Project Veritas Excels At What They Do—Create Fiction

Remember how on Saturday morning, as kids, we were bombarded with toy commercials. They would depict the toys flying through the air and in imagined scenarios that sparked our imaginations. They’d get us all excited — watching the repeatedly, enough to grow our envy and lust for them that we were left with no choice but to pester our parents endlessly to buy us those exact gifts for Christmas.

The adults, of course, understood what those advertisement were aiming to do, “Honey, that’s not really how that works. You can’t blow things up. It’s only make-believe.” Adults had more knowledge and insight to know that there was a reality that existed beyond the commercial.

Yet, in the adult world, that dynamic still exists… especially when we *want* to believe something to be true.

Someone sent me a video they wanted me to watch, and so as a courtesy and to understand where they were coming from, I watched it.

What follows is my response about that video.

After watching, one could understand why someone could watch something like this and easily accept the narrative that Project Veritas (PV) has presented. They do a fantastic job at what they do best — storytelling.

PV has been known for catering to a specific audience with a particular agenda. It is important to call attention to that as it will inform how we listen and watch.

One of the very effective methods PV capitalizes upon is the genre of “hidden camera reporting” to create the semblance of “secrets being revealed.” The hidden camera communicates “being where you don’t belong” and “someone is hiding something from you”. Makes for VERY compelling storytelling from a narrative perspective.

This sort of genre automatically creates a “frame” of believability because it appears as if the people being interviewed are unaware that they are, indeed, being interviewed and, therefore, the audience is immediately led to believe that whatever is presented is done under the assumption of “raw honesty” and “truth”. It does an effective job at eliminating any sense of skepticism. It’s a powerful persuasive tactic. PV has found this genre most effective in achieving their communicative aims.

Furthermore, the juxtaposition of interviews with actual footage helps to lead the audience along a narrative through-line that the producers want their audience to follow. Interviews are helpful to give a more “objective” feel, like a news report. But it is important to remember, this isn’t a news report. They are only using the genre of a report segment based on a familiar genre trope the audience associates with credibility, believability and trustworthiness. (Most don’t think much about the power of genres to shape communication, but that’s why these types of mock interviews, etc, are effective. Most don’t question what is happening. Again, nothing wrong with these techniques in and of themselves. When used for good, they can be very helpful to effect change and reform. When used for bad, it’s just propaganda.)

By the end of this video, PV would like to have established the following five main narrative emphases:

1. the COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous,
2. there are numerous adverse reactions to the vaccine,
3. these adverse reactions are not being reported,
4. the government is covering up these reactions and threatening loss of employment to shut people up, and
5. the government institutions traditionally responsible for public health cannot be trusted.

Understanding the tactics and agenda employed can help you sift through the fluff, distractions and deflections (the noise) to find the important facts (the signal). Anyone leaning in the direction of the above #1–5, will find evidence in the video that resonating with their views. This, of course, will likely serve as confirmation bias of their existing perspectives and beliefs. (Note: This is not a bad thing. We all do it. It’s inescapable. Just know that it happens.)

In other words, it helps to understand persuasive techniques and the power of editing. It is encouraged to have some idea of how persuasion works and how film editing can be key in crafting the narrative you want to communicate. Again, PV does it well, which is what makes them so popular among conservatives.

Because there is so much misunderstanding, misinformation and disinformation out there on the Internet, it is incredibly important to think critically and to acquire the skills necessary to figure out what is presented.

I will do my best to draw from my years of studies in science, theology, communication, persuasion, psychology and therapy/counseling/coaching, and my skills as an educator/teacher, filmmaker, actor, director and editor, to shed some insight on what is happening in this video.

The job of a filmmaker is to evoke emotion, and then have that emotion drive the story. Pay attention to how audiences’ emotions are brought up and then how they are associated to certain points of the narrative. It has nothing to do with the fact that these points have any truth to them but because of the intensity of emotion attached to them, the points made are given the semblance and impression of “truth-like-ness”. For more about this dynamic, you can read about it more here. Understanding the art of persuasion helps to sift through what is propaganda and what are real facts.

In the following, I hope to show how to discern fact vs. opinion, insinuation, accusation, speculation from supportable facts vs. actual wrong-doing, etc.

My goal here is to be as objective as possible, but I recognize that even I can be biased. Toward that end, I remain humbly open to reasonable evidence and explanations to the contrary.

