HN Gopher Feed (2017-11-27) - page 1 of 10 ___________________________________________________________________
Woman offers WaPo false tale about Roy Moore in effort to discredit
the paper
319 points by fmihaila
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached...___________________________________________________________________
gkya - 34 minutes ago
The cases involving intimate/sexual relations (consensual or not)
are really difficult to address, and the general approach we have
as the (at least nominally) secular and democratic part of the
world is just crazy. Probably most allegations in most cases are
true, but as it is now any male is quite open to the abuse of the
general stance of the society and the law. Even being accused of
something can easily ruin one's life, despite the "innocent until
proven guilty" principle. If it's allowed to weaponise slander so
easily, it actually hurts also whom suffer from sexual violence,
reducing the credibility of their claims when they try to come out
and pursue justice.
s73ver_ - 4 minutes ago
The, "the real victims in all of this are the men!" takes on this
are getting pretty old. False accusations are extremely rare.
Whereas harassment and sexual assault are actual, real things
that women have to deal with on a daily basis.You know what can
really ruin someone's life? Being harassed/assaulted and not
being able to talk about it for fear that you'll be ostracised by
your friends and family.
MBCook - 13 minutes ago
The problem is the bar has been way too high until now. ?He?s
important/beloved/whatever, he wouldn?t do that. It?s just your
word against his?.And a lot of men escaped a LOT of charges
because of that.I think we?re still pretty far from the pendulum
going too extreme. We?ll have to figure out the balance.But
what?s happening right now still seems pretty healthy. The fact
that so many stories can be found so easily and corroborated
shows what has been waiting in the wings.
oh_sigh - 12 minutes ago
I agree completely. Unfortunately this makes me adopt a rule
where I disregard any accusation, especially accusations from
decades ago, that isn't backed up with a police report/court case
or some kind of substantial evidence.
minimaxir - 59 minutes ago
This is not a political/off-topic submission. This is a story that
would make an interesting movie. (Although I?m not sure if it would
be a drama or comedy)
threeseed - 53 minutes ago
How is this not a political and off-topic submission ?
burkaman - 50 minutes ago
"Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless
they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon."This
phenomenon is at least new to me. As bonus points, it's a nice
example of an attempt at social "hacking".
Bartweiss - 34 minutes ago
A major news organization choosing to publish off-the-record
comments is itself a pretty significant event that I'm glad
to find out about. It's a sign of extreme confidence in their
story (and a lot of irritation at Project Veritas), because
that's the sort of decision that, if mistaken, can lastingly
cripple a publication.
threeseed - 44 minutes ago
This sort of thing goes on every single day. It's not new at
all.Politics is not exactly a clean business.
dragonwriter - 41 minutes ago
It is not a new phenomenon.It is not even a new technique for
the specific group (James O?Keefe?s Project Veritas)
organizing this instance, which has repeatedly and
notoriously used similar false-flag techniques to attempt to
discredit organizations that are (or are perceived by them to
be) on the left side of the American political spectrum.
gech - 57 minutes ago
All conservatives should speak out against Project Veritas and have
it shut down.
dragonwriter - 34 minutes ago
Even conservatives who don't like what they do love to exploit
the false beliefs that are engendered by Project Veritas?s
efforts; them getting caught in their fraud on one before they
manage to turn it into a propaganda story, rather than almost
immediately after as is more commonly the case, won't change
that.
[deleted]
LyndsySimon - 46 minutes ago
Why, because WaPo did what they were supposed to? Good on the
Washington Post. Project Veritas served its function.
orf - 40 minutes ago
Don't paint this as 'Veritas serving its function', their
function is not to evaluate but to discredit. They take secret
recordings, then create videos using completely out of context
clips to push right-wing agendas. Just like the whole 'nothing-
burger' video.I'm sure if the reporters had responded to this
fake woman's story with any soundbites about how it would
effect Moore's election results, regardless of if they
published anything or if they kicked her out the door the next
minute they would put up a video about how "WaPo reporters are
desperate to destroy the honorable Roy Moore!"; just look here
is one saying this fake story would be bad for his
campaign!Disgusting.
leifaffles - 34 minutes ago
They're activists, but sometimes activists stumble on the
truth too.
orf - 18 minutes ago
Well, if you throw enough crap at the wall...The question
is if the truth they stumble upon outweighs the
misinformation and lies they spread to come across it.
leifaffles - 15 minutes ago
Okay, but the same can be said for Media Matters, Sean
Hannity, Rachel Maddow, and so on.They're all doing shady
shit, but sometimes one of them hits on something useful.
