Update the New York Times Wikipedia page. The newspaper is now owned by James O'Keefe. Project Veritas took the New York Times to court for defamation over its coverage of a 2020 PV expose. The NYT filed to have the lawsuit dismissed. The New York Supreme Court judge ruled, "Yeah, no."

At issue is a 2020 Project Vertias video. It involves an election, ballots, Ilhan Omar, and harvesting. Apologies for sounding coy, but I'm not sure what's allowed on Facebook about the topic. Though back in September, we were allowed to cover the story in depth. The NYT coverage accused Project Veritas of releasing a deceptive video. Once sued, the Times claimed that calling the video deceptive was just the reporter's opinion. PV wasn't convinced, and neither was a judge.

Project Veritas pointed out this "opinion" was printed in the news section of The New York Times and the Court agreed: "if a writer interjects an opinion in a news article (and will seek to claim legal protections as opinion) it stands to reason that the writer should have an obligation to alert the reader … that it is opinion." The Times did not do so, and the Court found this troubling.

The Court found Project Veritas demonstrated "a substantial basis in law and fact that the Defendants [The New York Times] acted with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that the statements in the Articles were false or made with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not" and Project Veritas should be permitted to "conduct discovery."

So what does this mean? Now, reporter Maggie Astor and NYT executive editor Dean Baquet get dragged into the court. They get sworn under oath. They get questioned about this act of journalistic malpractice and all the decisions that went into it. The video is recorded and eventually released to the public for our enjoyment.

This COULD have the possibility to be game-changing. Passing off opinion as "fact" in "news" articles is standard practice for the mainstream media. Particularly, when circling the wagons for a Democrat or when the subject is to the right of Karl Marx. The problem with the right fighting back is that finding a reporter "acted with malice" is difficult to do. Project Veritas is going to get the opportunity to prove it. This ruling, in theory, could open up other reporters and newspapers to lawsuits now as well.

I'm sure Astor and Baquet will still try to weasel their way out of it. But I will commence with the popping of popcorn anyway.

Get your content free from Big Tech's filter. Bookmark this website and sign up for our newsletter!

Debunking the Gender Pay Gap #shortsyoutu.be