Conservative activist James O’Keefe caused a stir on Tuesday with the release of a secretly recorded video that purports to show a CNN producer casting doubt on his network’s coverage of possible collusion between President Trump’s associates and Russian officials.But it’s what the video doesn’t show that may be as important as what it does. The video is a recording of several encounters between a CNN producer named John Bonifield and an unidentified man who was working for O’Keefe’s organization, Project Veritas, which engages in undercover “stings” aimed primarily at mainstream news organizations and liberal groups.Their work has been repeatedly criticized for intentionally deceptive editing, though, and O’Keefe has a criminal record from an effort to illegally infiltrate a Democratic senator’s office. The latest video was apparently shot earlier this month using a hidden camera by a man having a private conversation with Bonfield, who is not involved in political coverage, catching him making several off-the-cuff remarks.
At one point, the producer says the Trump-Russia story could be “bulls---” but that CNN keeps covering the story because it draws viewers. “I just feel like they don’t really have it, but they want to keep digging,” Bonifield says. “And so I think the president is probably right to say, like, look you are witch hunting me. Like you have no smoking gun, you have no real proof.” The video drew endorsements from Donald Trump Jr., who tweeted his approval, and White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who told reporters at a briefing that she encouraged “everybody across the country” to view it. She characterized it as “a disgrace to all of media, to all of journalism.”
While criticizing the media at a press briefing on June 27, White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders encouraged "everybody across the country" to watch a video filmed by undercover conservative journalist James O'Keefe, who has been accused of deceptive editing and tactics.
Yet the video includes several journalistic evasions and shortcuts that would likely elicit outrage from critics if a mainstream news organization had employed the same techniques. For example, it never mentions that Bonifield is a producer of health and medical stories, raising questions about how relevant his views are, and how informed he is, about CNN’s political coverage.
The video identifies him as a “supervising producer,” suggesting a senior decision-making role. O’Keefe, who appears on the video as a kind of master of ceremonies, furthers this impression by saying the footage describes “the real motivation behind our dominant media organizations.”
But CNN said Bonifield speaks only for himself. In a statement, it said stood by him and that “diversity of personal opinion is what makes CNN strong. We welcome it and embrace it.” The network said it had no plans to take any disciplinary action.
The video also doesn’t identify the man to whom Bonifield is speaking, nor does it provide any clue about how he came to record Bonifield.
A Project Veritas spokesman, Stephen Gordon, declined to offer details on those points, saying that doing so could reveal the organization’s methods and identify its practitioners. He said, however, that the “undercover journalist” was introduced to Bonifield by “a third party,” whom he also did not identify. 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. Bonifield met the man in question about five times, and apparently was under the assumption that he was interested in a career in journalism.
Although some mainstream news organizations have engaged in “undercover” journalism, the practice is uncommon and generally considered unethical. Project Veritas, which is headed by O’Keefe, regularly uses such methods in order to expose what it says is corruption and fraud. Its operatives often have gained access to their targets by using false identities and by lying about or failing to disclose their actual intentions. Its various projects have also been clouded by accusations of deceptive editing.
O’Keefe pleaded guilty in 2010 to unlawfully entering the New Orleans office of then-Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) after he and three associates went to the office dressed as telephone workers in an alleged attempt to tamper with the senator’s phones. He received three years of probation, a fine of $1,500 and 100 hours of community service.
Later that year, O’Keefe attempted to lure a CNN correspondent, Abbie Boudreau, onto a boat filled with sex toys in order to film the encounter and “punk” Boudreau, who was reporting a story on conservative filmmakers. Among the props O’Keefe reportedly intended to use were a jar filled with condoms, posters and paintings of naked women, fuzzy handcuffs and a blindfold. Boudreau declined the invitation.
In a video “sting” of two Democratic Party organizers last year, Project Veritas operatives posed as political donors to persuade two men to speak to them about purported efforts to provoke violence at Trump’s campaign events. One of the men, Robert Creamer, sued O’Keefe earlier this month, claiming a violation of federal and District laws against unauthorized recording of private conversations.
In perhaps O’Keefe’s most famous project, he and a female associate posed as would-be clients of a community agency called ACORN. The pair sought advice about how to set up a brothel and evade taxes. The resulting video showed ACORN members offering their assistance.
The video triggered a public-relations crisis for ACORN, which subsequently lost its federal funding and went out of operation.
O’Keefe later paid $100,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by one of the employees seen in the video. Rather than abetting O’Keefe and his partner, the man said he had called the police to report them.