I’d like you to note that throughout this piece there is NO ACTUAL PROOF of any government wrong-doing or cover-up. It is only a sequence of opinions and accusations wrapped in intense emotions of doubt, outrage, incredulousness, skepticism, cynicism, and anger creating the semblance of and belief of wrong-doing where there isn’t any by the accused.

My responses are interjected as bullet points within the following partial transcript of the video.

TRANSCRIPT — “PART 1: Federal Govt HHS Whistleblower Goes Public With Secret Recordings “Vaccine is Full of Sh*t”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obdI7tgKLtA

— START OF TRANSCRIPT
O’Malley told Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe about what has been going on at her federal government facility. She recorded her HHS colleagues discussing their concerns about the new COVID vaccine to corroborate her assertions:

Dr. Maria Gonzales, ER Doctor, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: “The problem in here is that they are not doing the studies. People that had [COVID] and the people that have been vaccinated — they’re not doing any antibody testing.”

• The assumption is that PV values true investigative journalism. However, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Here’s an example why not. The ideal journalistic approach would have been for PV to investigate and confirm this claim prior to releasing this video. And if untrue, make it clear. Not leave it hanging and open to interpretation. The claim is fantastical. It deserves confirmation.
• A true journalist would do their duty to determine whether any studies into adverse effects post-vaccine or antibody testing are or are not currently being done at that hospital, or any other hospital under the jurisdiction of the HHS, or elsewhere. PV does not follow up.
• Suppose we give her the benefit of the doubt. It is very possible that due to the overwhelming nature of Dr. Gonzales’ job, she may not be, or not be able to be, well-read or up-to-date in her knowledge of the latest, most current research available. She may not even privy to the knowledge of what HHS is doing at her own hospital for whatever reason due to time, security and her clearance levels, etc., a myriad of factors. In other words, she is making these comments out of (not necessarily willful) ignorance. (PV does not but should inform the audience of her specific context. A bare minimum attempt at quality journalism would.)
• Unless there is verification and confirmation of her statements, her claims remain dubious and unsubstantiated. Are there current ongoing studies and testing? (FYI, yes, easily googled)
• PV allows the audience to sit with this — allowing them to draw their own conclusions, which sets up the undergirding sentiment in this video that “something dubious is at hand.” This is the initial mood, or in film parlance, the starting “beat”.

Jodi O’Malley, Insider and Registered Nurse, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: “Nope.”

Dr. Gonzales: “Everybody is quiet with that. Why?”

O’Malley: “Now, you got this guy in Room Four who got his second dose of the [COVID] vaccine on Tuesday and has been short of breath. Okay? Now his BNP is elevated. D diver elevated, ALT, all his liver enzymes are elevated. His PTPTINR is elevated.”

Dr. Gonzales: “He’s probably got myocarditis!”

O’Malley: “Yes!”

Dr. Gonzales: “All this is bullshit. Now probably myocarditis due to the vaccine.”

• “All this is bullshit” is an emotional opinion, which adds an emphasis to the slant of the PV narrative. Introduce outrage. Remember these buttons — often effectively used in propaganda.
• By saying “probably” — she offers speculation based on correlation. Just because something (A) happens after something else (B), it doesn’t mean that B is caused by A no matter how soon after the events may have occurred. This is a common logical fallacy, and we must be aware of it when we hear someone make such statements.
• This is not to say, however, that A didn’t cause B. What it demands is further research and inquiry to identify the mechanism by which B came about. How exactly was B caused by A, if at all?
• To attribute (or insinuate) the vaccine as primary cause is premature and irresponsible. It’s good street survival, certainly, but bad medical science — and misleading to use as evidence to discredit public health policies. Dangerous. Easily swallowed by the non-critical. (But we know better, right?)
• The most prudent next step is to report likely adverse vaccine reactions — not to draw the conclusion already that the vaccines are the cause.
• NOTE: There is a tendency to lump all the vaccines together as if they’re all the same. They are not. Some have more effectiveness than others.
• NOTE: It’s also important to note that no one in the medical community denies that there may be the possibility of adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines. This is a known given and expected. In fact, this is the case with all vaccines (and any medicines). That is why there exists a VAERS system, which is publicly available online for anyone to submit a report — https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html

O’Malley: “Right.”

Dr. Gonzales: “But now, they [government] are not going to blame the vaccine.”