MBCook - 10 minutes ago
Have any of them broken a real story? Ever?I?m not
talking about some partisan thing, I mean a story that
gets picked up as teal by MSM outlets and a real issue.I
honestly don?t know.
fleitz - 34 minutes ago
So basically it's like a right-wing CNN?
ejstronge - 10 minutes ago
If CNN lied about sexual assaults for political gain, not
to mention having a history of trespassing and dishonesty,
sure. Very apt observation.
oh_sigh - 12 minutes ago
How exactly would anyone not related to PV have it shut down? As
far as I know lying to a newspaper is not illegal
kstrauser - 1 minutes ago
Takeaway: WaPo vets their sources and stories a lot more than
certain political figures claim they do.
anderber - 56 minutes ago
Personally, WaPo is one, if not the top paper in the country. Their
dedication to great journalism is why I subscribe. If you're an
Amazon Prime member you get a big discount too.
JustAnotherPat - 8 minutes ago
> Their dedication to great journalism is why I subscribeTheir
dedication is to go after people Jeff Bezos doesn't like
noobermin - 35 minutes ago
To be honest, the Amazon Prime thing makes me pause for a moment.
What happens when Amazon is involved in a scandal, what will WaPo
do?
eropple - 33 minutes ago
They will report it, or you will see editors and journalists
leave. You see it regularly at compromised outlets.(I do not
believe in the slightest that the Washington Post is so
compromised.)
peterwwillis - 3 minutes ago
Amazon has many different interests, much of which could be
affected by negative press. Amazon has a 600 Million dollar
contract with the CIA, and regularly does business with many
other agencies of the US government. It would be safe to say
that between its fledgeling media content group, its online
sales group, and its cloud computing group, there are a huge
range of potential conflicts of interest between its news-
reporting subsidiary and the others.Besides the fact that it is
not in the interests of the company to report in a way that
could negatively affect the stock price, it is also in its
interests not to report negatively on topics which could impact
its lucrative customer contracts. And on top of it all, if
Bezos - the richest man in the world - just gets something in
his craw, that could also affect what gets reported, as it has
been with every media baron in history.
zhengyi13 - 31 minutes ago
The LA Times showed Disney plenty of integrity and
determination, and at least one writer from WaPo supported them
in that. I'd expect the larger organization to show a similar
level of integrity.
legitster - 24 minutes ago
To be fair, WaPo has run a few anti-Amazon and anti-Bezos op-
eds. It feels like moreso than before.I can't help but feel
like Bezos loves them. I can see him open up the paper he owns,
see an attack piece on him, and feel absolutely giddy that he's
not going to do anything about it. Because he so desperately
wants to be the most self-actualized entrepreneur that ever
lived.
tradersam - 20 minutes ago
I had a large argument about this on r/conspiracy with someone
recently.They were claiming since the CIA uses AWS to the tune
of ~$900 million a year, the CIA has a direct line to WaPo.Any
rational person (including the Post editor who commented on it)
would agree this is a non-issue, but it does pose an
interesting, all be it slight, conflict.
jsmthrowaway - 10 minutes ago
A paper does not achieve the prestige and respect that WaPo
commands by allowing it to be a conflict. Sure, there are a
number of papers at which that could be a conflict, but
Amazon or its customers reaching into the WaPo newsroom to
spike, push, or alter a story would almost certainly trigger
a mass exodus starting with the editors involved. Bear in
mind that the newsroom employs people with their own,
respected, careers to look after, just like when trading
firms demand their traders sacrifice their reputations.At
that level, editorial independence is practically a
commandment, and Marty Baron wouldn't allow conflicts like
that to happen. It would have to go through the guy who stood
up to the Catholics in Boston. Think about that.
AnkhMorporkian - 3 minutes ago
Apologies for being a grammar nazi but I thought I'd let you
know that it isn't 'all be it', it's "albeit."
mikeokner - 16 minutes ago
> Any rational person (including the Post editor who
commented on it) would agree this is a non-issueGuess I'm
irrational then. $900M/yr is an insanely substantial chunk
of change for even the largest companies in the world.
CalChris - 8 minutes ago
That's $900M/yr of revenue. At AWS. And the WashPo is
entirely different company.Nope.
jtmcmc - 12 minutes ago
in 2016 amazon's annual revenue was 136 billion dollars.
