As a general rule, give them a few days after the initial sensational posting to see if they post the full interviews in context. They like to stagger releases of footage.

as a general rule, this is because the "news cycle" moves on to the next story once the outrage over their selectively edited video has been spent.

Is that out of the norm of how daily television news and late night shows present their content? The only difference I see is the Veritas muckrakers’ tactic of going undercover as a sympathetic listener.

Not really. Nightly political comedy shows are known for editing hour long interviews into 2-3min clips to purposefully make people look bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jim_Jefferies_Show#Avi_Yem...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odCQhAezB_Q

During filming Jim Jefferies attempted to rile up a Jewish activist named Avi Yemini. Which included Jefferies "drawing Mohammed in front of Yemini on a small white board" and saying anti-semetic things (kippahs "look dumb"). Then edited the interview to make Yemini look like a fringe alt-right figure, typical of those who inspired the NZ shooter. Even though the Avi told Jefferies team he wished to have zero association with those people before and during the interview, correctly suspecting that might be their intention.

I think it's a lousy tactic, yes. I'd much rather they release it all up front. I'll do my part to promulgate the full footage should they release it.

Why? Do you think they're deep-faking their videos of people admitting to nefarious things?

They're professional trolls that attempt to lead people on and misquote/misrepresent everything their enemies do-

to the point where they sacrifice the achievement of conservative goals in favor of short term outrage.

In this particular case was there a misquote?

according to the executive in question, yes.

https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-mo...

> Project Veritas has edited the video to make it seem that I am a powerful executive who was confirming that Google is working to alter the 2020 election. On both counts, this is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, of course. In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016. Google has been very public about the work that our teams have done since 2016 on this, so it’s hardly a revelation.

To expand on this, check out some of comments that have been purged by Medium, many of which are pretty mild:

https://cloverchronicle.com/2019/06/24/here-are-some-of-the-...

They have a track record of splicing together videos to make it appear that people have admitted to nefarious things which they never actually said, yes.

I heard this defense when the PP-selling-baby-parts video came out and had to see for myself. On watching the unedited video, I came to the conclusion that the accusation that Project Veritas is fabricating or otherwise manipulating these videos is a complete lie.

In that case, they tried to prod the PP representatives into joking, and then edited down those jokes to look like serious statements. The idea was to present a false image in which PP is making a fortune out of body parts, instead of the reality, which is that they will give fetuses for research, but receive nominal compensation for the cost of doing so.

mhm so they gave body parts and received money? Sounds a lot like selling to me.

>You are ignoring general and subjective western morals and ethics in your comparison.

And are you assuming what those morals and ethics are? Considering 67% of Americans think abortion should be legal in "all" or "most" cases?

It costs them money to preserve fetuses for research. They're allowed to be reimbursed for that cost. The law allows them to do so.

Maybe you don't like the idea of fetuses being used in medical research, but that's a different issue. If Project Veritas were to argue that fundamental point, then that would be honest. What they did, which was dishonest, was to try to present a false picture in which Planned Parenthood was somehow getting rich off of selling fetuses. As usual, there are honest and dishonest ways of trying to argue for political change. The former relies on accurately depicting what is going on and arguing against it, while the latter relies on lying about what is going on, because one believes that one's lies serve the greater good.

they have a well documented history of releasing selectively edited videos

Do you mean like mainstream television news does? The reason I ask is because I have not noticed any big or even significant shifts in context between whatever snippets they release and any raw footage that makes it out afterwards. That's just me, and I'd like to think I'm being reasonable in looking at this.

I don't think 'mainstream television' tries to bait staffers into committing voter fraud, fabricates accusations of underage sexual assault, or dresses up as Bin Laden to make some point about border crossing in Mexico. This "whatabout mainstream media" falls apart as a deflection because the laundry list of things that James O'Keefe has done puts him pretty far into his own camp as being a professional troll.

Investigative journalists are ALWAYS trying to bait their targets. They wouldn't have a job if they didn't!

How is paying a woman to lie about being sexually assaulted as a teenager (and getting paid to abort the following pregnancy) actually investigative journalism?

> How is paying a woman to lie about being sexually assaulted as a teenager (and getting paid to abort the following pregnancy) actually investigative journalism?

You do understand that on the other side of the political spectrum there are people (in large quantities) who don't believe that the teenager who is sexually assaulted should be directed towards abortion?

You're rhetorical statement is as ridiculous as someone saying "How is going to baker after baker and trying to find a hard working god fearing Christian baker and forcing him to bake a cake he doesn't wanna bake, investigative journalism?"

Do mainstream television news stations in your area plead guilty to disguising themselves as telephone repairmen and sneak into U.S. Senate offices "to investigate complaints that she was ignoring phone calls?"

