r/RedditCensors: r/politics keeping the PV video covered up

21Blankenship · 2017-06-27T12:16:12Z

Here is a working mirror to the video. Here is a r/politics moderator removing this video. Here is r/politics labeling this as an "Unacceptable Source".

140 u/DoPewPew 27 Jun 2017 12:52

The downvote brigade is on full alert this morning. Any mention of the video is getting hammered hard.

-36 u/[deleted] 27 Jun 2017 13:05

"Everything that I like that gets downvoted is a brigade!!"   ^its ^fake ^news ^dude. ^people ^downvote ^bullshit.

51 u/DoPewPew 27 Jun 2017 13:09

Cute comment from an 11 day throwaway account.

1 u/[deleted] 27 Jun 2017 13:09

[removed]

-3 u/[deleted] † 27 Jun 2017 13:12

[removed]

35 u/DoPewPew 27 Jun 2017 13:14

Can you throw in a few more liberal catch phrases? Maybe you'll get a high score. You forgot xenophobic and racist.

-1 u/[deleted] 27 Jun 2017 13:20

[removed]

-20 u/[deleted] 27 Jun 2017 13:16

[deleted]

0 u/[deleted] 27 Jun 2017 13:16

[deleted]

32 u/DoPewPew 27 Jun 2017 13:20

Or perhaps you are him/her/zim/zat/whatever is PC these days and you logged in to a different account. A cut up video? There are full versions out there already. O'Keefe has broken several stories in the past year that resulted in resignations of people. Your "question the source" tactic is straight out of "Rules for Radicals". Nice try though.

-13 u/Mininni 27 Jun 2017 13:28

Yeah, you can look through my account if you'd like, I have no need for a throwaway, I come into discussions like these for a reason. OKeefe is also being sued for misrepresentation, his Project Veritas videos became an absolute laughing stock online as he hyped the end of the Dem party. How in the fuck would a Medical Producer (who I don't believe works for the FBI, let alone deals with any journalistic tasks of the Russia case) be able to speak, let alone deny all of the allegations being investigated by the FBI? Cmon man. Calling other people shills because they want to have an intelligent, and open conversation about disagreements will never lead to anything. Edit: Soooo credible! http://time.com/4801721/james-okeefe-lawsuit-democracy-partners/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/03/08/james-okeefe-pays-100000-to-acorn-employee-he-smeared-conservative-media-yawns/ http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/james-okeefe-accidentally-stings-himself

15 u/THExLASTxDON 27 Jun 2017 17:06

>OKeefe is also being sued for misrepresentation, his Project Veritas videos became an absolute laughing stock online as he hyped the end of the Dem party. Cool, that's great and all, but I can't seem to get an answer on this. Regardless of OKeefe's reputation, how does he get people to admit to incriminating stuff on hidden camera? Are they role playing? Is it CGI? Maybe he has some type of advanced hologram technology? Super realistic masks and voice changers? >How in the fuck would a Medical Producer (who I don't believe works for the FBI, let alone deals with any journalistic tasks of the Russia case) be able to speak, let alone deny all of the allegations being investigated by the FBI? Cmon man. What? That's not the point. The point is that he is in the meetings with the most powerful people in the company, and he has insight on how they run the company. I would be surprised if the janitor or the new guy in the mailroom, didn't know how biased and manipulative the company is. >Calling other people shills because they want to have an intelligent, and open conversation about disagreements will never lead to anything. Do you also say that to people from the anti Trump side, who accuse anyone with a different opinion of being a Russian or a bot? You may even do that too (I don't do the whole digging through a person's comment history thing), was just curious because that never seems to be the case. >Edit: Soooo credible! I don't know if it's wise for your "side" to call out credible sources, since the majority of your talking points come from blatantly biased sources that cite unverifiable info from unnamed sources.

4 u/spoida 28 Jun 2017 10:05

> he hyped the end of the Dem party. He was right too.

12 u/rahrness 27 Jun 2017 17:13

***Types in discord :*** can one of you chime in here? They're calling out sockpuppets so make sure to use one of your old ones

5 u/giantbollocks 27 Jun 2017 20:06

I got banned from discord for cucking out a cuck. Not going back.

1 u/Porphyrogennetos 28 Jun 2017 10:48

No it doesn't because you're still wrong. He's a senior CNN producer, and what he said is all very clear.

1 u/[deleted] 29 Jun 2017 17:47

[deleted]

13 u/DoPewPew 27 Jun 2017 15:36

[Here's the PM I got from this individual before they deleted their account](http://i.imgur.com/zoCu3XL.jpg)

7 u/Mr_Winsterhammerman 27 Jun 2017 18:03

What a measured and intelligent rebuttal. Who could argue with that?

1 u/Porphyrogennetos 28 Jun 2017 10:47

Deleted your account like the cucked coward you are. Jesus Christ.