That means it was .66% of it's total revenue. I would argue
that the potential damage to Amazon's brand is quite a bit
more than that.
mynameishere - 30 minutes ago
It doesn't bother you at all that it is controlled by a
politically-minded plutocrat who is shameless about cross-
promotions between his properties? No, I guess that doesn't
bother you since you're advertising it.
JustAnotherPat - 6 minutes ago
Bezos has his arm in everything. Even Hacker News.
epmaybe - 55 minutes ago
If you're a student, it's free for a year too!
scaasic - 43 minutes ago
Doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
flippyhead - 52 minutes ago
Wow I had no idea! 6 months free -- that is a great deal
MBCook - 17 minutes ago
And $4/mo? I just subscribed.
mudil - 1 minutes ago
Washington Post silent on AMAZON warehouse conditions? Of course!
'Journalism' ends at owner's paycheck... (link:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/timed-toilet-breaks-imp...)
wnevets - moments ago
Why hasn't James O'Keefe been arrested yet? He he been caught
committing fraud multiple times.
danso - moments ago
A lot of good laughs from this incident. I actually feel a bit sad
for the woman who got hired to play the fake victim. She was
recently laid off from from her mortgage job when she apparently
accepted the job with Veritas, but she needed to start a GoFundMe
just to move up there (and she only got 2 donors, one of which was
her own daughter)Veritas tasks her with the main role in busting
the Washington Post with an undercover sting. But it doesn't look
like she got any training or preparation at all. She used her real
name when talking to the WaPo, had a phone number with the wrong
area code (given her claimed state of residence), and Veritas
didn't remind her to remove her GoFundMe page, which is how the
WaPo ultimately confirmed that she was a fraud.I'm definitely not a
fan of Veritas or O'Keefe's bullshit, and this woman has to bear
responsibility for her poor choices. But damn, if your mission was
sincerely to expose the truth about the purportedly corrupt media,
wouldn't you put more prep into it? It's not like Veritas is
lacking in resources -- their latest 990 says they had an operating
surplus of $1.3M and O'Keefe received $235,471 in salary
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3454912-Project-Veri...
legitster - 51 minutes ago
Wow. Far from discrediting WaPo it actually strengthened the
validity of the accusers.I wonder if this sort of pen-testing could
be done more regularly across the industry (by non-shady
organizations).
MBCook - 44 minutes ago
I fear it would backfire. I?m sure there are groups already
claiming this article either:1. Proves fakers are making up
stories against Mooreor2. Is a false flag to try to discredit
those claiming #1When no one is considered credible by both sides
I think you would just end up doing more damage.Hasn?t the
Rosenhan experiment been used as an argument against the validity
of psychology and
psychiatry?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
legitster - 29 minutes ago
It does worry me a bit how it seems the group could have gotten
through if they had been a bit less sloppy.On one hand, these
groups are clearly out to slander and discredit hard-working,
honest people. On the other hand, I don't think the field of
journalism should be entirely self-governing. It would give me
great peace of mind to see some score that said these news
sources were indeed able to turn away fake sources with
regularity.The crazy "all mainstream news is fake" crowd will
not be swayed, but if nothing is done to appease moderates,
there won't be any left.
jbooth - 3 minutes ago
".. could have gotten through if they had been a bit less
sloppy".. and if my aunt had different bits she'd be my
uncle. Of course a perfectly executed plot with hard-to-fake
corroborating details and no holes whatsoever could have
fooled them. WaPo reporters aren't perfect.But they ARE
genuinely interested in the truth, and interested in doing
due diligence to ensure they're reporting it. Above personal
politics or personal likes/dislikes of public figures.
Conservative media don't seem to understand that. Maybe they
can't understand it.
[deleted]
thomasahle - 14 minutes ago
Newspaper editors could arrange for their journalists to be
approached with fake stories once in a while. If the story makes
its way close to publishing, they'll know it's fake and can take
it off. That way it stays an internal pentest. Sounds good to me.
Lazare - 50 minutes ago
Ouch, I'm getting third-hand embarrassment just reading about it.
What amateurs!
dragonwriter - 37 minutes ago
They aren't amateurs, they are literal professionals at this (in
that, this is what the group does, repeatedly, for pay?well,
donations from right-wing interests?over a period of many years.)
