Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on May 22, 2014 at 15:12

Project Veritas. Thanks for posting this, Keith.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Kluge on May 28, 2014 at 5:14

I would think that with the number of times that O'keefe's "reporting" and editing techniques have been discredited, a little research would have been done before posting. The guy is a real jerk.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on May 28, 2014 at 8:19

Pretty effective, I'd say. Just ask Acorn. You're just butt-hurt because those so called morally superior eco-warriors got "outed" as being willing to take dirty Arab oil money for the cause. What hypocrites. You, too, if you are defending them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ledlights on May 28, 2014 at 22:29

Accepting Mr. OKeefe's work on face value because it supports your beliefs is no different than taking oil money to support anti-fracking. Every bit as hypocritical. He has no scruples about using edits to create complete lies.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/21/the-deceptive-edits-in-jame...

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/22/james_okeefes_anti_fracking_scam_ba...

As far as I can tell the Tickells are not anyone I would want to have anything to do with. But what about anyone else that O'Keefe is willing to try to catch in the same net through false edits. How can you defend him?  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on May 29, 2014 at 3:56

I heard Ms. Hemingway's interview on Fox last weekend. Not so sure I'm buying. Ed Begley is possibly a dupe but he was there for a reason, too, don't you think? I don't read Salon, as a rule, and of course these people are all going to claim that they were selectively edited. They were embarrassed (latin for caught out in public with their asses uncovered/) before the entire movement.

I expect that O'Keefe may release the raw footage at some point. He has with other tapes. You might want to expand your sources. And just FYI, research is what I do. I read energy news and politics from the left, right and center... every day. I don't take any news as gospel. And I know the arguments re:O'Keefe.

Mariel Hemingway: Project Veritas' James O'Keefe Should Meet Face-t...

Project Veritas blows liberal’s minds exposing Hollywood hypocrisy

and, if you really want to immerse yourself in "O'Keef is a fraud", media matters has you covered. They are obsessively blogging everything ever written in that vein:

http://mediamatters.org/tags/james-okeefe

Keith posting this particular tape was a great convo starter, which was his goal, I feel certain. There is a push to expose the funding behind some of the films that are coming out of hollywood on AGW because...

The Matt Damon movie that blasts fracking was partly funded by Abu ...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ledlights on May 29, 2014 at 7:32

Jffree,

I have held your information gathering abilities in high esteem. My information sources are also considerably wider than anything I might have time to quote here.

And I have no sympathy for those whose asses were truly exposed. My problem is that O'Keefe does not stop with his legitimate smoking guns. He has no qualms about implying others did the same thing when they haven't. His unedited tapes have shown how he rearranges time lines and edits out critical context that would undermine his agenda. Intentionally throwing even one innocent person under the bus is inexcusable.

I would never want to use O'Keefe's work to support anything I care about. It simply undermines the credibility of anything it is associated with. I believe that was John Kluge's point. I saw nothing in Mr. Kluge's comment that defended anyone who would take Arab oil money for anti-fracking efforts. If someone criticizes O'Keefe, do they instantly also get caught in that net as a supporter of what O'Keefe is trying to sting? That's the way O'Keefe's ever widening net seems to work - guilt by the slightest association. Does O'Keefe's work really pass muster for you?

One irony for me is that O'Keefe's target in this instance typically collapses under its own weight of inadequate and inaccurate information. If anything O'Keefe just provides a very legitimate target for anti-frackers that distracts from the weakness of their positions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on May 29, 2014 at 12:43

Does O'Keefe's work really pass muster for you?

I think I already said that I don't take any news as gospel and I digest information from all sorts of sources in an effort to know my own mind on whatever the subject is. The jury is out on O'Keefe. I do think it funny as hell that these people are being all self-righteous after being caught with their collective pants down, so to speak.

If any of the Hollywood contingent is taking money from middle-east oil sources to finance their projects... in an effort to stop or hinder energy production in this country... would you want to know that or would you prefer to just remain in the dark? I would want to know that the people I may be supporting with my entertainment dollars are really intensely... un-American. I might decide to spend my pennies elsewhere.

If they think they have been injured they can always haul him to court.That would probably be highly entertaining, too.

The O'Keefes of the world usually just fade away once the need for disclosure exposure has abated. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on May 29, 2014 at 13:24

I agree with you Jiffree. I too saw the interview that Fox did with Hemingway and she said she was "just helping a friend." and didn't know what she was supporting .  Her defense came off weak to me. Matt Damon did his anti fracking movie and says he didn't even know that who financial backers were:

http://cnsnews.com/blog/mike-ciandella/matt-damon-surprised-learn-h...

So do we just accept all of their shallow explanations? I just don't think these people are that dumb. They will do any film for the right money.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on May 29, 2014 at 16:09

Strangely incurious aren't they? Especially for a producer (Damon, who also serves as writer and producer on the movie) but, then, maybe he was just a PINO (producer in name only).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on June 3, 2014 at 2:38

I know what I post, I don't care if he's a jerk. So he's a jerk that exposed jerks worse case scenario; what else is new in modern media. The parts that matter in this video do not appear to be edited. Besides, I have little regard for Hollywood types who'll whine about unfair edits. And come on, does this surprise anyone?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jim weyland on June 3, 2014 at 9:16

after he outed those acorn weasels, he could/can do no wrong as far as i'm concerned.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by tc on June 12, 2014 at 0:21

This link is to a 6-11-14 Pluggers comic and its anti alternative energy.  The tag line.

"Pluggers know that political talk about alternative energy sources is usually powered by wind."

http://www.gocomics.com/pluggers/2014/06/11#.U5mLIc5OU5s

• ▶ Reply