Is It Okay for Actual Journalists to Deceive Our Friends if It Makes Us Look Like Establishment Hacks?

Tharru Larbi
Daily Stormer
October 20, 2016


Paul Farhi, who is listed as the Washington Post’s ‘media’ reporter, wrote an article yesterday with his question to his readers as his article’s title. That title was this:

Is it okay for James O’Keefe’s ‘investigative reporting’ to rely on deception?

Now, before I go any further I want to make a few remarks about this article which is probably the best summary anyone could point to as to why ‘journalism’ in today’s America sucks. The title itself and Farhi’s use of scare quotes around the words investigative journalism are meant to call into question O’Keefe’s credibility as a journalist who investigates things. This is because it puts him in league with Farhi and all the other establishment milk-drinkers who, in their twisted and laughable mental schema consider themselves the very thing they hate O’Keefe for actually being. He makes them look bad and exposes them as hacks tacitly.


Secondly, this article is riddled with journalistic double-think and newspeak to such a degree it would make Arthur Blair blush.

Third, the second point I just made is the motivation behind the form of this article. Think of what’s below as if you had just clicked gone to, pasted this article in the hypothetical text box, and then clicked un-jewify. Of course, the two languages you’d be selecting would be journalese as the input and English as the output.

Prepare your jimmies, fam!

[Begin translation]

James O’Keefe isn’t an investigative journalist. The videos he purportedly makes that claim to uncover hidden truths only make us look bad and we really hate that he does this to the party of the woman we just official came out in support of this Presidential election. We can’t really deny the material contained in the two most recent ‘investigative’ videos but I, Paul Farhi, can assure you we’re all really pissed off at O’Keefe.

What’s even more infuriating is the videos went viral across the Internet and on social media, which had an even more infuriating result of proving that evil, racist, misogynist, Islamophobic, totally gross liar Donald Trump to actually be right. O’Keefe even had the audacity(!) to title his videos in a way that accurately reflects what they’re about! Can you believe this guy?

Here’s the cool part though – this recent set of videos have given me, and the milk-drinking press writ large, the opportunity to call into question in your minds whether we should totally write off everything contained in O’Keefe’s videos because he made us look like shills and forced us to actually do our job and report on something (and someone) we really, really, didn’t want to report on. It’s not like we actually abide by those silly codes of ethics I’m going to mention later!

We’re all asking, as a way to get you – the readers and viewers – to question whether there is any legitimate tactic that’s off-limits if the ends don’t conform to our narrative. Hillary, Obama and the DNC are all implicated in massive voter fraud and demographic replacement despite recognizing the illegalities and immorality of these goals, you say? Well, let me just stop you right there citizen. I’m a journalist! I know about these things. We can’t have just anyone asking questions and secretly recording people admitting to breaking the law and undermining elections!

See, in my line of work, we have these things called ‘journalistic norms.’ Basically, it’s an unspoken code that contradicts the actual codified journalism ethos because there’s massive money and huge influence to be had by cooperating and collaborating with the democratic party and Hillary Clinton. All the major mainstream news organizations really discourage doing what Mr. O’Keefe did because it makes us all look bad and it’s really hard to investigate politicians for corruption and keep them all in check by the public and at the same time collude with them to make money and influence people to vote for the people we’re supposed to hold accountable for you, the reader.

Some of the most problematic (I learned that word in my media and communications introductory class where my Marxist feminist professor open my eyes – I use it often because there are a lot of really important issues and everything is problematic) tactics O’Keefe and his organization (trigger warning! Problematic word coming up) Project Veritas use are using aliases and false identities. We don’t like it because lying is bad but lying to get evidence of the people who run our country defrauding the electoral system is even worse.

Even though the more extreme organizations on our specific political spectrum in journalism like Mother Jones do the same thing (kind of) generally lying is discouraged because it violates the illusion of trust between the people we’re trying to catch doing illegal things and us, the reporters. This may seem weird but let me tell you, if everyone started lying to leaders of influential organizations and politicians they might actually start doing their job and that would be bad for our bottom line and our page views. And really, Mother Jones didn’t do anything wrong. Yeah, the reporter in question wasn’t honest in his motivation to get a job as a prison employee to expose prison abuse, but he used his real name and the cause was in line with my political values so we’re going to just ignore all the contradictions going on here.