• Without any proof whatsoever, she’s defaulted to catastrophizing and insinuating wrong-doing by the government, which fits nicely with the PV narrative for this video (#4–5).
• PV does not call her out on the fact that she has no proof. PV does not point out that she’s making a correlation or speculation. They will do this very briefly later in the video, but for the time being, PV has edited the video to allow this to continue to sit with the audience so that this doubt and sense of outrage can grow. It is merely taken “as fact.”

O’Malley: “Well and you know what — but he has an obligation to report that doesn’t he? It happened right — what is it — sixty days after if you see anything?”

• 60 days? In general, healthcare providers are required by law to report to VAERS within a specified time period (often 7 days) as listed on their VAERS Table of Reportable Events following specific vaccinations. However, nothing on that table requires them to report at or after 60 days.
• Because the general audience doesn’t know one way or the other, this can seem misleading especially when it’s just only her word the audience has available to believe.
• PV again fails here as a journalistic entity in that they do not confirm/verify this point for the audience. Therefore, it is left to create the growing general sense of distrust and unease with the conversation about the vaccine — that there was/is a failure to report even though there is NO REQUIREMENT to report at or after that time period.
• Pertaining to the COVID-19 vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), healthcare providers are/were required to report to VAERS for potential adverse reactions following the items listed here.

Dr. Gonzales: “They have got to.”

O’Malley: “But how many are reporting?”

Dr. Gonzales: “They are not reporting.”

O’Malley: “Right!”

Dr. Gonzales: “Because they want to shove it under the mat.”

• This quote is opinion and speculation, and it serves the narrative PV is seeking to present. There is no proof of “not reporting”. It’s easy to make a claim with no support. It also undergirds the seeding of doubt concerning the ominous “they”.
• NOTE: “Us-them” divisiveness is a very powerful persuasive device. Watch for that, as well as the use of labels and stereotypes, “The Libtards”, “The Socialists”, “The Left/Right”, “The Patriots,” “communism,” and other hot button buzzwords, etc.

O’Malley explained this conversation in detail during her interview with O’Keefe:

James O’Keefe, Project Veritas founder: “In this instance with Dr. Gonzales, what patient was she referring to? Without saying the name.”

Jodi O’Malley, Insider and Registered Nurse, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:”She was referring to a thirty-something-year-old patient that had congestive heart failure.”

O’Keefe: “Congestive heart failure? In that particular patient’s case, it was not reported?”

O’Malley: “No.”

O’Keefe: “Were there other instances that they didn’t report? Or just this one?”

O’Malley: “Yeah, many.”

O’Keefe: “How many did you see?”

O’Malley: “Oh, I’ve seen dozens of people come in with adverse reactions [to the COVID vaccine].”

…

• The transcript has been edited here, as they are stories of alleged adverse reactions to the COVID vaccine that ought to have been reported and purportedly not done so. This section creates an overwhelming feeling of “oh, man, there’s alot!”
• There is the trap here of the cognitive bias known as faulty generalizations. It’s very common and easy to fall into, which is why we must always be aware when watching videos like these. Much of the effectiveness of vaccine disinformation depends on people being unaware of this cognitive bias.
• Also, remember that correlation is not causation. In order to determine the mechanism for causation, a study must be done and therefore, reporting is necessary.
• The next segment will (shockingly) reveal WHY reporting was not done (and not what you think!).

O’Malley: “So, what the responsibility on everyone is — is to gather that data and report it. If we’re not gathering [COVID vaccine] data and reporting it, then how are we going to say that this is safe and approved for use?”

• This is a curious statement by RN O’Malley because she emphasizes that “everyone” is responsible, which includes herself as a registered nurse. She is supposedly seeing “dozens of people come with adverse reactions” YET she chose NOT to report that data into the VAERS system? Why?? Very peculiar admission.
• This VAERS reporting system is NOT a closed system. It’s not hard to get to. It’s not complicated. In fact, you could report it. It is a publicly accessible system available here: https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html
• PV fails to do journalistic duty here to explore why this reporting was not done under her watch. No follow-up. Not done under Dr. Gonzales’ watch by her admission as well. No follow-up whatsoever.
• What is going on here that these healthcare workers who are interviewed are choosing NOT to report it when the responsibility falls on them to gather the data and report it, as per O’Malley??

The whistleblower also recorded Dr. Gonzales’ disagreement with another HHS doctor pertaining to the research and reporting behind the COVID vaccine:

Jodi O’Malley, Insider and Registered Nurse, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: “So how come after 18 months, we haven’t had any research? Isn’t that fishy to you?”

Dr. Maria Gonzales, ER Doctor, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: “It does — it is fishy.”

