezuelans who were shipped to martha’s vineyard were duped into it. but i’m open to other interpretations. i’m not against giving migrants welfare to move about, but i don’t think these are comparable from what i think i know. if the canadian officials aren’t happy about it, that’s their prerogative, definitely something warranting a conversation, but let’s not pretend we’re treating the people badly in this circumstance. frankly if i were homeless i wouldn’t be trying to move further north in the winter but it’s entirely their own choice. and i also think NYC could do more for them at home, as well. something tells me texans don’t think they should be doing more for them in Texas, though. i’m open to feedback if i’m wrong on this, knowing we’re certainly failing these people on some level regardless of the circumstance.
I don't think there is any evidence that migrants are being forced onto buses in New York or in Texas or other states. Considering that the number of migrants that have been transported is in the tens of thousands by many accounts the migrants sent to Martha's vineyard represents maybe 0.1% of that total. Is that 0.1% what you're using to say it's not comparable for what Mayor Adams is doing to what the border states have done?
|
On February 19 2023 07:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2023 22:52 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2023 21:14 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 21:05 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2023 20:52 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Like if someone asked someone a question and then answer "no" but instead they edit it a "yes" from a different question that was answered? Yeah I would consider that a fabrication that shouldn't be allowed unless it's an obvious parody Good, glad we agree that project Veritas spread disinformation that should not be allowed. If you say so, I dont know what you are referencing Project Veritas regularly splices and edits video footage in deceiving ways to provide "evidence" for their conspiracies. That's one of the reasons why so many of us refused to take your PV bait in the covid thread, and why there was immediate cautioning against using PV as an example of a supposedly reasonable source that is graciously talking about important issues that the mainstream media is covering up. Here is an example of four videos about the same topic (when PV asserted that Hillary Clinton was rigging the 2016 election): "The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's, work somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions. ...
California’s then-attorney general Jerry Brown noted after an investigation into the tapes and the organization that “sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.” Those same words now seem applicable to the latest O’Keefe sting, which further tarnished NPR’s reputation and took down its CEO. As we noted, Glenn Beck’s conservative website, The Blaze, was first to report on discrepancies between the first edited eleven-and-a-half minute video released on the Project Veritas website and a later, unedited two-hour version ... NPR media reporter David Folkenflik addressed the dubious editing on Morning Edition and in a written report for NPR’s website. ...
“I tell my children there are two ways to lie,” Tompkins said. “One is to tell me something that didn’t happen, and the other is not to tell me something that did happen. I think they employed both techniques in this.” Columbia Journalism Review reiterated assessments and warnings about O'Keefe's methods in a 2011 piece targeting NPR. That article noted that the time-consuming nature of fact-checking (particularly when source material is obscured) has led to Project Veritas efforts skating past cursory review ...
It is now clear that O’Keefe’s editing of the raw video from his interview with NPR’s top fundraiser, Ron Schiller, was selective and deceptive. The full extent of this distortion was exposed by a rising conservative Web site, the Blaze. O’Keefe’s final product excludes explanatory context, exaggerates Schiller’s tolerance for Islamist radicalism and attributes sentiments to Schiller that are actually quotes by others — all the hallmarks of a hit piece ... In this case, O’Keefe did not merely leave a false impression; he manufactured an elaborate, alluring lie. ...
The October 2016 releases weren't Project Veritas' first foray into the 2016 elections and the political climate of the day. In March 2016, O'Keefe infamously bungled an attempted "investigation" by failing to hang up his phone after calling a target (thereby exposing his plot to those whom he was trying to fool). ...
“It seems like most of the fraud O’Keefe uncovers he commits himself,” Richard Hasen, a professor of election law at the University of California, Irvine, says. ...
Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible." https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/ I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things. I said if something is shown to be a fabrication, e.g. someone asks Hillary Clinton if she tried to rig the 2106 election and she says no but they splice in video footage of her answering yes to a different question. It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here. It sounds like in some instances we have the raw video and the edited video so we should have some examples to show. I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices. "I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you. "It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here." Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. “Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't." The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas.
I don't care to keep going around in circles with you on this. If you want to give specific examples of what PV has done and ask me if I think it should be actionable by content moderators on the internet then fine. You've offered an article of people saying PV does X but not specifically examples of PV doing X. If you want to make another post insisting that the former is actually the latter then we can just drop it here.