DrEvil » Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:09 pm wrote:
Why do you keep posting this far-right twaddle? Laura "Project Veritas" Loomer is about as far away from the concept of "reliable" it's possible to get. There's a reason she has been banned from half the internet. Having James Corsi on as a regular guest doesn't exactly inspire confidence either.
Even in that clip its all about her ego not the reality of what happened
Yes, I agree she's egotistical.
Could you explain 'the reality of what happened' - how it differs from the content that the video portrays. Also, I'd be keen to know your source.
The reality of what happened - some cunt (Epstein) ran a trafficking network for elite abusers. meanwhile she is whining about what she missed out on. Lack of perspective because of her ego. Missing the story is more important than the content of the story to her.
My source - for what? The above is my opinion.
Her reward ie her subsequent career and promotion after that story was killed is a matter of public record.
I didn't even know about it, or her but it took me 30 seconds of "research" to find out she became lead anchor on a show called 20/20. Since that time that show has been criticised for becoming tabloid and ... click baity for lack of a better word.
So her story on Epstein was killed, she did nothing about getting the story out elsewhere and as a result became head anchor on a current affairs that went "downhill". (IMO More downhill. I don't watch mainstream tv, especially seppo mainstream tv.)
Is it true that (American) ABC just tracked the person who accessed (and possibly leaked) that footage down to a position at CBS and then had them fired from CBS?
It's completely irrelevant how egotistical she is or what the office politics in ABC are. She strongly implies she had PHOTOGRAPHS which she supposedly saw of Clinton in some kind of compromising position, or maybe some other bigwig. I don't believe anyone here advocates the position that Amy Robach is some kind of paragon of journalistic integrity or that network news are in any way to be taken seriously. The point is that it's a hot mic and she is being candid.
Also, I don't believe there is anyone here that thinks James O'Keeffe is anything other than a craven, dissipated, soulless cunt. That does not mean that the footage is worth nothing. Sigh. I wish Wombaticus Rex would post more some others less.
She strongly implies she had PHOTOGRAPHS which she supposedly saw of Clinton in some kind of compromising position, or maybe some other bigwig.
The point is that it's a hot mic and she is being candid
These things are immaterial when equating persona with credible content. The person delivering the message is the sole consideration, regardless of the veracity of the claim. It keeps the mind safe in it's worldview, if somewhat rigidly fixated on presupposed ideals. It's par for the course in discussion (ahem, judgement) these days.
She strongly implies she had PHOTOGRAPHS which she supposedly saw of Clinton in some kind of compromising position, or maybe some other bigwig.
The point is that it's a hot mic and she is being candid
These things are immaterial when equating persona with credible content. The person delivering the message is the sole consideration, regardless of the veracity of the claim. It keeps the mind safe in it's worldview, if somewhat rigidly fixated on presupposed ideals. It's par for the course in discussion (ahem, judgement) these days.
Yeap, very handy for the real power brokers. Keeps 'em guessing. Mouthpieces from each "side" dole out different, but plausible facts while the faithful on both "sides" discredit the info not coming from "credible" or "Fair And Balanced" sources. All gets handily confused, while they get on with the business at hand.
Cross-post, since some people earlier in this thread were raising the possibility that Epstein may end up being linked to the 9/11 attacks themselves:
Marionumber1 » Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:01 pm wrote:I'm not usually into self-promotion, but I think John Brisson and I did a really good podcast episode today illustrating some of the lesser-known facts about the 9/11 attacks. We discuss the true background of Mohammed Atta, Russian organized crime's role, a CIA pedophile blackmail operation to facilitate the attacks, a possible link between Jeffrey Epstein and that ring, and more:
Marionumber1 » Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:02 am wrote:Cross-post, since some people earlier in this thread were raising the possibility that Epstein may end up being linked to the 9/11 attacks themselves:
Marionumber1 » Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:01 pm wrote:I'm not usually into self-promotion, but I think John Brisson and I did a really good podcast episode today illustrating some of the lesser-known facts about the 9/11 attacks. We discuss the true background of Mohammed Atta, Russian organized crime's role, a CIA pedophile blackmail operation to facilitate the attacks, a possible link between Jeffrey Epstein and that ring, and more:
MEGA group is at the heart of 9/11, and it's nice that RI is one of the few places where that can simply be stated without a thicket brush of disclaimers and explanations.
It really was one of the all-time bipartisan achievements in US political history.
Wombaticus Rex » Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:02 pm wrote:MEGA group is at the heart of 9/11, and it's nice that RI is one of the few places where that can simply be stated without a thicket brush of disclaimers and explanations.
It really was one of the all-time bipartisan achievements in US political history.
What would be your starter pack of links or preferred primer for making the case you have put in bold?