O’Malley: “It’s super fishy.”

Dr. Dale McGee, ER Doctor, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: “It’s not that it hasn’t been done. It hasn’t been published, that’s why.”

• PV, at this point in the video, has finally inserted a possible explanation by Dr. McGee, but it can very well be lost in the mix.
• The truth actually is just a cursory Google search away. Doing a web search will quickly reveal that there are indeed studies being done, not only in the United States but in Germany and the UK, on the adverse effects possibly due to the vaccines.
• Remember, the issue is not that there aren’t adverse reactions, but whether they are directly caused by the vaccine, what the actual mechanism is of that cause, and how statistically significant such cases are.
• Statistical significance is an important point when discussing such numbers and cases. (NOTE: It is statistically very significant that 5.98 billion vaccine doses have already been administered worldwide.)
• It may very well be that nothing has yet been published as nothing is yet at a stage to be conclusive enough to be published, ready to be presented, or clear. Yes, there are people talking and researching about it. People are doing the work (in UK, for example here). But the numbers are statistically positive that the vaccine is safe for most people, up to 94% effective for some vaccines, in fact. The glass is very full, extremely full.
• Rather than talk about what is actually being researched and looked at, PV instead pursues the slant that there’s nothing being done, nothing is researched, and that there is a government cover-up. This is eaten up by the audience who wants to believe this.

Dr. Gonzales: “It hasn’t probably been done because the government doesn’t want to show that the darn [COVID] vaccine is full of sh*t.”

• PV plays this comment more than once (why?) as it is an effective emotional hot button that their audience can resonate with. However, it is just an opinion and an unsubstantiated one at that.
• “Full of shit” is without meaning or explanation. It is an emotional expression of rejection. It means nothing more. Nothing constructive about it or critical of any actual facts. The exclamation simply works to serve PVs purposes.

O’Malley spoke to Deanna Paris, who works as a Registered Nurse at the same federal government facility, to compare what they both have witnessed regarding COVID vaccine adverse effects:

Deanna Paris, Registered Nurse, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: “It’s a shame they [government] are not treating people [with COVID] like they’re supposed to, like they should. I think they want people to die.”

Jodi O’Malley, Insider and Registered Nurse, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: “How many have you seen that have gotten vaccinated here?”

Paris: “That got sick from the side effects? A lot.”

O’Malley: “A lot!”

Paris: “Have you seen it too?”

O’Malley: “Yeah, and I’m like, who’s writing the VAERS reports?”

Paris: “Nobody because it takes over a half hour to write the damn thing.”

An unbelievable self-admission that gets passed over by PV.

• You ought to read that a few times. This is a SHOCKING statement which PV again fails to follow up.
• This RN admitted that she and her fellow healthcare workers have willfully neglected to perform what is required of them by law. In other words, in response to an adverse reaction, they choose NOT to submit a report to VAERS.
• As mentioned above, VAERS is publicly accessible and available. This isn’t about an inability to access it. She revealed that it was INCONVENIENT to do so.
• These nurses are blaming everyone else without taking responsibility for doing what, one would assume, is their responsibility.
• RECALL O’Malley’s prior quote, “what the responsibility on everyone is — is to gather that data and report it”. Both of these RNs are included in “everyone,” are they not?
• Integrity in journalism requires that one ought to have explored WHY they failed to do what was required of them. This does seem to be the heart of the issue. Were they prevented? No, doesn’t seem so. Did doctors tell them not to? No, doesn’t seem so. Dr. Gonzales is a doctor herself, why didn’t she report? VAERS IS ONLINE!
• They admitted this — They DIDN’T WANT TO DO THE WORK NECESSARY TO FILE THE REPORTS. It “takes too long” to collect the data and file a report. This is an unbelievable admission which PV simply brushes aside and ignores.

An unbelievable self-admission of incompetence and failure at their jobs.

The insider told O’Keefe what led her to blow the whistle on the federal government.

• It is at this point in the video that, instead of the nurses/docs assuming responsibility, PV strategically pivots and SHIFTS BLAME to the government the scapegoat. This isn’t about a government cover-up — this is about a failure of the healthcare workers to comply with the law and submit a report to VAERS.

“What prompted me to do this was when I was House Supervisor one night, and one of my coworkers had taken the [COVID] vaccine two weeks ago, and she didn’t want to. She went throughout this entire pandemic working in the intensive care unit, which pretty much was a COVID unit,” O’Malley said.