Do you think the moderators here would action your posts if the "law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review" told them your posts were actionable or do you think they would read your posts themselves and determine if your posts were actionable?
|
On February 19 2023 07:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 07:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2023 22:52 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2023 21:14 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 21:05 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Good, glad we agree that project Veritas spread disinformation that should not be allowed. If you say so, I dont know what you are referencing Project Veritas regularly splices and edits video footage in deceiving ways to provide "evidence" for their conspiracies. That's one of the reasons why so many of us refused to take your PV bait in the covid thread, and why there was immediate cautioning against using PV as an example of a supposedly reasonable source that is graciously talking about important issues that the mainstream media is covering up. Here is an example of four videos about the same topic (when PV asserted that Hillary Clinton was rigging the 2016 election): "The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's, work somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions. ...
California’s then-attorney general Jerry Brown noted after an investigation into the tapes and the organization that “sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.” Those same words now seem applicable to the latest O’Keefe sting, which further tarnished NPR’s reputation and took down its CEO. As we noted, Glenn Beck’s conservative website, The Blaze, was first to report on discrepancies between the first edited eleven-and-a-half minute video released on the Project Veritas website and a later, unedited two-hour version ... NPR media reporter David Folkenflik addressed the dubious editing on Morning Edition and in a written report for NPR’s website. ...
“I tell my children there are two ways to lie,” Tompkins said. “One is to tell me something that didn’t happen, and the other is not to tell me something that did happen. I think they employed both techniques in this.” Columbia Journalism Review reiterated assessments and warnings about O'Keefe's methods in a 2011 piece targeting NPR. That article noted that the time-consuming nature of fact-checking (particularly when source material is obscured) has led to Project Veritas efforts skating past cursory review ...
It is now clear that O’Keefe’s editing of the raw video from his interview with NPR’s top fundraiser, Ron Schiller, was selective and deceptive. The full extent of this distortion was exposed by a rising conservative Web site, the Blaze. O’Keefe’s final product excludes explanatory context, exaggerates Schiller’s tolerance for Islamist radicalism and attributes sentiments to Schiller that are actually quotes by others — all the hallmarks of a hit piece ... In this case, O’Keefe did not merely leave a false impression; he manufactured an elaborate, alluring lie. ...
The October 2016 releases weren't Project Veritas' first foray into the 2016 elections and the political climate of the day. In March 2016, O'Keefe infamously bungled an attempted "investigation" by failing to hang up his phone after calling a target (thereby exposing his plot to those whom he was trying to fool). ...
“It seems like most of the fraud O’Keefe uncovers he commits himself,” Richard Hasen, a professor of election law at the University of California, Irvine, says. ...
Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible." https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/ I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things. I said if something is shown to be a fabrication, e.g. someone asks Hillary Clinton if she tried to rig the 2106 election and she says no but they splice in video footage of her answering yes to a different question. It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here. It sounds like in some instances we have the raw video and the edited video so we should have some examples to show. I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices. "I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you. "It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here." Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. “Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't." The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas. I don't care to keep going around in circles with you on this. If you want to give specific examples of what PV has done and ask me if I think it should be actionable by content moderators on the internet then fine. You've offered an article of people saying PV does X but not specifically examples of PV doing X. If you want to make another post insisting that the former is actually the latter then we can just drop it here. Do you think the moderators here would action your posts if the "law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review" told them your posts were actionable or do you think they would read your posts themselves and determine if your posts were actionable?
Again, precisely zero people here are forbidding you from reaching out to Project Veritas (or the people whose quotes are in your NYPost article). Why don't you try to reach out to PV, since you're suddenly so obsessed with firsthand sources? What's the worst that could happen? You seem so sure that the world is against that poor, far-right activist group.
For most of us, the well-documented examples of cut/spliced/edited footage, half-truths lacking context, and lies pushing conspiracy theories are enough for us to reject PV's claims unless they're corroborated by other, more reputable sources. Here's another example (which probably won't be convincing to you, because it's not PV literally admitting wrongdoing):
"In 2006, O'Keefe met Lila Rose, the founder of an anti-abortion group on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus.[63] They secretly recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, in which Rose posed as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male. Rose and O'Keefe made two videos incorporating heavily edited[38] versions of the recordings and released them on YouTube.[64] The video omitted the portions of the full conversation, in which a Planned Parenthood employee asked Rose to consult her mother about the pregnancy and another employee told Rose, "We have to follow the laws". Rose took down the videos after Planned Parenthood sent her a cease and desist letter in May 2007 asserting that the videos violated California's voice recording laws, which required consent from all recorded parties.[65][66]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas
But feel free to contact PV and do your own research; I'm sure PV will be completely forthcoming and honest /s
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