78 u/walkinonsunhine 27 Jun 2017 13:08

The unhinged left make it so easy to find out what they are afraid of, just look for the down votes. The unhinged left always down vote stories of pedos getting busted, stories of black on black murder and refugees committing rape and other acts of violence.

16 u/Apple-Fritters 27 Jun 2017 18:00

Follow the downvotes

1 u/[deleted] 27 Jun 2017 22:01

[deleted]

-29 u/friendlyfire 27 Jun 2017 13:22

Yeah, I downvoted it the moment I saw it was Project Veritas. I thought it was going to be interesting and wasn't sure what PV video meant. PV gets an immediate downvote due to their history of heavily editing videos to make it seem like the person "caught on film" was saying the exact opposite of what they actually said (after the unedited video eventually comes out).

23 u/clayshoaf 27 Jun 2017 13:27

Don't THEY usually release the unedited videos? Can you give an example of them lying with edits? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know if any examples.

-9 u/friendlyfire † * 27 Jun 2017 13:40

No, THEY don't. The only reason we got the unedited ACORN video was because it was subpoena'd in a lawsuit. Upon watching the unedited video of the sting ACORN video, they dropped all charges and later James O'Keefe was charged and settled for $100,000 and an apology. We still don't have most of the unedited videos and they don't release them. Literally the only reason we know the ACORN one was complete bullshit was because of a lawsuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe

4 u/Euphemism 27 Jun 2017 23:42

Wasn't that lawsuit not about what they were caught saying, but because they were caught saying it? Like he didn't have right to secretly record them, or some other issue along those lines - not that what they got caught saying was deceptively edited.

0 u/friendlyfire 28 Jun 2017 00:30

That was the stick that they went after him with, yes. Apparently it was literally the only thing that they could get him on (a private civil charge) because the CA DA made the mistake of giving him immunity from state prosecution in exchange for the unedited video and audio. He settled with the CA Acorn employee $100,000 and issued him an apology as part of the settlement because he used editing to make it seem like he was a willing participant in trafficking underage girls which got him fired and smeared in the media, despite the fact the person was innocent and also immediately contacted the police to report O'Keefe.

4 u/Euphemism 28 Jun 2017 01:10

So in essence, while what he did was shitty and hurt people, the jist of what he said, and was said - is true? Not that I think there is any doubt of that now, just trying to put the nail in the talking point from those trying to make the case people shouldn't have to listen to him.

1 u/friendlyfire 28 Jun 2017 01:26

No ... ACORN was exonerated by multiple investigations, including Republican investigations in Republican controlled states. James O'Keefe was full of shit. You know in AMA's sometimes when someone asks an actress a question like "Would you consider doing a sequel?" And the actress responds with "Yes" And then the original person edits their post to say "Would you consider doing ANAL in a porn video?" That's basically what O'Keefe did. He took ACORN employees answers and spliced different questions before them.

2 u/Euphemism 28 Jun 2017 13:17

That isn't how I remember it at all. However, after all this time I could be wrong. Do you have a source?

1 u/friendlyfire * 28 Jun 2017 13:34

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy#cite_note-Salon2010Madden-7 Specifically about them changing their questions: "Giles and O'Keefe lied to engender compassion, but then edited their statements from the released videos." This came from the CA investigation where they exchanged immunity for the unedited CA tapes. (only instance where we have the full unedited video/audio) The wikipedia entry has 138 sources linked in it. They lied about wearing pimp costumes, they lied about whether ACORN employees actually helped them (in Philadelphia), some of the ACORN employees played along (like in CA and Philadelphia) in order to get as much information as possible and then immediately reported it to the police. In Philly O'Keefe claimed the employees were helping them. He released audio of him asking questions and made it seem like they were aiding and abetting his criminal prostitution ring. Keefe claimed they were 100% onboard with helping them. But the police report, the fact they called the police on him while he was there and Keefe's unwillingness to release the unedited versions kind of makes him a fucking liar. In reality the ACORN employees in Philly called the police, made a police report and had the police escort them out of the building. Don't get me wrong, some of the ACORN employees did say things that were inappropriate. Some of them were specifically in order to get more information and then later they reported it all to the police, but I don't know if all of them were. But literally every investigation cleared the ACORN employees of anything criminal. The worst ACORN "offenders" literally reported everything to the police immediately after - and their police reports stated that they played along for more information - all well before the videos came out.

1 u/Euphemism 28 Jun 2017 13:46

Thanks, I'll start to look in to this

1 u/[deleted] 29 Jun 2017 17:49

[deleted]

26 u/DoPewPew 27 Jun 2017 14:47

That's hilarious coming from someone who posts heavily in politics. You want to talk about heavily edited...

-23 u/friendlyfire 27 Jun 2017 15:02

... okay? I like how you don't even attempt to defend PV, you just attack /r/politics like it's somehow relevant at all to this discussion.

29 u/Player_Slayer_7 27 Jun 2017 15:50

You mean the discussion about the post which is about how r/politics is censoring anything to do with this story? How is talking about r/politics not relevant on a post that's about r/politics?