O’Keefe has even used illegal means to try and obtain evidence and actually do journalistic investigations. See! This guy is bad news. We can’t break the law even if we know the system is rigged and you shouldn’t trust anyone telling you otherwise. There were some splicing issues with his previous ACORN investigation which was shut down by congress and then some ‘questionable’ issues regarding NPR. You see, I don’t have a problem pointing out all the bad things O’keefe has done because it gives me, and the rest of the milk-drinking media, a perfect out and we don’t actually have to address the massive illegal stuff going on right now.

Journalists say the best investigative reporting is done without deception and though the hard work of building cooperative sources and gathering data. Of course, we would say this because this means we can build cozy relationships with our sources but this means they’re going to ask we not report on certain things. Tit-for-tat, guys. Just be reasonable. We can’t expect to get these sorts of relationships if the people we’re trying to get them from know we’re going to actually report what they’re doing. And we definitely can’t lie. What other choice do we have!?

Mark Horvit,, executive director of Investigative Reporters and Editors, had this to say when I contacted him and asked him to use his credentials to buff up my double think: “If you lie to get a story, you’re asking your audience to believe you, and that’s a hard sell”… “Even if your story is accurate and justified and all the editing is honest, it’s hard to justify when you lied to get an interview in the first place. The story can be awesome, but you risk eroding the trust of your audience if you cut corners to get it.”

What Mark is trying to convince you of is this – we, as journalists, don’t really care about what you, the reader, thinks about us. If we did we wouldn’t care about lying to get the truth because the people we’d be lying to wouldn’t be the readers of our stories but the people actually committing crimes and doing questionable things or who had multiple conflicts of interest. If we lie to get a story we don’t expect the people we lied to will ever talk to us again and that makes it really hard to get cozy with anyone but powerless media consumers.

Even if the stories we put out are true, say for instance it had been myself who had exposed these DNC operatives in committing fraud, those operatives would be livid and they’d never talk to us again. We’re not in journalism for the readers because they’re not our audience. We’re in journalism for the power players and fancy cocktail parties at the White House.

Andrew Seamen, the chair of the Society of Professional Journalists’ (LOL!) ethics committee (ROFL), listed O’Keefe as “an advocate who uses some of the more controversial items in journalism’s toolbox.” In other words, if we didn’t have those items in that ‘toolbox’ people would realize journalism is a sham and journalists don’t actually have any interest in reporting the truth or doing any of that ‘hard work’ I mentioned earlier. So, we just throw that stuff in there and say it’s only used in the rarest of occasions to keep this veil of journalistic integrity floating around but it’s all a bunch of malarkey.

Seaman also pointed out the frequency with which O’Keefe crosses these arbitrary and largely ignored boundaries journalists have set up as opposed to the milk-drinking media. This is supposed to implicate him as an unethical guy but it really just means he’s willing to go after the truth and we’re not.

The SPJ’s ethics code doesn’t forbid undercover reporting, Seaman said. However, it does stress that the methods O’Keefe regularly uses should be used as a last resort in pursuit of information that is “vital” to the public. Since there’s really no information we consider vital to the public that contradicts our narratives we’re always going to criticize those who make us look like establishment hacks and we’ll never actually use them unless someone like Donald Trump is running for office.

“James O’Keefe is not an ethical journalist” if we look at his actions in the context of the rules we, ourselves, don’t follow unless they enable our agenda and hurt our enemies. “He obviously has an agenda, goes directly to surreptitious reporting methods and has a history of distorting facts or context.”

[End Translation].

CNN cut off the feed of a US representative who mentioned wikileaks in the context of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The entire milk-drinking media went on a tirade over surreptitiously gained private conversation of Donald Trump which was then leaked to the press, possibly by the press themselves (so much for codes of ethical conduct). Politico has been implicated via its editor as sending entire articles to John Podesta and the Clinton campaign for review prior to publishing. The New York Times constantly shills for Hillary Clinton and the entire DNC apparatus has been implicated in fraud, which the media has largely refused to cover, and in some cases it has become apparent that the media is actively working with these people.

And Farhi, the IRE, and the SPJ has the gall to call someone exposing ‘vital’ truth about the illegitimacy of the political establishment to voters unethical.

The lying press is absolutely right when they say they’re frightened of us. And they ought to be. They made their graves. People like O’Keefe and Donald Trump are just getting the shovels ready.

 [rage intensifies]