You should try to refute Project Veritas
riccardobl opened this issue · 4 comments
Thanks for the report. The James O'Keeffe videos to me are potentially not worthy to pursue because of a few things:
- As Gerson and others have pointed out, from what we do know about O'Keeffe's unedited footage in his other works, is both selective and deceptive.
- Creamer himself has claimed that the recorder kept pushing for hypothetical scenarios which he eventually obliged with. Given the reputation of O'Keeffe, it is really a matter of who you're inclined to believe.
- It seems to me that people who are likely to believe these videos and see them as a reflection of HRC are not the "on the fence" people we successfully engage in dialog
With the sheep emoji and the title, I am going to guess you're trolling and leave it at that. If you do think there's room for debunking here, and an audience that is willing to listen, then we should by all means reconsider. For now, I will close this based on my judgment.
Ah, you are trying to build a dialog. I though it was propaganda, my bad.
Then, I think you should add what you just said to the website, maybe followed by the links to the videos, so that people can see with their eyes how much James O'Keefe is selective and deceptive.
Maybe you could also talk about http://wikileaks.org, and the fact that 17 agencies think that russia might probably be involved.
If I were American, I would be more concern about these totally fake allegations rather than the subjective impression of her being robotic and cold.
Sorry for my out of context emoji, i've never learn how to use them. 🐫
One doesn't prove a video is edited by showing the final video, so posting links to the videos is not helpful. If this were 2011 all over again, where NPR obtained the undoctored videos, then, yes, I agree, posting a comparison between the full and edited videos would have been helpful.
In addition to unlikability concerns which Americans did have, we have also written topics about concerns over her foreign policy, fake allegations of Clinton Foundation being corrupt, unsubstantiated claims that she opposes gun rights, concerns over her e-mail server, etc.
These videos, for whatever reasons, seem to still be largely a concern of Breitbart and Info Wars readers, whom I doubt we will make much headway in engaging.
So, yes, we are interested in talking about unsubstantiated allegations, but not all unsubstantiated allegations (there can be an infinite amount of made up information). Rather, we're interested in talking about unsubstantiated allegations that have traction among undecided voters, weary progressives, principled moderate conservatives, and those willing to be engaged and challenged about their perception of Hillary Clinton.
Fair enough.
I agree with you, there is no need to talk about DKIM signed emails that are totally false.
And there is no reason to trust video tapes that are proven to come from a source that may be certainly deceptive, contrary to CNN.
Thanks for having dispelled my myths, keep up the good work.