3 u/Porphyrogennetos 28 Jun 2017 10:49

MSM doesn't even have a video of Trump collusion with Russia, therefore that narrative is fake news. This is using your own logic.

11 u/fastbeemer 27 Jun 2017 17:26

Do you also down vote CNN videos and stories? They have a proven history of heavily editing and falsifying sources.

1 u/friendlyfire † 27 Jun 2017 17:43

Let me get this straight: CNN takes someone's answer to a question and then edit in different questions so it makes it look like someone is committing a crime? Because that's the shit PV does. And got fined for. And had to issue an apology for.

8 u/fastbeemer 27 Jun 2017 18:07

You're kidding right? Do you own stock in CNN? I'm betting it's been a really bad week for you already. You are making yourself look silly, and destroying any personal credibility you might have. The facts: Trump has never been under investigation. CNN had to retract a story on Saturday. Three employees resigned over it. Harvard study shows a 93% negative bias on CNN against Trump. Stop letting CNN make you look like a fool, have some self respect. Can you come up with a single plausible scenario in which the producer saying Zucker told them to stop reporting on the Paris Accord and back to Russia could be taken out of context? Given the overwhelming factual evidence, it doesn't matter if it were taken out of context, CNN is worse than PV, and the race isn't even close. You are defending people who don't deserve to be defended. They've been conning the public for nearly three decades. They've been named in more lawsuits than PV ever has. They're known to discriminate. They are THE joke. PV isn't really breaking any news, we've known this, they are only confirming what the evidence has already demonstrated. They aren't actually bringing anything new to the table. I know it must suck being a liberal right now, Trump has never been under investigation, Hillary, Bernie, Lynch, and the Obama DoJ are under investigation. The world's been turned upside down for liberals, but you don't need to be a sheep any longer.

-1 u/friendlyfire 27 Jun 2017 18:26

I don't give two shits about CNN. And I'm not defending them. I'm saying that PV is trash. Maybe you should stop letting PV make you look like a fool.

8 u/fastbeemer 27 Jun 2017 18:48

I'm not, I cited plenty of other evidence to demonstrate why my position is more likely correct. This is something you have not done. I guess you are resigned to always being the fool.

-1 u/friendlyfire 27 Jun 2017 19:11

So you think that PV is a bastion of TRUTH? And you've given what evidence for that? You do realize that it was Republicans who started the investigation into ACORN and they were the ones who absolved ACORN completely and went after O'Keefe, right?

10 u/fastbeemer 27 Jun 2017 19:26

Doesn't matter, the supporting facts are enough to substantiate the claim. It is more crazy that you are attempting to discredit the video based on a separate and unrelated case, and ignoring the mountain of evidence supporting the claim. Based on your flawed logic, everything CNN has said or published should be discredited because they had to retract a story. That is how your logic follows, correct? If not, why do you give CNN a pass and not PV? The only explanation is that one says what you want to hear, the other doesn't. Isn't the hallmark of journalism saying things the people don't want to hear? If that is the case, PV is definitely journalism for you.

-1 u/friendlyfire 27 Jun 2017 19:31

Like someone else said, I would like to see the unedited video and audio before I would trust anything PV put out. In the ACORN case they got employees to repeat hypothetical questions / situations and then edited it to make it look like they said it as fact. I'm sorry, but when someone lies so blatantly through editing in the past, I'm going to completely disregard their newest project without even looking into it. I don't care if you don't trust CNN. Good on you. But there is absolutely no reason for you to believe PV.

2 u/fastbeemer 27 Jun 2017 19:39

Are you that dense or just that stubborn? I gave you plenty of FACTUAL reasons to believe the PV video. Besides the fact that if you truly cared you'd look up the unedited video, it's out there. I'm sorry but you are too hilarious not to respond to. Let me get this straight, the fact that Comey said that Trump has never been under investigation isn't enough proof to believe a video that says Trump has never been under investigation and they have made it up for ratings? The former FBI directors testimony corroborates the video evidence, and you don't want to believe it? I'm not even entertaining the argument you make because it's irrelevant. All known evidence points to the video being accurate! No evidence points to it being inaccurate. Stop lying to yourself man, have some fucking dignity. Stop carrying water for the loser left.

0 u/friendlyfire 27 Jun 2017 19:40

> Besides the fact that if you truly cared you'd look up the unedited video, it's out there Feel free to link that to me and I'll watch it.

3 u/fastbeemer 27 Jun 2017 19:45

I don't need to, I have the evidence that corroborates the story, I don't need the video to not look stupid. You need the video to be false or you will look dumb as fuck, so you have a vested interest in disproving it, I will just rely on Comey’s testimony, and the fact that CNN had to retract a story, and fired (resigned) three employees. Nice try though. The burden of proof is on you.

0 u/friendlyfire 27 Jun 2017 19:55

LOL, just admit that the unedited video isn't out there and you're a liar.