MBCook - 12 minutes ago
I assume they mean amateurs in that they are really really bad
at it. This is not their first attempt to shamelessly blow up
on their face.Yes, this is what they do. But ?profrssional?
just doesn?t seem like a word that should apply.
gdubs - 50 minutes ago
Really interesting from a journalist standpoint to see how the Post
investigates a story. The original Moore piece was incredibly
meticulous in how it presented the information they had obtained,
and was transparent about the process in a way that lets the reader
form an opinion on the truthfulness of the story. This piece has a
similar meticulousness in how it?s laid out.
pulisse - 49 minutes ago
The guy behind this stunt, James O'Keefe, got his start with
funding from Peter Thiel: https://www.villagevoice.com/2009/09/22
/conservative-faceboo....
katastic - 3 minutes ago
So wait, after everyone called George Soros a made-up bad guy for
funding progressive things.http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2
017/11/24/washington-p...Now, Peter Thiel, "is" a hidden evil
overlord pulling the strings?Because if you're going to suggest
that hidden evil overlords can and do exist, then why are we
giving Soros the benefit of the doubt? Why are journalists
meeting with this guy and speaking at his events if he has
nothing to do with politics?I'm asking honestly, which is it: Are
billionaires trying to manipulate us, or not? And if so, why do
we give an exception to one specific man? And if not, why do we
give exception to one specific man?
smcl - 22 minutes ago
It's extremely weird reading his reactions on Twitter - either
he's putting a very brave face on it, or he's completely unfazed
by (yet another) awful self-own.I never know if James O'keefe and
his ilk are really into this cause (not sure exactly what,
something vaguely conservative?) or if they're just grifters
trying to make a buck by whatever means necessary
charcoal23 - 4 minutes ago
It's probably both, but leaning much more towards the grifting
side of things. There's something about conservative politics
in the US which encourages grifters and cons.When my very
Republican stepfather fell into dementia, I helped my mom
monitor his mail so he'd stop spending so much money on things
he didn't understand. It was a deluge of stuff every day. Often
from groups I had never heard of who wanted money to stop
Sharia law or stop the "war on Christmas" or whatever the big
conservative cause was that day. And even the mainstream GOP
got into the act. More than once, a FedEx envelope would show
up with a plea that everything was doomed unless a check was
overnighted. Once the GOP FedEx solicitation contained a letter
accusing my stepfather of no longer being a member of the
Republican Party, but he could clear up this misunderstanding
by writing a check.
r00fus - 1 minutes ago
Why is it a self-own? If his objective (cast shade on real
allegations) is achieved, then he's doing fine, he'll be paid
by his funders (and protected).He is a political hitman and
stalking horse.
kevinburke - 19 minutes ago
I don't think he cares. The goal is to muddy the waters and
make it harder to do real journalism.The story on right wing
websites tomorrow will probably be "one of the accusers was
obviously lying - this raises questions about the other ones,"
never mind the lying one was paid by a right wing site.
microcolonel - 2 minutes ago
> I don't think he cares. The goal is to muddy the waters and
make it harder to do real journalism.I think, generally, the
result has been that it's harder to do fake journalism.
MBCook - 40 minutes ago
And this is not O?Keefe?s first try at manipulating the
media/election:https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30
/james-okeefe-a...
nwhatt - 48 minutes ago
I'm interested to see how this plays out - in some respects it's
hard to come back at Project Veritas, they'll just say - hey nice
work Washington Post you did your job.
uhhhhhhh - 39 minutes ago
> in some respects it's hard to come back at Project
Veritasoutright lying and fabricating stories to try and
discredit news organizations seems like it can come back on your
no matter what happens.In this case, Veritas has egg on its face,
one of its employees is now outed, and everyone that they "may"
have been able to expose that wasn't already on high alert for
these frauds is. They've managed to not only prove WP follows
proper journalist practices, but they've also given warning to
those that don't to be extra careful of them.WP on the other
hand, appears to have done what it usually does, vets information
and publishes what it finds. They come out a huge winner over
doing nothing, which is exactly the opposite of what Veritas was
trying to accomplish.
klodolph - 32 minutes ago
An employee was outed but it sounds like these employees were
disposable to begin with.
jrumbut - 8 minutes ago
This story makes me wonder what the other 11 new employees
they were looking for are up to right now.
pohl - 26 minutes ago
In this case, Veritas has egg on its faceMaybe they can escape
this by rebranding themselves Project Mendacium.
dragonwriter - 20 minutes ago
> outright lying and fabricating stories to try and discredit
news organizations seems like it can come back on your no
matter what happens.Not when your clear history of willingness
to do that is what drives donations. It's literally the entire
reason Project Veritas exists and gets funded.
