Right wing investigator who plotted against WaPo wrecks himself.

[Crandar]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...2#post15453222

Even the conservatives mock him.
Basically, he sent a woman to the WaPo, who was supposed to falsely pretend being a victim of a Republican politician.
The goal was obviously to make WaPo post her story and then James O'Gaffe would publish an embarrassing video for the mainstream media outlets, exposing their communist bias.

The bait contradicted herself and maybe even boasted of her conspiracy online.
The journalists weren't fooled, but instead got sufficient evidence of her working for the notorious Project Veritas. It's a partial group, which plans to expose the lack of integrity of only anyone who dares to criticize the conservatives.

Now, I can understand going undercover to expose the nefarious nature of the system, but that's not O'Gaffe and his underlings did there, hence why he is being laughed at by Republicans and Democrats alike.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/28/medi...ing/index.html

My sides:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video...9-ca0619edfa05
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.4b4ddfef0aa0

[Greyblades]

Is the washington post usually so succeptable to bait that this moment of mild competence is topicworthy?

[Kralizec]

He's going to have a tough time cutting and pasting this into a story. He'll probably try anyway, and no doubt there will be plenty of morons who will take his crap at face value...again.

[Hooahguy]

He's going to have a tough time cutting and pasting this into a story. He'll probably try anyway, and no doubt there will be plenty of morons who will take his crap at face value...again.

He already has. He posted a video of him asking questions to a Washington Post reporter and the reporter walking away. Ill try to find the video when I get home. What the full video shows is that the reporter had reached out to him for comments on the situation. Initially refusing, O'Keefe then had the reporter set up a meeting time with him, to presumably be asked questions. When that meeting time came around, he refused to answer any of the reporter's questions and instead asked the reporter some of his own questions. Seeing that this wasnt going to amount to anything, the reporter left. But from O'Keefe's video it looks like the WaPo reporter just fled. His group has a long history of this sort of thing though, so its really no surprise.

If anything this strengthens the claims of the actual accusers, as making sure a lead is telling the truth is basic journalistic integrity, which O'Keefe does not have.

[Crandar]

That's O'Gaffe's doctored video:
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/s...62597833744384

I had posted Washington Post's uncensored video in the OP, it's the last link.

To Greyblades: I'm just posting stories I find interesting and funny.
Contrary to O'Gaffe's obvious, thanks to his amateurism, agenda, I have no problem laughing at Hilary or alt-right investigators, whose competence doesn't match their malice.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is the washington post usually so succeptable to bait that this moment of mild competence is topicworthy?

Actually, as a rule they are reasonably savvy. Like all of us, they can be led astray when their blinders are in place on an issue/theme (which is what the 'sting' was attempting to exploit). So can WaPo and other news outlets let their quietly held biases shade their telling of the news? Yes. Do they regularly let outsiders and amateurs fool them? Not likely.

Now, when one of their own plays them for fools from the inside, then it can get ugly. Cooke-ing up a Pulitzer

[Husar]

Is the washington post usually so succeptable to bait that this moment of mild competence is topicworthy?

Do you feel so threatened by the content that you need to distract from the scandal by shifting the focus to alleged incompetence of the true heroes of the story?

[Greyblades]

Is crandar so threatened by project veritas that he needs to create a thread that amplifies an attempt to make scandal an action that would be heroic if inept were they taken by a regulatory body?

Are you so threatened by the potential challenge to an ideological narrative that you need to further shift the focus to the alledged ill intent of the sole dissenting voice?

I suspect all three questions have a single answer that is sufficiently insultint, alienating and character assassinating, as has become the norm on this board.

[Husar]

I suspect all three questions have a single answer that is sufficiently insultint, alienating and character assassinating, as has become the norm on this board.

So you admit that your attempt of character assassination on the entire WaPo staff was a bad idea?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So you admit that your attempt of character assassination on the entire WaPo staff was a bad idea?

Well, they are after all....you know....journalists

[Kralizec]

Is crandar so threatened by project veritas that he needs to create a thread that amplifies an attempt to make scandal an action that would be heroic if inept were they taken by a regulatory body?

If a government body did the same thing, it would be a textbook example of entrapment and nobody would cheer them on, even if the plot worked. Because the perpetrators would walk free.

Journalists, left and right, have labeled what O'Keefe does for a living as unethical. And that's just the way he collects his facts - with the way he presents them he does not deserve to be called a journalist himself.

If you feel uncomfortable with the way we're slamming O'Keefe (and you clearly are) then maybe you should stop acting as an apologist for people like him.

[Montmorency]

Project Veritas are all hack-frauds, and not in an endearing way.

[CrossLOPER]

Do you feel so threatened by the content that you need to distract from the scandal by shifting the focus to alleged incompetence of the true heroes of the story?

naw brah it ain't like that

It's a common tactic used by sociopaths to explain away behaviors. "Yeah, but" is a crude tool, but effective because people are willing to buy into the logic. It's usually followed by casting oneself as the true victim in the situation, much like this:

...potential challenge to an ideological narrative that you need to further shift the focus to the alledged ill intent of the sole dissenting voice?

I suspect all three questions have a single answer that is sufficiently insultint, alienating and character assassinating, as has become the norm on this board.

"I was just trying to be helpful."

"You don't appreciate me enough."

"This is all a conspiracy."

It's really a fascinating character study worthy of an FBI profile.