3 u/fastbeemer 27 Jun 2017 20:10

Why? I have substantiated my claim, I am willing to let it go to the jury now. I'm not arguing in an attempt to change your mind, I'm arguing for the couple dozen of people who read this and realize how terrible a point you've made. You have already demonstrated that you are beyond logic and reason, therefore there is no winning for you, but there are plenty of lurkers out there that I can convince. If you'd like to convince them I'd suggest you find the video and break down why it's incorrect, and you better find evidence of Russian involvement.

0 u/friendlyfire 27 Jun 2017 20:26

Yes, you did a great job making a claim (the unedited video is out there) and then proving that you're actually a liar because it isn't. Shill, shill, shill. Liar, liar, liar.

3 u/fastbeemer 27 Jun 2017 20:56

Haha, you're cute. Nice try on changing the subject. I don't need the unedited video because there is plenty of on the record evidence that also shows that CNN are stone cold liars. I don't even need the PV video at all. CNN are liars, and you are seriously gullible if you believe them. Your choice to be gullible or not, all the hoping in the world won't make Russia anything more than bullshit from butthurt libs.

0 u/friendlyfire 27 Jun 2017 21:08

I didn't say you needed the video. I'm saying you are a liar. You said it was out there. It's not. How's that lying working out for you? I can't believe you tried to bring CNN into this. OMG, CNN LIES TOO! THEREFORE IT'S OKAY WHEN I LIE. You've lost all credibility.

2 u/fastbeemer 28 Jun 2017 00:41

Nice try. From USA Today's article: "CNN says a clandestine video of one of the network's producers criticizing its coverage of President Trump is legitimate, further fraying an already strained relationship between the news network and the White House." Even CNN admits its true, thinks they can shrug it off. They believe you are sheep and will swallow anything they sell you.

0 u/friendlyfire 28 Jun 2017 01:33

Please show me where I ever say that it wasn't a CNN employee? I'm honestly not sure what "gotcha" moment you think you're having here. I called you a liar because you said the unedited video and audio was available to watch. It's not. You lied. You, fastbeemer, are a liar. I don't give two shits about CNN. But please keep harping on them in order to distract from the fact you're a liar.

1 u/fastbeemer 28 Jun 2017 01:40

I'm just happy people are seeing you for the absolute moron you are. The unedited video is out there, keep hunting idiot.

0 u/friendlyfire 28 Jun 2017 01:41

Yeah, literally there are tons of people asking for exactly that in this thread. The unedited video. And all I see from jokes like you is lies.

2 u/fastbeemer 28 Jun 2017 01:48

First off you moron, there is no need for the unedited video, as I pointed out to you earlier but you are not smart enough to understand, CNN has already said the PV video is legitimate. Why the fuck would we need the unedited video when the subject has already stipulated that its correct? This does not diminish the fact that the video is out there, whether you can locate it is up to how good you are. Finding it evidently won't change anything, as CNN agrees that the video is legitimate. But mouth breathers like you are so gullible it won't matter now will it? The truth is an area you can't operate in.

1 u/spoida 28 Jun 2017 10:10

Why are you bothering with this obvious shill?

1 u/spoida 28 Jun 2017 10:09

You dumb shit, have you even looked? The video is out there. I could link it but you are doing such a good job of making a fool of yourself I think we should just sit back and watch.

1 u/[deleted] 29 Jun 2017 17:52

[deleted]

1 u/[deleted] 29 Jun 2017 17:51

[deleted]

4 u/Terminal-Psychosis 27 Jun 2017 19:34

> And I'm not defending them. You're desperately trying to change the subject. Which is CNN being a snake den of shady political propaganda. Whatever shred of integrity they might have had just went right down the toilet with this shit, where the vast majority of the blatant disinformation and propaganda they peddle as "news" belongs.

2 u/friendlyfire 27 Jun 2017 19:39

Maybe we're just trying to argue two separate points. I'm trying to say that PV is trash. You're trying to say CNN is trash. Both statements can be correct.

1 u/Terminal-Psychosis 28 Jun 2017 05:31

That CNN is trash is the only thing relevant to this discussion. The video speaks for itself, and no amount of character assassination attempts will change that. Who released the video is completely irrelevant. The damning evidence against CNN is overwhelming and undeniable. These attempts to distract from that are pathetic and transparent. Stop that now.

1 u/friendlyfire 28 Jun 2017 13:05

I like how one guys opinion who works at CNN in a capacity unrelated to political news is "damning evidence against CNN"

1 u/[deleted] 29 Jun 2017 17:51

[deleted]

1 u/Porphyrogennetos 28 Jun 2017 10:49

Yeah but the Russia narrative doesn't even have a video. Therefore Russia = Fake News. By your own logic.

2 u/[deleted] 29 Jun 2017 17:48

[deleted]

1 u/[deleted] 27 Jun 2017 15:45

[deleted]

16 u/MissType * 27 Jun 2017 17:28

deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.6743 [^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?](https://pastebin.com/FcrFs94k/49571)

17 u/DoPewPew 27 Jun 2017 17:35

Disrespecting MSM? They don't deserve respect. It's a business that pedals an agenda while trying to sell commercials.

