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.