The omissions Farhi identifies are:
1. The video identifies the man on camera as John Bonifield, a "supervising producer," but fails to specify that he works on health and medical stories.
2. The video fails to specify that Bonifield is based in Atlanta and "not in Washington or New York, where most of CNN’s coverage of national affairs and politics are produced."
3. The video doesn't say who the man making the video is or how he gained access to Bonifield.
See what's missing? There's absolutely nothing saying that Bonifield's statements were edited to distort or take anything out of context or encourage misinterpretation. There's nothing on Farhi's list that makes us feel we need the unedited footage to be fair to Bonifield and CNN. Every single thing is about additional facts that can be presented to us without access to the complete footage that Project Veritas holds in its possession.
These additional facts are perfectly easy for Bonifield or CNN or The Washington Post to share with us, including the identity of the Project Veritas operative and how he got access to Bonifield. Obviously, Bonifield knows that. According to Farhi:
People at CNN said Project Veritas’s operative was referred to Bonifield through a social-services organization in Atlanta called Rainbros that matches young adults with mentors.The link on Rainbros takes us to a website that says "Rainbros. Where Gay Gets Easier./Peer Coaching for Gay Atlantans/How can we help you make your life better?"
Farhi says: "Bonifield met the man in question about five times, and apparently was under the assumption that he was interested in a career in journalism." Yes, it's not very nice to use a mentoring service to get to some presumably kind-hearted person who is devoting his energy to (I hope!) helping young people. And this kind of trickery from Veritas is hardly surprising at this point, and we can talk about that. But I'd also like to know more about how The Washington Post and CNN get access to all the leakers that have been feeding the Russia craziness in the media that made the Project Veritas operation worth doing.
Let's talk about all of it. But let's recognize that Bonifield really made those statements and — from what I can see so far — there was nothing unfair about how they were presented in the edit we got yesterday.
Posts
62 comments:
O'Keefe is trolling them with a new video every day.
The old Breitbart trick is to release an edited video, wait for the criticism that it's edited, and then release the whole video which is even worse.
Quotes that do not quote. Deja vu.
Michael K:
Exactly. This isn't the first time that O'Keefe has sent them on a baby hunt. Without reading WaPo's defense, I wonder if they have finally learned their lesson.
"Context" is "That's Not Fair!" for grownups.
He didn't say: What's not in the video is the fact that the Russian collusion allegations are true.
Because he knows they aren't.
Nor did the article contain any quote from anyone at CNN denying O'Keefe's main point: that they know the Russian collusion story is BS.
"Editing" is what liberals scream. Well, "editing" is what makes videos watchable. I am a PI and presented video surveillance in court countless times. Always edited. Stupid attorneys would then try and make a big deal that it was edited. I would have all the raw footage w/ me[often hours of videotape] and ask if they wanted to watch. That always ended the "editing" meme. Fuck sake, they give Oscars for editing. The correct tactic would be to prove via raw footage the video was DECEPTIVELY edited. I could ALWAYS testify that NOTHING exculpatory was edited out of the final product.
I may be confused, but hasn't this sort of surreptitious videotaping been a standard technique for the mainstream media for decades?
rhhardin:
As I recall, Breitbart released an unedited clip that was misinterpreted by the left. They then released a full recording meant to demonstrate his bigotry, but instead confirmed his original intent which was a superb act of legerdemain. The NAACP, and now the SPLC, are on public trial for profiting from [class] diversity rackets.
Big Mike: When Mike Wallace (60 Minutes) did it, the MSM thought it was "hard hitting journalism".
It's different now Because Reasons.
I'm interested in this scenario-- in the context of mentoring, a gay man in a speculative mode lets the usual filtering and masking drop, and thus is professionally humiliated for saying what everyone knows to be true.
Sounds like the guy does have a career in journalism. That's good mentoring.
"Rainbro" = gay Broflake
If WaPo is saying what this guy says isn't trustworthy since he doesn't know, are they implying he was misleading his mentee?
Anytime a video comes out like this that embarrasses or damages the left, they ALWAYS change the subject by claiming stuff was cut out of the video to make it look bad, even when it's unedited video.
Who'd he have to sleep with to get on that picture?
Laslo needs to chime in here.
Poor little CNN, tricked again. Their real objection, obviously, is getting caught.
A total reach by WaPo.
@Pianoman, true that. It's always about whose box is being gored, isn't it?
@rhhardin, maybe the reason why -- as Althouse notes -- they aren't pushing the old "taken out of context and heavily edited" line is because they've finally worked it out.
presumably kind-hearted person who is devoting his energy to (I hope!) helping young people.
Wow, I'm shocked Althouse is trafficking in the blood libel that gay men prey on young boys. No wonder men stay away from teaching jobs and volunteering to work with young people.
... whose OX is being gored ...
Someday I'm going to get even with whoever created autocorrect.
But I'd also like to know more about how The Washington Post and CNN get access to all the leakers that have been feeding the Russia craziness in the media that made the Project Veritas operation worth doing.