6 u/Blend41 28 Jun 2017 00:14

Some of which were funded by our tax dollars. Check out the "Lean Forward" campaign they ran prior to and during Obama reelection. That's right, our tax dollars were used to proliferate a left wing agenda.

30 u/destronger 27 Jun 2017 13:38

I wish project veritas would release their video and audio unedited (of course with blurring the undercover person I understand). I'd rather watch the entire video in its context. PV should do this with *every* news outlet.

17 u/21Blankenship [OP] 27 Jun 2017 13:56

The end of the video calls out every major network.

11 u/friendlyfire * 27 Jun 2017 17:00

They don't unless subpoena'd because the unedited version doesn't look nearly as bad. See the ACORN video where it turned out it was almost 100% fabricated and resulted in all charges dropped against ACORN and James O'Keefe actually paying $100,000 and issuing an apology to the worker he completely misrepresented and slandered. He literally edited in different questions to make it look like the ACORN employee was willingly engaging in crimes. But they only found all that out after it was subpoena'd.

-16 u/algernonsflorist 27 Jun 2017 19:10

Dude, shut up, can't you see there's a circle jerk going on in here?

2 u/Euphemism 27 Jun 2017 23:46

I agree with you, except with every news outlet and online. I don't think I know of a news outlet that hasn't been complicit in this false narrative we see being pushed.

7 u/obievil 27 Jun 2017 19:52

The problem I have with this video is that's edited for context he wants to portray. If the poster really had a valid point. he'd need to release the unedited video. this is frustrating to me.

9 u/21Blankenship [OP] 27 Jun 2017 21:43

I imagine the unedited video was probably a day long. I don't see how broadening the scope would change the context very much. He's openly admitting that CNN has been generating stories for ratings. Whether that was said in the middle of a 9 hour video or during a 1 minute clip it's still bad.

9 u/obievil * 27 Jun 2017 21:53

Fine, then give several minutes before each question, unedited. that's not several hours, It would still provide necessary context.

12 u/JonRedcorn862 27 Jun 2017 22:05

I am just curious, what context do you need when he is plainly stating what he said. Was he answering a trick question? I am just not sure what type of question would have to be asked for this to be misconstrued as anything but exactly what it sounds like.

8 u/obievil 27 Jun 2017 22:16

I will relent. the media bullshit has made me skeptical of everything. I don't know what to believe anymore.

11 u/ChicoMarxism 27 Jun 2017 23:13

Holy shit...good talk guys. That's rare moment here. All political related comments are colon cancer lately. I'd guild you both if I were dumb enough to buy reddit gold. EDIT: this is how people used to talk pre internet.

5 u/SideTraKd 28 Jun 2017 02:36

Please provide a context... ANY context... where what this guy has said is even *remotely* okay.

0 u/obievil 28 Jun 2017 15:09

The answer is of course none of it. What bothered me the most was that between several the questions and when he answered the questions there's a Cut in the video. Why is there cut? If he directly answered the question that just got asked, then why was there a cut in the video? Why was there a cut in the middle of the answer? Those things bothered me.

7 u/peetss 27 Jun 2017 22:11

Unacceptable source is another word for fascism.

3 u/Drugs-R-Bad-Mkay 27 Jun 2017 19:27

Thanks for the links. I'll watch it when I get home, but how anyone can view PVs work without a tremendous amount of scrutiny and skepticism is beyond me. Fool me once...

-1 u/bassististist † 27 Jun 2017 19:37

Google "dildo boat".

2 u/ChicoMarxism 27 Jun 2017 23:08

Geez oh man, is this some type of "blue waffle" shit? Hesitant.

1 u/bassististist † 27 Jun 2017 23:13

Nope, but you'll learn more about what a super super super super awesome source Project "Veritas" is.

5 u/ChicoMarxism 27 Jun 2017 23:18

Awww... WTF?, you totally burned me on that link. #1 story was published by fucking [wonkette.com](https://wonkette.com/424143/james-okeefe-tries-to-get-cnn-reporter-onto-his-dildo-lube-boat) for christ's sake. There's no safe haven anymore.

-5 u/bassististist * 27 Jun 2017 23:23

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/acorn-foe-james-okeefe-sought-to-embarrass-cnns-abbie-boudreau-on-porn-strewn-palace-of-pleasure-boat/ Edit: Since I'm getting down votes for (presumably) "fake news", here's [some more!](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/08/james-o-keefe-settlement-acorn) More recent, too...but I'm sure he's "grown up a lot since then", right? Face it...this guy is garbage paid by trump to spread fake news. Not ONE of his videos has EVER passed the Smell Test. Edit 2: These down votes without replies are like sweet, sweet wine. Here's further evidence that [Project "Veritas" videos should NEVER be trusted!](http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/) Edit 3: "DILDO BOAT! DILDO BOAT! DILDO BOAT! DILDO BOAT! DILDO BOAT! DILDO BOAT! DILDO BOAT!"

