It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Project Veritas: American Pravda: CNN Part 2

page: 4
65
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Have you not been paying attention? It doesn't matter if PV get caught in a lie. As long as they keep telling certain people what they want those people will believe them.

Just take Alex Jones as an example. He's been a national joke for years. Even in conspiracy theory circles he was more or less considered the bottom of the barrel. But now that he's BFFs with Trump he's suddenly being taken seriously by Trump supporters.

Pretty much every PV expose has been shown to be dishonest in some way. And yet each time they release a video there's a large number of people that think they're telling the truth this time.




posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: facedye

Have you not been paying attention? It doesn't matter if PV get caught in a lie. As long as they keep telling certain people what they want those people will believe them.

Just take Alex Jones as an example. He's been a national joke for years. Even in conspiracy theory circles he was more or less considered the bottom of the barrel. But now that he's BFFs with Trump he's suddenly being taken seriously by Trump supporters.

Pretty much every PV expose has been shown to be dishonest in some way. And yet each time they release a video there's a large number of people that think they're telling the truth this time.


Hmm yesterdays video wasn't exposed as dishonest.

And yet we have people continuing to defend CNN despite their lies.

Perhaps your comment would be better directed toward them.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I think they dismissed it as the guys opinion, why should a charlatan be acknowledged?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

you know what's funny is that i know exactly what you're referring to, and i asked you to present that information here so that everyone can see what it is you seem to be talking about.

i know what you have in mind - i also know why what you just said is completely incorrect.

call my bluff. post the evidence for what you just said here.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

with all due respect, it looks like you're the one not paying proper attention where it's due.

reread my post to see exactly why i believe attacking CNN is different than attacking planned parenthood.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

I already googled that for you and linked you the results. Would you like me to come over and read it for you as well? Just how entitled are you?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

re-read my post
this is a matter of holding you to your words, and you're running away from the request.

i'm requesting that you post exactly what proof you have for the assertion you made so *everyone here* can easily review it and discuss it together.

go ahead. do it.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

All I'm saying is that PV have a history of selective editing that tends to hide the entire story. And yet their narrative is still trusted. That won't change if it ends up being the same in this case.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

What exactly would CNN sue them for?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

is that a joke?

i've already stated that here - not that i have to, it's pretty obvious what they would sue for.

defamation/fraudulent misrepresentation, for starters.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Grambler

All I'm saying is that PV have a history of selective editing that tends to hide the entire story. And yet their narrative is still trusted. That won't change if it ends up being the same in this case.


Well not for everyone.

I have repeatedly said I don't like the editing, and I want to hear Van Jones side of the story.

I just don't think the edits are a reason to totally throw the story out.

Cnn all but acknowledged yesterdays video was legit, lets see what happens here.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: proximo

who cares if he changed his mind in private? his public and professionally stated opinion is why this is important regardless of the time frame.


If there's one thing I learned from Hillary this last election cycle it's that liberals must be able to effectively compartmentalize their "public" and "private" opinions and beliefs.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

I think you should check your attitude and your entitlement. There's threads on that topic if you would like to go discuss it.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Can you churn out some examples of what "nothing burger" could mean besides um well lets see "nothing burger"?




posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Would CNN coming after them with a lawsuit make you think any less of them?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Do you know how hard it is to prove defamation in a court? Considering CNN is posting record profits it would be near impossible.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I'm not throwing it out. As I said in my second post though I'm taking it with a huge grain of salt.
edit on 6/28/2017 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Nothing burger, no. Russian narrative, yes. For all we know the PV employee pitched him his own wild Russian narrative and then asked him about that.

If PV want people to take their exposes at face value why did they keep heavily editing almost every single one?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: underwerks

Forget about this video.

Why did CNN not claim the video yesterday was out of context?

Because it probably wasn't. It was an opinion. As I stated about 400 times in the thread from yesterday.


Ok so f that one was true, maybe we should hesitate to disregard this one for "colorful editing"

I am not saying we shouldn't be skeptical, but you seem to have made up your mind already.

One video that may be in context doesn't validate anything else they do, when their history is checkered with lies and deceit.

I guess you shouldn't make your mind up on CNN, either huh? I mean, they get something right every now and then, never mind what they've done in the past..

I'm not saying veritas is right in that video, just using it as an example. Because even with the first video maybe being in context, it's still being promoted as something it isn't.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: proximo

If he has changed his mind, why doesn't he go
on the "news" and say so?


For all I know he already has.

Don't be surprised if that is exactly his response to this video, even if it isn't true. But if you can't find a video in the last week where he still supports the Russia narrative, he has an out he will get away with.




top topics



 
65
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join