Quote (Plaguefear @ Mar 23 2021 02:30pm)
Ok so scumbags who cut videos to try to falsely prove a narrative were not interviewed for a hit piece on them?
No way!
To the judge's point, this is a close fit to the actual behavior of the NYT. If we are equating the NYT with Project Veritas, then I am happy.
Interesting choice of words, though, "hit piece"? This was supposed to be a news article.
Quote (thundercock @ Mar 23 2021 04:05pm)
I mean, it's not really important news, right? The only organizations pushing this narrative are RT, Washington Times, etc. At the end of the day, the NY Times was pointing out a pattern of bullshit from an organization with negative credibility. The only reason Project Veritas continues to exist is because of conservatives with extremely poor critical thinking skills.
I think this brings up an interesting question though. At what point did conservatives start supporting frivolous lawsuits? Growing up, it was a conservative position to be against frivolous lawsuits because they wasted $ and didn't produce any value.
I think it's clear from the lawsuit that the NYT ran, to quote Plaguefear, a "hit piece" as news because they were frothing at the mouth at reporting which was perceived to negatively impact the Democratic party.
It is important to understand that the New York Times newsroom views it role as playing defense for a singular political party, and that they are running their news from that angle. Reasonable people double and triple check news from Fox and MSNBC because they expect it to be riddled with bias. Mainstream newspapers have said that they hold themselves to a higher standard. As educated, high information consumers, that's something we should know.
As for the actual report, the judge addresses it. The complaint from the NYT appears to have evolved, from the reporting being incorrect to the charge that Project Veritas was promoting the expose as more than it actually was. In the judge's words, it is obviously very different to say that the expose underwhelmed versus the claim that the report was false or deceptive. Again, one of many reasons why the lawsuit was not dismissed, as frivolous lawsuits tend to be. Given how strong our 1st amendment protections are, the NYT really had to fuck up for it to get this far.
As for "only X,Y,Z are running with this", I think that's more to the point. Trump takes his time walking down a ramp, and we are treated to many high profile articles examining his physical and mental health. Biden falls down repeatedly trying to climb a ramp, and we are treated to articles explaining why his health is excellent, if they acknowledge it at all. Was either incident newsworthy? In my opinion, probably not, I'm far more concerned that Biden struggles to speak coherently and his advisors clearly have little to no confidence in allowing him to speak unscripted. But the underlying takeaway is that many mainstream sources ran the "everything is fine" headlines, after running headlines critical of Trump less than a year ago, because they are invested in the political success of the Democratic party. They are appendages of the DNC, and we should treat them like it.
This post was edited by bogie160 on Mar 23 2021 03:22pm