4 u/ChicoMarxism 27 Jun 2017 23:33

Hahah! that is a wild story, it read like fan-fiction. That story was original released by CNN though, [the plot thickens](http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/29/okeefe.cnn.prank/). EDIT: 7 years ago.

-28 u/FunkyTown313 27 Jun 2017 13:25

Garbage source is garbage. PV doesn't deserve a seat at the table of real journalism. He's along the line of Alex Jones.

58 u/21Blankenship [OP] * 27 Jun 2017 13:58

Regardless of your opinions on PV, CNN does almost all the talking in this video. PV is just sourcing the footage. Edit: Opinions is spelled "opinions"

-38 u/FunkyTown313 * 27 Jun 2017 14:16

My opinion of them greatly influences their credibility. For me. My opinion is he isn't a journalist. He's a troll that manipulates footage to cause public outcry. Edit guess I should have thrown in a trigger warning for GOP apologists.

29 u/smellslikecat 27 Jun 2017 15:20

Thats the problem. Your opinion is wrong.

-19 u/FunkyTown313 27 Jun 2017 15:23

Based on? Please provide unbiased, undeniable proof that will most certainly change my opinion

8 u/smellslikecat 27 Jun 2017 15:25

Based on your opinion being wrong.

5 u/FunkyTown313 27 Jun 2017 15:29

Still waiting on that proof to change my opinion. Come on, I'm sure you have some. I mean if you're so sure I'm wrong there has to be a good reason.

5 u/smellslikecat 27 Jun 2017 15:30

Here it is: Your opinion<--wrong

3 u/FunkyTown313 27 Jun 2017 15:31

That's what I thought. You don't have any.

5 u/smellslikecat 27 Jun 2017 15:33

Its right there. You opinion, is wrong.

1 u/nonamenumber3 28 Jun 2017 05:50

You're not exactly helping with this conversation. Seriously...what's your goal here? Just to shout at somebody and tell them they're wrong?

3 u/Terminal-Psychosis 27 Jun 2017 19:41

No, those making outrageous accusations are burdened with providing proof. There is none. Never has been. Just a whole lot of hot air from political propaganda agencies and corporate disinformation outfits such as CNN & Co.

2 u/FunkyTown313 * 27 Jun 2017 22:33

My assertion was based on past knowledge of PV's style of journalism. Because I know the MO of the guy, his burden of proof is higher for them to be considered legitimate. I am not arguing for CNN, I am against PV.

18 u/Player_Slayer_7 27 Jun 2017 15:58

Since fuck face can't actually do anything but drool instead of present a valid argument to you, I'll try to explain why your opinion is wrong, or at least, isn't good. Regardless of opinion on PV, it doesn't change the fact that a CNN official has outright stated that the whole Russia thing is practically baseless conjecture. Sure, the video is heavily edited, and yes, it would be great if we had the full thing unedited, but it didn't change what the guy said, nor did they crop the audio to make it look like he said something he didn't.

2 u/FunkyTown313 27 Jun 2017 16:22

Thank you for responding in a civilized manner. I'll admit my personal bias clouds my opinion of anything that PV put out. I think his past makes him an untrustworthy source. That being said, there are only two reasonable conclusions any reasonable person can make right now about the situation. 1. The DNC had a shit ton of emails leaked. 2. The amount of illegitimate news that flowed throughout the election was insane. It should be the responsibility of congress to figure out how it happened and how to combat it in the future. If there anything amounting to any campaign colluding with a foreign country/illegal entity throughout this process, it should be prosecuted without mercy.. Other than that, there is little anyone can claim to be concrete.

1 u/Player_Slayer_7 † 27 Jun 2017 16:47

Agreed. If this whole Trump/Russia collusion situation does prove to be true, he should absolutely be removed from office. However, this whole video situation basically places a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" effect on CNN and the case itself. It adds even more shade and makes the outcome of the case even harder to pinpoint.

6 u/Terminal-Psychosis 27 Jun 2017 19:40

Harder to pinpoint??!?! hah! This whole "Ze Russians!" bullshit is this decade's WMD propaganda. Keep lookin' though bud, them WMD's have GOTTA be there somewhere! Even though the ex FBI director said there's no Russian ties to Trump or his cabinet, and a high ranking CNN official just admitted the same on video.

1 u/spoida 28 Jun 2017 10:17

When Trump is exonerated CNN should be dissolved as a company and sold off to fund his re-election campaign. Seriously.

7 u/fastbeemer 27 Jun 2017 17:36

Take all known evidence as a whole, including Comey's testimony, it doesn't really matter if PV is credible. The video provided, combined with the evidence at hand, lends to the credibility of the claim regardless of the source. We know from sworn testimony that the president has never been under investigation, that right there is enough to lend credibility to the idea that CNN is conning millions of people to push their ratings and narrative. I'd entertain your opinion more if the PV video were the only evidence of what CNN is doing, but taking everything on the whole, your opinion is most likely flat wrong.