We know how those organizations get "leakers". Leakers are individuals in teh organization in question who are using the press as external & often unwitting allies in their intra-organizational battles. In other words, they use the press to advance their careers or hinder someone else's.
If they were doing shit out of the goodness of their hearts, well, they would have joined the Little Sisters of the Poor, wouldn't they?
Treason.
Didn't the Catholic Church have a similar program to the Rainbro one. Talk about a lawsuit just waiting to happen.
Using the techniques of investigative journalists against investigative journalists. God could not have struck them with a more fitting plague.
Insty has a related story. http://www.dailywire.com/news/17984/wut-cnn-claims-retracted-fake-news-story-could-john-nolte
So why would anyone trust CNN? Actually I don't think anyone does. The core audience is not looking for accuracy. But those stuck in airports might.
But let's recognize that Bonifield really made those statements and — from what I can see so far — there was nothing unfair about how they were presented in the edit we got yesterday.
The goal is not to prove the statements misleading. The goal is to provide Dem partisans a fig leaf justification to avoid admitting it.
The purpose of the media is to provide talking points to the left. If they hadn't put out this smokescreen they wouldn't be doing their jobs.
Now people can go to work tomorrow with a witty retort for those awful Trump people's comments. The membership benefit of joining the left is you're never left standing there with nothing to say.
WaPo is doing its level best to keep every negative story about Trump alive regardless of its veracity. The Glenn Greenwald article I linked to this morning exposes them for what they are.
BM I kind of enjoyed the 632 version and the vision it conjured in my mind.
Bill
WaPo is doing its level best to keep every...
The modern scientific, legal, and, apparently, journolistic method is based on construction of a plausible hypothesis (e.g. models, liberal assumptions/assertions) and preponderance of evidence (e.g. circumstantial, sampling below the Nyquist Rate a.k.a. "missing link").
But let's recognize that Bonifield really made those statements and — from what I can see so far — there was nothing unfair about how they were presented in the edit we got yesterday.
Well, assuming you hate context. Cherry picking is indeed selective editing.
Well, assuming you hate context. Cherry picking is indeed selective editing.
Maybe you could propose some possible "contexts" that would reverse the meaning of the plain words?
The most overlooked scandalous part of the video is the liberal CNN producer is sipping on a large soft drink he bought from Chik-fil-a.
It really is a great chicken sandwich. Hard to resist. And nothing soaks up a hang-over like the chicken biscuit sandwich for breakfast. Except Sunday morning of course.
Seriously. Does anybody do more deceptive editing than the MSM? Trump is right. These people are complete dishonest. And they've become more self absorbed than Hollywood.
They want to control the "truth", but aren't interested in telling it. If they were, they'd take O'Keefe seriously.
@Toothless, perhaps you overlooked it when Althouse wrote the following:
"See what's missing? There's absolutely nothing saying that Bonifield's statements were edited to distort or take anything out of context or encourage misinterpretation. There's nothing on Farhi's list that makes us feel we need the unedited footage to be fair to Bonifield and CNN."
You assert that we are missing "context," but if there was context that was exculpatory then Farhi would know that, and would have suggested what it was.
Sound analysis, Althouse. Do you still prefer that to 'Ann'? It feels awkward but your call.
And Rick is spot on - this is about providing the Left with a bumper sticker slogan that would take a paragraph to refute.
My question is: this guy is a cable news executive, if he really has no clue about the topic, why would he say it was mostly bullshit? Doesn't follow.
Additionally, WaPo implies he is out of the loop. But on video he talks about staff meetings were the Russia story was discussed.
WaPo's rebuttal does not withstand scrutiny.
This reminds me of the media's lame attempt to squash the swiftboat story before Kerry had responded. It literally went down like this:
ABC News: "And moving on to the election, the Swift Boat Vets have been discredited"
I look up and lean in towards the set, expecting analysis...
ABC News: "And now for the weather..."
Seriously. And next morning, all the libtards were running around parroting that the Swiftboat Vets were discredited. And they got angry if you asked "how?"
2. The video fails to specify that Bonifield is based in Atlanta and "not in Washington or New York, where most of CNN’s coverage of national affairs and politics are produced."
Althouse, this one is sorta weird, isn't it? Did you watch the video? They very specifically introduce the guy as, "In Atlanta".
2 out of 3 aint bad I guess.
And CNN Headquarters is in Atlanta. Not that I'm stalking them or casing the place out.
Gosh, what are the odds that a corporate executive walking the halls of corporate headquarters would get the scuttlebut about operations in satellite offices?
The irony is so dense I fear light may not escape from its surface. WashPo has been little more than an anonymous source mouthpiece for months now, but in their "analysis" this clear audio and video are leaving important context out?
An author would be criticized for making this up.
Not believable--no humans are that un-self aware!
Scaramucci has publicly expressed his appreciation, tweeting on Saturday that "CNN did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted. Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on."
