American Media, Soviet Tactics | 5 Minute Video

The job of a journalist is to report facts, add context where necessary, and leave it to the consumer to decide what he thinks. In this video, James O’Keefe, founder and president of Project Veritas, explains why fewer and fewer people trust modern-day “journalism.”

Donate today to PragerU!

Get PragerU bonus content for free!

Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.

Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager!

Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone!

Do you shop on Amazon? Click and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.

VISIT PragerU!

FOLLOW us!

PragerU is on Snapchat!

JOIN PragerFORCE!

For Students

JOIN our Educators Network!

Script:

The communist government of the former Soviet Union thought that by controlling access to information, they could keep their citizens in line.

Consistent with the Orwellian nature of the Soviet Union, the country’s most important newspaper was Pravda. “Pravda” is the Russian word for “truth.” But Pravda was not truth. It was full of lies.

But here’s the thing: Almost no one in the Soviet Union was fooled. They knew they were being lied to. Ironically, unlike most citizens in the Soviet Union, citizens in 21st-century America are fooled by their news media. We think we’re getting the real story from our major media, but we’re not. When we tune into the networks, or read the New York Times or the Washington Post, we’re actually getting a sharply slanted version of the news. Slanted to the left.

This should deeply concern people on both sides of the political divide. To make informed decisions, a free society needs a press it can trust—not one that is hopelessly biased.

In 2017, Project Veritas sent out undercover reporters to see how committed the major media was to objective news gathering, specifically as it regarded the newly-elected president, Donald Trump.

Our first report focused on CNN. A producer there, John Bonifield, acknowledged the lack of evidence for his network’s efforts to link the Trump campaign and the Russian government in a plot to rig the 2016 election. Bonifield told us, “I think the president is probably right to say, like, ‘Look, you are witch-hunting me. You have no smoking gun; you have no real proof.’”

So, why was CNN so relentless in hammering the Russia collusion narrative? Ideology—"the election wasn’t legitimate”—and ratings. As Bonifield noted, the Trump/Russia collusion story was “good for business.”

Next, we released another series of reports, these on the New York Times. First, we heard from Nick Dudich, the paper’s “audience strategy editor.” Dudich told our undercover reporter he was responsible for choosing which New York Times videos go on Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. Dudich boasted, “My imprint is on every video we do.”

And what was that imprint about? As Dudich, who worked on both the Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns, told our reporter, he hoped to use his position to make the president’s life as difficult as possible.

“I will be objective,” he told our reporter with undisguised sarcasm before revealing his true intentions: “No, I’m not. That’s why I’m here.” Dudich told us he returned to journalism precisely in order to remain politically active.

Next, we met Des Shoe, an editor for the paper. She made it clear where she stood. “I think one of the things that maybe journalists were thinking about is, like, oh—if we write about [Trump], about how insanely crazy he is and how ludicrous his policies are, then maybe people will read it and be, like, oh, wow—we shouldn’t vote for him.”

According to the Times’s own handbook on journalistic ethics, journalists “may not do anything that damages The Times’s reputation for strict neutrality in reporting on politics and government.”

So, given such a breach of the Times’s own standards, we expected the newspaper to come down hard on Dudich and Shoe. Instead, they came down hard on us!

For the complete script, visit