1 u/FunkyTown313 27 Jun 2017 18:35

Blanket statement: 24 hour news networks push a ratings first agenda. CNN pushing a narrative that trump is a Russian conspirator drives rating from those disillusioned by the results of 2016 in the same way allowing trump's birtherism and the tea party rise did in 2008. I'm not condoning the behavior, but it does have a certain symmetry to it. I said this elsewhere but it bears repeating. I truly have no use for 24 hour news networks unless something big happens. I cannot fathom watching it on a nightly basis. How boring.

5 u/fastbeemer 27 Jun 2017 18:52

Key difference, nobody really pushed the birther movement in the media. The Tea Party came about from an entirely different area. There is absolutely no symmetry. We did not have "birther" hearings in the senate. The birther thing is more akin to Trump's taxes than it is to Russia, there is symmetry between taxes and the birth certificate.

1 u/FunkyTown313 27 Jun 2017 19:12

Fair point on birtherism. The tea party while not a fox News invention certainly had its fans flamed by it though and could be seen as one of the driving factors behind the sea of red the states happening over the next eight years.

5 u/fastbeemer 27 Jun 2017 19:19

Yes, and it makes sense as the Harvard study pointed out, FOX is the most fair and balanced, so they'd have more coverage of the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party was not a response to Obama however, they were a response to inept establishment Republicans. They did most of their work in primary elections. You could say they were against the Obama agenda, but so were the Republicans, they formed because establishment candidates were not doing anything to stop it. The Tea Party and Trump supporters have both formed as a response to Republicans, not Democrats. You will see them again in 2018, because the Republicans control everything and are getting nothing legislatively accomplished. A full repeal of O-care is the only thing that will stop it.

1 u/FunkyTown313 27 Jun 2017 19:33

When it comes to Trump coverage... It's intellectually dishonest to blanket fox as completely fair and balanced because their Trump coverage is 50/50. And yeah, watching the GOP fumble around legislatively isn't making anyone happy. I'd suggest more bipartisanship personally.

3 u/fastbeemer 27 Jun 2017 19:50

The left won't cooperate, and the right doesn't need to. It would be smart for the left to cooperate because the Republican constituents will never vote Democrat, and they will only vote in more conservative Republicans in the primary. If you notice what I said, I stated that 'statistically speaking' FOX was the most fair and balanced, with the cited Harvard Study. You'll find that my statement is technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

1 u/FunkyTown313 27 Jun 2017 22:37

The "war" is always for the middle. Both side's base isn't likely to change parties. Also, lol it is the best kind.

0 u/Porphyrogennetos 28 Jun 2017 10:46

No one gives a shit about you.

1 u/FunkyTown313 28 Jun 2017 11:19

Ohhh a threat. Bring it cupcake

1 u/JonRedcorn862 27 Jun 2017 22:06

In what context could the things said by the guy from cnn be misconstrued? Was he just joking around? That has to be it right?

2 u/FunkyTown313 28 Jun 2017 00:14

PV has been known in the past for presenting partial truths as concrete facts and even outright fabrication of falsehoods as news. The problem with the video is because of his past, unless presented in it's entirety and independently verified I have to assume it's false/faked/not entirely true. It's not like I decided randomly he was a bad guy. He made that decision for me.

1 u/JonRedcorn862 28 Jun 2017 02:45

So the producer that is obviously in the video was in on the fabrication as well? Did you even watch it? It would appear that many of the deniers in here are just slagging it off without even looking at it. The guy plainly speaks about the absolute rubbish that CNN is passing off as news for the fucking paltry ratings above all else. That's all they care about. Keep your head in the sand, it doesn't bother me. Unless the producer is in on this then I can't see what could possibly be fake about it.

1 u/JonRedcorn862 28 Jun 2017 18:15

So the CNN producer is in on it?

1 u/FunkyTown313 28 Jun 2017 18:38

Is not what I said.

0 u/Porphyrogennetos 28 Jun 2017 10:46

You're the triggered one here, but I'm not surprised you can't see that.

1 u/FunkyTown313 28 Jun 2017 11:21

I guess you missed the part where I had interesting meaningful conversation with some folk later on in the thread. The edit was only to catch idiots. So, clearly. mission accomplished

0 u/Left4DayZ1 † 27 Jun 2017 14:16

So CNN is in good company, is that what you're saying?

8 u/FunkyTown313 27 Jun 2017 14:29

It depends on what you use it for. CNN as a television station is terrible. But generally I think that of all the news channels. They over analyze things and aren't interested in participating in long form investigative journalism. People that get get their opinions exclusively from news commentators are brainless sheep incapable of thinking for themselves. But if I need to know about a huge news story (like a disaster somewhere in the world) they're as good as anything.

