Posted on 03/20/2021 4:58:52 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Writers for the New York Times may have spread deceptive claims about the nonprofit journalism group Project Veritas, a judge ruled this week.
In stories from 2020 about Project Veritas videos, writers Maggie Astor and Tiffany Hsu inserted sentences that were opinions despite the articles being billed as news, New York Supreme Court Justice Charles Wood said.
“If a writer interjects an opinion in a news article (and will seek to claim legal protections as opinion) it stands to reason that the writer should have an obligation to alert the reader, including a court that may need to determine whether it is fact or opinion, that it is opinion,” Wood wrote in a 16-page decision denying the paper’s request to dismiss a lawsuit from Project Veritas.
“The Articles that are the subject of this action called the Video ‘deceptive,’ but the dictionary definitions of ‘disinformation’ and ‘deceptive’ provided by defendants’ counsel certainly apply to Astor’s and Hsu’s failure to note that they injected their opinions in news articles, as they now claim,” he added.
At issue are five articles that Project Veritas alleges contained false and defamatory information. All five were about a 2020 video report from the journalism group on alleged illegal voting practices in Minnesota.
In one of Astor’s articles, she wrote: “Mr. O’Keefe and Project Veritas have a long history of releasing manipulated or selectively edited footage purporting to show illegal conduct by Democrats and liberal groups.” The source of the statement, and whether it is fact or opinion, is not clear, according to the judge.
Hsu, meanwhile, wrote in part that conservative publications “magnified the reach of a deceptive video released last month by Project Veritas, a group run by the conservative activist James O’Keefe,” adding: “The video claimed without named sources or verifiable evidence that...
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
We knew this long ago.
However righteous their motivations, O’Keefe and his
people lied in order to gain access and that forever taints
the results.
Like anyone care! Cops will go undercover to expose bad people. How is this different?
That’s like saying the spies in the Old Testament lied when they went into scope out the lay of the grounds in the area they were to take and therefore it’s all no good.
When dealing with evil, there’s a difference.
The apostles and followers were told when questioned, to not worry ahead of time, that the Holy Spirit would provide them strength; they were not told, however, to NOT go into the catacombs or secret areas to hold what would be church services.
I realize it sounds a bit grey-ish.
Battles are fought differently, when different enemies are presented.
Journolistas also go undercover.
To Catch a Predator, for one.
If James Okeefe has reporting problems so does Chris Hansen, 20/20, and 60 minutes.
It’s perfectly legal for cops to lie to you.
PV are Citizen Cops.
Did 60 Minutes ever shade the Truth in getting their stories?
I don’t have a problem with what they are doing. Law enforcement does this sort of thing all the time. And courts have stated that it is A-OK with them.
Yet, law enforcement is often held to a higher standard than the citizenry. Really?
New York Times readers will never know about this.
.
btt
“The video claimed without named sources or verifiable evidence that the campaign for Representative Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, was collecting ballots illegally.”
Did the New York Times make that argument with a straight face? When’s the last time they quoted anyone besides an anonymous source?
“Yet, law enforcement is often held to a higher standard than the citizenry. Really?”
_________________________________________
Of course LEOs are [often] held to a higher standard than the citizenry, and for a very good reason: LEOs are usually the starting point for criminal cases which can wreck a person’s life, especially if the person is innocent.
These people on tape are confident: CONFIDENT.
Confident of their beliefs over-ruling everyone’s right to live, breath and function as free citizens. These folks on tape are not innocent; they are part and parcel of the on-going current nightmare our country is currently encapsulated within at this time.
The techs worked together, in a concerted effort to put the Biden/Harris team into the top realm of our government.
So if a civilian can manage to get another civilian to speak about their beliefs I do not see any issue. It’s one of those things I was advised about by my mother whilst growing up....
I would often tell co-workers not to say or type anything they wouldn’t want to see on a scrolling machine in our Center. My old company actually knew what a person typed - even if you backed up the keystrokes or deleted entire paragraphs.
So, yes, the LEOs should be held to a higher standard. That said, I believe the honest, hardworking LEOs are not truly appreciated nor are they provided all the equipment they need to deal with the lunatics/criminals.
So they admit in Court to editorializing their “news”
We already knew this, of course...but now we have court-admitted proof of it.
Don’t talk about to catch a predator to him. That scares him.
You talk a lot of shit, Jimbo.
Compensating for something?
Deflecting from something on your hard drive maybe?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.