oh_sigh - 15 minutes ago
> outright lying and fabricating stories to try and discredit
news organizations seems like it can come back on your no
matter what happens.Why? News organizations should never accept
fabricated stories. If they do, then something is wrong with
their vetting process, and it means that non "pen-testing" fake
stories can get through as well, where the intent is to have
some effect in the world(say, getting a person out of an
election) as opposed to just making the newspaper blush.
s73ver_ - 10 minutes ago
It's only hard to come back at them if you're determined to stick
to the idea that they're good. Anywhere else, doing things like
this is considered shady as fuck.
nerfhammer - 29 minutes ago
They were caught committing breaking and entering and (bungled)
amateur wiretapping in the past and it didn't seem to hurt them
creaghpatr - 46 minutes ago
Surely it's not the first time the Post (or any MSM outlet) has
been pitched a bogus tip. Surprised it doesn't happen more often.
Lazare - 44 minutes ago
It happens constantly, but it's not normally news.
creaghpatr - 38 minutes ago
Exactly, my company doesn't issue a press release every time
an employee avoids a phishing attempt. (Internal pats on the
back are appropriate though)
MBCook - 42 minutes ago
I imagine it doesn?t usually rise to the level of ?news?. It?s
privably someone trying to make a competitor look bad or jump
on a bandwagon.This time it was an attempt to undermine
journalism in a tricky situation.
nerfhammer - 41 minutes ago
AFAIK it does happen a lot. Normally it just wouldn't be
publicized. This time they figured out it was not only false
but an organized disinformation campaign and invested the time
in documenting that instead.
minimaxir - 42 minutes ago
James O?Keefe tweeted a response:> Hitting export on hidden
camera footage into Washington Post shortly. Project Veritas vs
Bezos 100mm monopoly. Fasten your seatbelts.https://twitter.com/j
amesokeefeiii/status/935266973176487936
lallysingh - 36 minutes ago
100mm? The man doesn't understand units very well.
tomc1985 - 10 minutes ago
British English, MM means million.
beedogs - 3 minutes ago
Then he should've used capital letters. mm means
millimeters.
ianmcgowan - 24 minutes ago
MM is commonly used in banking/finance for Million, and M is
sometimes used for thousands (but sometimes millions,
depending on the person). It's a mess in other
words.https://english.stackexchange.com/a/182072
bradleyankrom - 48 minutes ago
100% serious question: how long before Project Veritas or others on
the far right start accusing the WaPo of fabricating the bungled
sting story in order to embarrass them?edit: changed "right" to
"far right"
MBCook - 35 minutes ago
I imagine it?s already happening. See one of my other comments in
this story.
oh_sigh - 19 minutes ago
Funny that PV brings their undercover actors right in the front
door of their offices. I'm guessing they aren't going to be doing
that from now on, knowing that at the very least WaPo is watching
who enters.
thesmallestcat - 41 minutes ago
Providing her real name was quite the blunder. Gave WP what they
needed to make sense of the unraveling story, and permanently
attached her identity to clumsy deceit.
tomc1985 - 8 minutes ago
They believe she attempted to deceive her in bad faith, in order
to affect the campaign of a public official. As they state, (and
as US courts will stand behind) she entered into the agreement in
bad faith and was caught, and they voided said agreement.
thesmallestcat - 2 minutes ago
I'm not sure who you're arguing with, like I said, Phillips
blundered by giving them her real name. WP is definitely
allowed to publish it.
tomc1985 - moments ago
I think I read OP as defending Ms Philips' mistaken
expectations of privacy. My bad
veridies - 1 minutes ago
Sure, but the Washington Post may have refused her story if they
couldn't verify her identity. The real problem is that for
Veritas is that they apparently can't hire someone with a clean
identity and no public record of conservative beliefs.
oskarth - 11 minutes ago
Is there a problem? Well played on both sides. WaPo won this round
and brags about it, rightly. It's not too dissimilar from the
adversarial justice system, but in a different domain, to be
honest.
vkou - 39 minutes ago
>?I?m moving to New York!? the May 29 appeal said. ?I?ve accepted a
job to work in the conservative media movement to combat the lies
and deceipt of the liberal MSM. I?ll be using my skills as a
researcher and fact-checker to help our movement. I was laid off
from my mortgage job a few months ago and came across the
opportunity to change my career path.?The hypocrisy is... Well,
there's a lot of nasty words for it.
tomc1985 - 6 minutes ago
It's that weird objective-but-really-not style of writing
commonly seen as nonsense output from ideologues
rybosome - 13 minutes ago
This is a telling look at the intense self-righteousness felt by
that segment. They knowingly engage in fraud and deception,
believing that it is justified because their enemies do it more
or first or something.