Discover more from Wonkette
BREAKING DRUDGE SIRENS SHOCK VIDEO! James O'Keefe Has No Fucking Idea How Journalism Works!
Note the shocking refusal to claim anything more than what there's evidence for. The cur.
OMG, kids, the genius undercover "reporters" of James O'Keefe's Project Veritas (Latin for "Fuck it, We'll run whatever we scraped up" ) have scored another HUGE WIN against the liberal media, releasingvideo of Washington Post reporter Adam Entous freely admitting that it would be premature to jump to conclusions about Trump/Russia before all the facts are in. Yes, in Wingnutland, that is exactly the same as Entous admitting there's no story there at all.
Coming on top of the Washington Post catching O'Keefe trying to push a fake "victim" in the Roy Moore scandal, the great rightwing sting reporter is really doing a bang-up job of demonstrating that WaPo does careful fact-checking and has pretty rigorous journamalistic ethics. Which somehow proves to wingnuts that you can't trust a word WaPo says. It's really rather impressive. O'Keefe is probably the only person we know who could look at the wreckage of a crashed jet, find an engine stuffed with feathers and bird carcasses, and proclaim that ISIS is training terrorist geese to crash into airliners. Okay, him and Donald Trump. And Gateway Pundit. Okay, actually all of them, now that we're thinking about it.
In this latest video, an unidentified Project Wormysnacks "journalist" tries to bait Entous into admitting that the paper's goal is to "get" Trump and manufacture some kind of crazy story about collusion with Russia. Entous, apparently thinking he's talking to a journalism student, patiently explains how reporting really works: You can't draw conclusions about anything you don't have facts for. Shocking, we know. Let's see how O'Keefe tries to frame journalistic ethics as a bad thing:
O'Keefe can't get even basic matters right: He starts his Ominous Narrator schtick with a lie, saying WaPo had "applauded me personally" in its coverage of his group's infiltrating activists who planned to disrupt the inauguration. After all, WaPo had written that the action "validates his group and its controversial methods." The humblebrag is a bit undercut by the onscreen excerpt from the story, which actually didn't editorialize or applaud O'Keefe, but instead said that O'Keefe himself considered his actions validated:
The boy is simply not very smart if he doesn't know that "To O’Keefe, who for years has targeted liberal groups with undercover stings, the arrest validates his group and its controversial methods" is not actually praise but rather is a characterization of what he thinks about himself. But of course he's A IDIOT, as he happily acknowledges in his casual dismissal of the very idea of journalistic ethics:
See, in the final analysis, it's really not about our methods or our techniques; don't let them fool you with this talk about morality and ethics when it comes to undercover investigative journalism. This is about taking sides, and whose side you are on.
O'Keefe then goes on to justify his creation of fake news and his standard operating procedure of sending out "reporters" to pretend that they're campaign volunteers or pimps or rape victims so they can catch mean liberals saying terrible things:
We use deception in order not to be deceived, because when you blindly report what people tell you, sometimes you tell people what's not true.
Pretty rich stuff coming from a guy who sent an employee to the Washington Post with a fake story about Roy Moore getting her pregnant at 15, whose story WaPo then took apart with basic fact-checking.
Did we say O'Keefe was stupid? Nah, he's a sociopath.
Anyway, on to the shocking proof that the Washington Post is "taking sides" in its coverage of Trump/Russia. We have no idea when the video of Entous was shot -- if it was done around the same time as yesterday's non-shocker video of national security correspondent Dan Lamothe, then it would be a few months ago. And what shocking truth did Entous "admit" at some indeterminate time in the past? Pretty much that you can only report where the facts lead you. Or as O'Keefe frames it, "He is an honest reporter, who, when captured on our undercover camera, admits the Russia story [dramatic pause] may be nothing at all." Which isn't at all what Entous actually says, but sure:
Entous: Our reporting has not taken us to a place where I would be able to say with any confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots with the Russians. There’s no evidence of that that I’ve seen so far.
So obviously, there's nothing to report, nothing whatsoever. Except all the reporting Entous and others keep doing about people in the Trump campaign and transition having contacts with Russian government officials that they insisted had never happened.
In Ominous Narrator voiceover, O'Keefe says, "This year alone, he's written over 50 stories about Russia. Yet Entous doesn't believe that his reporting has led to anything substantial." Really? That's a strange take on this exchange:
Project Vanitas "reporter": How do we get the president?
Entous: I have no idea, and frankly there may not be anything that gets the president. It may be just lower-level people who are compromised by this. We just don't know. It's very hard to tell. So, we just don't know at this point.
Project Jerrycan "reporter": There has to be something, right?
Entous: Maybe, maybe not. It could just be lower-level people being manipulated or manipulating, but it's very hard to — it's a fucking black box.
See? Absolutely nothing there, and Entous admits that he's wasted his life. Or maybe he's saying that "at this point" -- remember, not now, in November, but at some date O'Keefe doesn't bother telling us -- the full story was still being put together. If this video was shot after news broke of Don Jr.'s meeting with actual Russian agents, perhaps Entous would have mentioned that, so we'll guess blindly and assume this was shot before early July? Or maybe the video was shot last week and Entous is saying that even now there's nothing, though that seems unlikely. We have no way of knowing, because James O'Keefe doesn't tell us, and doesn't bother with elitist stuff like "ethics."
In any case, Entous accurately states this story is a work in progress:
We’ve seen a lot of flirtation, if you will, between them but nothing that, in my opinion, would rank as actual collusion. Now that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, it just means we haven’t found it yet. Or maybe it doesn’t exist [...]
I mean, it's a fucking crap shoot. I literally have no prediction whatsoever as to what would happen, and I do all the stuff for the Post on this so...I do most of this reporting, so I honestly would tell you. I have no idea. But, that's the truth. We're just trying to figure it out. It's very hard.
O'Keefe then goes on to lambaste the Post's editorial pages for editorials about collusion, then goes back to more video of Entous saying the facts aren't all in yet, as if that proved there are no facts at all. O'Keefe even acknowledges that there's a difference between the editorial pages and the news pages, which is mighty big of him, then goes on to say the editorial pages don't reflect the lack of certainty -- or perhaps existential self-loathing -- he projects on Entous.
So there's O'Keefe's big scoop: A reporter is careful, editorials are opinionated, and WaPo has "mishandled" the Russia story, because he says the paper is biased. Yup, that's definitely some impressive sleight of logic.
Oh, also, another WaPo person, Melissa McCullough, the director of newsroom operations, said on hidden camera, "let’s just hope [Trump] doesn’t get re-elected in another three years. That's just my take on things" and "he's living on a different planet" -- so obviously, the entire operation is shot through with bias. But James O'Keefe WILL NOT KNEEL to the mainstream media that's trying to destroy him by pointing out he's a fraud and that he doesn't know how journalism works, the end.
OK, not quite the end: When the hell was this video shot? Also, best of luck to Adam Entous, who's starting a new gig at the New Yorker soon.