TTR: "Well, assuming you hate context. Cherry picking is indeed selective editing."
David Burge @iowahawkblog: "That Ken Burns documentary on WW2 is only 14 hours, where the actual event took almost 4 years! Deceptive editing much, Ken?"
Charlesglasseresq: "Scaramucci has publicly expressed his appreciation, tweeting on Saturday that "CNN did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted. Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on."
I didn't vote for Scaramucci and he doesn't speak for me.
It could be funny if AT&T goes for the merger. Word is that AT&T execs would be calling the shots in any reorganization. And the key players are sympathetic to Trump.
Would be nice if they threw most of CNNs upper management out onto the street. Even better if they turned CNN into a reliable and objective information broker.
💃🎉🚨🍆 IT'S STILL GOING TO GET DUMBER 💃🎉🚨🍆
Fen is my twin brother. He's missed his nightly dose of medication for several days now. I apologize for his behavior. We, his family, have tried to convince him to admit himself, as he is once again veering into hyper-mania. He has delusions of being smarter, faster and more powerful than mere normal people. He can't be held responsible, please excuse him.
That moment when you realize you are living rent free in a troll's head. He even rolls out the sock puppets!
Poor Ritmo. But at least you stopped being so boring.
Definitely counting this as a scalp. Thanks.
TTR: Selective? Sure. You can cut out a lot of what you don't need and leave what you do.
But the issue you're trying to avoid with this little sleight-of-word is "deceptive", and it appears (as has been the case with O'Keefe's videos in the past) to not be the case, and Fahri's concerns don't point towards deception in the edit, no matter how much you and he would like to believe.
If you want deceptive editing, go see Katie Couric's "Under the Gun" documentary, and the out of order VCDL group reax shots they used. THAT is deceptive editing. So bad Couric admitted it and apologized.
Charlesglasseresq: "Scaramucci has publicly expressed his appreciation, tweeting on Saturday that "CNN did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted. Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on."
That's nice, and only tangentially involved with what we're talking about here. This goes to motive for CNN dropping the verify ball on stories like that. Isn't it nice to know that flogging the Russian angle is official CNN policy?
Fen said...
That moment when you realize you are living rent free in a troll's head. He even rolls out the sock puppets!
Poor Ritmo. But at least you stopped being so boring.
Definitely counting this as a scalp. Thanks.
This has more of an Inga feel to it.
"Bonifield met the man in question about five times, and apparently was under the assumption that he was interested in a career in journalism." If he knew that guy was from a gay mentoring service, can we assume that Bonifield would expect some kind of quid pro quo for getting another gay into the world of journalism? That's much worse than using a gay mentoring service to sneak a spy into CNN.
Blogger Fenne said...
"Fen is my twin brother. He's missed his nightly dose of medication for several days now. I apologize for his behavior. We, his family, have tried to convince him to admit himself, as he is once again veering into hyper-mania. He has delusions of being smarter, faster and more powerful than mere normal people. He can't be held responsible, please excuse him."
Smarter and more creative than you. Jesus you're lame. If you're going to do this trolling thing you're going to need a much better sense of humor. But, then. If you had a sense of humor you wouldn't be trolling.
And next morning, all the [liberals] were running around parroting that the Swiftboat Vets were discredited. And they got angry if you asked "how?"
Reasons, my boy, don't you get it? Reasons.
And next morning, all the [liberals] were running around parroting that the Swiftboat Vets were discredited. And they got angry if you asked "how?"
"How" is irrelevant as long as you get your "news" from a reputable "news" source. You think you're smarter than ABC? This guy thinks he's smarter than ABC!
Once they get you in the bubble, it's easier to stay there. Not only do they create the bubble, they can take it anywhere they want.
2 + 2 is anything they need it to be that day.
I remember how everyone dismissed, as probably heavily edited, all those sneak videos done by Mike Wallace and 60 Minutes.
In my brief career in journalism, whenever someone said that I took them out of context, my response was, "Well, put it into context for me. And take as much time as you need." For some reason no one was ever able to do that.
It was obvious from watching the video that is was a same-sex honey trap.
"Yes, it's not very nice to use a mentoring service to get to some presumably kind-hearted person who is devoting his energy to (I hope!) helping young people."
I think we can be pretty sure what the mark was devoting his energy to, and "mentoring" is a euphemism.
"Fenne" is Inga...the lack of originality and creativity are clues. Inga's sock-puppetry is well known here, too.
She's just a dishonest half-wit trying to keep up with the smart people she so despises.
It's unmistakable.
Fen's got a fan boi!
Don't send him dick pics or we'll never be rid of him.
O'Keefe is just using the same tactics that the MSM TV journalists have used for decades. turn about is fair play. the thing is O'keefe will let you see the raw video, the MSM won't
Ann writes:
And this kind of trickery from Veritas is hardly surprising at this point
Um, they're doing undercover videos. If that's negative "trickery", then I hope you're bashing every single leftist / "journalist" who's ever done a "hidden camera" expose.
Post a Comment