I am certain that adjudicated crimes of misrepresentation and trespassing are not unprecedented in investigative journalism.

They consistently release the full unedited footage afterwards, for years now. That’s significantly better than the large TV news outlets, and the selectively edited videos paraded nightly on Oliver, Colbert, Late Show, etc.

Every investigative journo program selectively edits their interviews.

If you see some 'behind the scenes' from 60 minutes, CBC, BBC ... it's all edited to elicit the 'prime moments' and often in the favour of the narrative they're trying to present.

I suggest Vertias is definitely worse, I think they are seedy, I don't trust it outright, but there's unavoidably real material there.

So - low journalistic standards, but sometimes access to key information.

the difference between 60 minutes editing and veritas (epic name, "truth", lol) is that 60 minutes doesn't edit a clip to the point of changing the apparent meaning of what's being said. That's exactly what veritas does.

I'm sorry, but I have not perceived this to be the case at all. Are there any examples that stand out to you?

I mean, there's no need to look further than this incident (but you're certainly welcome to if you'd like).

https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-mo...

> Project Veritas has edited the video to make it seem that I am a powerful executive who was confirming that Google is working to alter the 2020 election. On both counts, this is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, of course. In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016. Google has been very public about the work that our teams have done since 2016 on this, so it’s hardly a revelation.

You can't even trust 60 minutes to tell you how long their show is; it's 45 minutes at best!

Seriously though, I honestly don't get why that show is so popular. Maybe decades ago it was the best thing on TV, but that's damning with faint praise. It's such a short format they never cover anything beyond the surface details of an issue. It gives people the sensation of being informed without actually having to do the hard legwork being informed actually requires. And of course, anything shorter is almost certainly even worse; video is generally a problematic format that lends itself to surface level details chosen to not confuse the lowest common denominator.

I'd disagree. The narrative in 60 minutes often decontextualizes information to the point of misrepresentation. It's a matter of thresholds.

Wiki states (about the ACORN incident, which I guess is what you mean)

The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed. Some workers seemed concerned for Giles, one advising her to get legal help. In two cities, ACORN workers called the police. But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context

This seems to be about a (possibly over)aggressive sting operation. The current Veritas stuff isn't a sting, it's all leaks from insiders who are clearly very concerned about what's happening. I don't see how Veritas/O'Keefe could edit these things deceptively, as they'd only be provided with what the leaker wanted them to see anyway. Moreover the leakers are probably all Google shareholders or at least have no incentive to damage their own employer beyond taking the moral high ground.

So - this seems unlikely to be an issue here. Especially as, just like before, the words being spoken are damning and very clear. It's hard to imagine what sort of context might mitigate them beyond something like "this particular executive isn't actually very important" ... but that context would have no real impact if it wasn't backed by actions, like firing.

To put it bluntly, Veritas has a covert video of a Google exec who might or might not be senior, but who seems to at least be well informed. She says:

"We're also training our algorithms, if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?"

"People who voted for the current president do not agree with our definition of fairness"

"Certainly on top of my old organisation, Trust and Safety, top of mind, they've been working on it since 2016, to make sure we're ready for 2020"

They also have a screenshot of a document saying, "If a representation is factually accurate, can it still be algorithmic unfairness? Yes." and then goes on to say that an image query for CEOs shouldn't show primarily men because even though that's accurate, it might "reinforce harmful stereotypes".

Stuff coming out of these leaks isn't really news though, in the sense that it aligns perfectly with all the other leaks that have been happening and also some of their research publications. So there's little reason to doubt anything here - it's all entirely consistent.

It's incredibly sad how an organisation that was once so committed to simply giving people the most relevant and accurate answers has gone full blown Machiavelli; they've been utterly corrupted by internal social justice activists who share none of those original values. I worked there for many years and it's a crying shame what has happened there since 2016. It looks from the outside like they've collectively lost their minds. And taking a corporate position of systematically manipulating their own userbase at scale, in order to control elections, is not only stunningly dystopian but also stunningly bad strategy.

I haven't watched the videos or looked at the materials Project Veritas posted but none of these quotes seem all that unreasonable (speaking as somebody who did not vote for Clinton or Trump in 2016). They seem to be talking about Russian election interference in 2016 and combating that so it does not happen again/is not as effective in 2020.

I recommend watching the videos and looking at the materials.

We should really trust the openly left-leaning search monopoly on it's self certified neutrality - that's just common sense. If we start doubting the neutrality of our monopolies, how will they even gaslight us into submission?

I think that goes a little too far.

I don't trust them very much as an entity, I think they are kind of seedy and 'slant' their findings, no doubt.

But there is materiality in their revelations.

It's a 'noisy channel' so to speak, but there's 'materiality' in the noise.