3 u/nliausacmmv † 27 Jun 2017 15:50

No, they're saying that O'Keefe has a record of chopping up videos specifically to drive outrage. And it works, because nobody ever bothers to come back and realize that he just feeds on that outrage and doesn't actually produce any sort of results, because he's already lost all credibility with everyone except his narrow audience that don't care about his bias and deception when it lines up with their own preconcieved notions. There is no dissent among his fans that everything he does must be true, despite the fact that he's gone to court and lost for deliberately misleading edits.

-1 u/Left4DayZ1 † 27 Jun 2017 15:55

...so CNN is in good company then. Thanks for the clarification!

2 u/nliausacmmv 27 Jun 2017 16:09

Not the person you responded to, and not what either of us said here anyway.

2 u/FunkyTown313 28 Jun 2017 00:06

It's not like I wouldn't entertain the notion of considering him credible if he went back and put in the work to earn it. But as you've said, he has his audience. I'm not a part of it, and I'm pretty sure he's okay with that.

1 u/spoida 28 Jun 2017 10:21

> doesn't actually produce any sort of results, Lol Are you actually forgetting Brazile and Creamer? What about Wassermann-Schultz? His coverage of the emails scandal was instrumental in the removal or the head of the DNC and the neutering of Clintons campaign. You are living in an alternate reality. Don't forget CNN saying; >You are not allowed to read Clinton's emails Lol

1 u/Porphyrogennetos 28 Jun 2017 10:44

So that senior CNN employee didn't say any of those things on camera?

1 u/nliausacmmv 28 Jun 2017 13:46

The people at Planned Parenthood said those things too, but they were so cut up that what made into the video was completely changed. I find it hard to trust a con man who has done this multiple times. Like I said though, it doesn't matter because people will believe it and then when it comes out down the line that the whole context and meaning was completely different, nobody will care.

3 u/kriegson 27 Jun 2017 16:47

Ad-Hominem

3 u/FunkyTown313 27 Jun 2017 17:17

Yes. Saying someone is without credibility is ad hominem as it attacks the person. If a person doesn't have credibility, why should their opinions be taken seriously? This is how anti vaccination people and flat earthers are allowed to waste our time.

2 u/kriegson 27 Jun 2017 17:29

Opinions should be taken seriously when you consider the rationality and/or logic used in said opinion rather than whoever said it. Otherwise why should anyone listen to CNN, NYT, other fake news? This is how "muh russia" conspiracy theorists are allowed to waste our time.

1 u/FunkyTown313 27 Jun 2017 19:19

The fallacy of your argument is it assumes we never learn from our mistakes. If I lie to you ten times but tell you the truth the 11th you're less likely to believe me. Because you've learned that I'm untrustworthy. I'm applying this logic to PV.

1 u/Terminal-Psychosis 27 Jun 2017 19:43

Like America has learned that the corporate owned MSM is completely untrustworthy. Good point.

1 u/FunkyTown313 27 Jun 2017 22:34

TIL I am all of America.

2 u/kriegson 27 Jun 2017 20:04

You shouldn't have to belive or trust someone to objectively view their point and consider it. If PV said "The world is a roughly round shape" would you proclaim "Ha! What a Liar, like we can trust anything he says!" ? Thing is, if this came from literally any other source likely to report it, you would attacking the source. You can't change what was said on video, and who said it.

1 u/FunkyTown313 28 Jun 2017 00:02

Yeah, I'm going to stop you right there. A person's credibility is always going to be considered prior to making a judgment about the factual nature of a statement. Also the second part of your argument is verifiably false. If PV says things that are commonly known to be true I won't pull a 180. It's when they create a new narrative using information that can't be readily verified that they're going to lose my faith in what they're saying. And because he has a history of massaging the truth, I give him a smaller leash before I nope out.

1 u/kriegson 28 Jun 2017 00:18

Your an anon. You have no credibility. Ergo I have absolutely no reason to listen to anything you have to say let alone read it because you have no credibility. Btw I heard CNN just got another hot leak from an anonymous unverified source. You may want to go check out the new narrative of the week from their super credible anonymous source familiar with someone's thinking. It's totes legit. Meanwhile, the rest of us won't be acting like audio/video evidence of a producer on CNN straight up admitting they were pushing for WW3 with the worlds second largest nuclear superpower for ratings, doesn't exist.

2 u/FunkyTown313 28 Jun 2017 00:22

If I was looking for public credibility, I wouldn't be trying to get it from Reddit. As for your snark about CNN: k

1 u/Porphyrogennetos 28 Jun 2017 10:45

Regardless of what you think of James O'Keefe (hint: He's more credible than you are), look at the content of what the **SENIOR** CNN employee is saying. It's said on camera, very clearly.

1 u/FunkyTown313 28 Jun 2017 11:27

JO's sole purpose as a "newsman" has been to incite outrage. Because he often misrepresents statements, I cannot take it at face value. And, if I were looking for credibility I wouldn't look for it on Reddit.

r/politics keeping the PV video covered up

151 comments