Is Project Veritas A Journalist Whistleblower Bait Trap?

I am kind of surprised that people were triggered by the Project Verita's most fruitful exercise, "Interview and Record - then Confront."

This is not a "new" way to get news, and it represented the ugly underside of many "investigative journalism" articles of the past.

If you are like me, you might recall older examples of this trope in movies and television productions; the reporter who no one will talk to in confidence, the 'nosy' reporter who would sell out anyone for a 'good story,' etc.

This person may have been lying, exaggerating, or simply caught in a casual conversation... given the subject and revelations, casual seems 'out' of the picture... these were not 'casual' comments, and at the very least the gentlemen has no appreciation for the gravity of the claims... he could say that is the shameful consequence of speaking to achieve sexual satisfaction... he said something akin to "you can't tell anybody" so he knew he was dishing out ideas that did not belong in the context of the encounter (a date?)

Sadly, corporate positions of leadership are no better vetted than political leadership ... this is not a thing that a person who is a leader is supposed to do in his profession - never mind general ideas of decorum, propriety, and responsibility.

I forgive his flailing and erratically violent reaction; I've seen it too many times in life to pretend it represents a particular flaw of character... it's just a common reaction among many people who are 'blindsided' by the results of their lack of forethought and reserve.

The release of this reporting could have been done more responsibly, assuming the reporter has any sense of dignity and human care... they didn't ... they are fueled by, and seek the fuel of, outrage. The more the better.

Now, the subject and his association with Pfizer is what "makes this news" because our angst about them is intensely greater than it has ever been... so almost everything they do is suspect and begins with an alarm of "abuse." I get it. They had better get that too. My advice to them.... say nothing... this is a fight you can never win in this environment (which I might add it is an environment that you and your allies are responsible for.)

A word of unsolicited advice to anyone who cares to listen... when you see a news offering like this; many people will react and respond (according to their biases) what they say is not what "everyone thinks now."

You can close this thread now:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

While I'm sure that having these two separate sets of exchanges in one thread... this thread is different from the one you're pointing at.

This thread is focused on the act carried out by Project Veritas and in fact was placed in the General Conspiracies Forum to explore that aspect of the reporting process. Specifically, it speaks to the OP authors desire to get a response to

...THEYRE A TRAP FOR JOURNALIST WHISTLEBLOWERS...

The thread you point to is in the Disease and Pandemic Forum and is about the allegations about Pfizer's activities.

These are two different things. Some comments here would be off-topic elsewhere, but they are still valid here.

a reply to: Thrumbo

Nothing that he was saying sounded "cool".

It sounded like the words of a psychopath.

Was talking to some of our cybersecurity people, they said dont trust protonmail, its 100% an alphabet agency built product.

Take that for what you will.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Was talking to some of our cybersecurity people, they said dont trust protonmail, its 100% an alphabet agency built product.

Take that for what you will.

I work with cyber security engineers. I am not one. I work around them.
Most of them use protonmail. But most of them are not sending secrets like the Bidens would be to China.
And if they are going to whistleblow, it is not happening via the internet. lol
And there are ways of sending things that dont raise flags.
It IS encrypted. But the subject line is not.

Some may agree or disagree. Even cyber security experts debate on the subject of all things security and don't always agree. Cant even get our US intel community to agree on anything. Literally not agree on ANYTHING.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Thrumbo

Nothing that he was saying sounded "cool".

It sounded like the words of a psychopath.

Yeah I don't get how this was supposed to impress anyone, he already has the job title so telling this story by no means made him "cool", if anything he wanted to see the reaction of his date to just how screwed up the people he works for really are and even seemed to be against what they were doing though his laugh didn't seem convincing. I'd say him now freaking out the way he did is he knows what he just let out the bag and as someone said how screwed he really is. I honestly think if what he said was a lie he would have laughed at veritas and said can't believe you fell for it instead of acting so desperate and out of control.

a reply to: shaemac

I dont pretend to be cyber hehe I got my degree in IT stuff for a reason, but understanding the people that commit the crimes thats easier than coding to try and block the crimes in my opinion.

All I was told is that either NSA or CIA (Im 50 with a 4 yr old lack of sleep wrecks my memory) was hip deep in the design and implementation of the email service.

so its secure, but they can sift through everything you send, so its all a matter of how badly you dont want people sifting through it.

what if the guy is a whistleblower?
and the whole PV secret recording while on a date was an act in cahoots with PV.
a way to get the info out without the man running the risk that being a whistleblower entails these days.
he is still employed at pfizer afaik
sharing evidence/documents would land him in huge trouble if caught.
being anonymous without evidence would not be credible.
Spilling the beans verbally under the guise of trying to impress a date would be a way around it.

it would explain his performance
an academy award winning performance if that was the case

a reply to: oddnutz

"Whistleblowers" aren't incentivized by offers of sex, money, or prestige...

A whistleblower simply reveals the information because "it's the right thing to do."

"Zero personal gain" is the hallmark of the whistleblower.

This was not an instance of "whistleblowing."