Why? Do you think they're deep-faking their videos of people admitting to nefarious things?
to the point where they sacrifice the achievement of conservative goals in favor of short term outrage.
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.
https://cloverchronicle.com/2019/06/24/here-are-some-of-the-...
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.