“She didn’t want to take [the COVID vaccine] because of her religious beliefs and she was coerced into taking it. It’s like nobody — nobody should have to decide between their livelihood, being ‘a part of the team in the hospital,’ or take the [COVID] vaccine.”

• (scene change) PV is quite sly here. They change the topic. Here is the crux of the matter and the heart of PV’s bias: A coworker was given a choice to decide between 1) keeping her job and 2) taking the vaccine. She chose to take the vaccine.
• It would seem that there were no adverse effects from having taken the vaccine. HOWEVER, the way PV has edited this piece, it would have been anchored in the audience’s mind that this woman had also experienced adverse effects from the vaccine. It’s implied. The video has been an exercise in priming the audience. This sort of editing is easily missed. It can be perceived as manipulative as it insinuates without being overt about it.
• All the emotions associated with adverse reactions now become attributed to this woman having been given a choice that was seemingly against her religious beliefs.
• The coworker was given a choice to abide by hospital policy or be expelled. She made her choice, but O’Malley and PV use this co-worker story to create an opportunity to 1) create distrust in the HHS and government institutions responsible for our health care, and 2) to suggest that people are being forced to take the vaccine “like her.”
• The truth is, there are consequences if one does not comply with hospital regulations. Those consequences may not be desirable. Hospital policies are enforced and are part of the job requirements. Just like wearing a mask is mandatory in a hospital, like it or not. You get to choose, but you also accept the full consequences of your choice. If you don’t agree with that hospital, go to another one that does not have those requirements (unlikely). This is called taking personal responsibility for your choices.

O’Malley said it is more important to shine a light on corruption than to fear retaliation from the powers that be:

James O’Keefe, Project Veritas founder: “What would you say to people who are in a position where they can do something?”

Jodi O’Malley, Insider and Registered Nurse, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: “I say that we have to do something. Right now, what is plaguing this country is the spirit of fear.”

O’Keefe: “Are you afraid?”

O’Malley: “It’s my career, you know? It’s how I help people. But am I afraid? I wouldn’t necessarily say I am afraid because my faith lies in God and not man. So, I have two older kids that are on their own, and I have a twelve-year-old at home that I care for on my own, but you know, what kind of person would I be if I knew all of this — this is evil. This is evil at the highest level. You have the FDA, you have the CDC, that are both supposed to be protecting us, but they are under the government, and everything that we’ve done so far is unscientific.”

• PV here prompts toward O’Malley invoking God, an oft used psychological and persuasive tactic to evoke the potent emotional appeal of the target audience. Like standing and waving a Bible in front of a church. This is just the verbal version of that manipulative stunt.
• She goes on here to associate the divine call to be faithful (which in and of itself is not a bad thing) with demonizing that which doesn’t lead to faithfulness: namely, accusing the government institutions as being irresponsible about public health. This juxtaposition of the two ideas create the good vs. evil category in the audiences’ mind. It’s very crafty. It sets up the dualistic thinking — black/white, right/wrong, good/evil, faith/fear/non-faith, holy/unholy — that tends to dominate human thinking. It’s another cognitive bias to recognize. While it helps us make decisions quickly, it is not always accurate or helpful.
• Remember, the failure of any reporting of potential adverse effects were NOT made because of a cover up, or desire to deceive, or led by some “evil at the highest level”, but those nurses and doctors’ who failed to take responsibility for entering it into VAERS because it was too inconvenient and tedious. (PV really ought to have examined the system breakdown here, as to why these healthcare workers thought and acted this way without accountability.)

O’Keefe: “Are you afraid they’re going to retaliate against you?”

O’Malley: “Yeah. I’m a federal employee. What other federal employees do you see coming out?”

O’Keefe: “But you put your faith in God.”

O’Malley: “Amen. At the end of the day, it’s about your health, and you can never get that back — and about your freedom, and about living in a peaceful society, and I’m like, ‘no.’ No. This is the hill that I will die on.”
——END OF TRANSCRIPT

• Ending on this note leaves the segment on a very heroic and divine high. The audience is left to perceive her as a divine, self-sacrificial hero as standing up for her freedoms and upholding her faith, willing to put her job on the line — emotional buttons that resonate with PV’s intended audience who tend to be conservative and religious. The audience is left with a pride of identifying with this woman who had courage to “stand against the forces of evil” (again, catering to a dualistic, black-white mindset). Workers of light against the forces of darkness. This is an extremely good sell and more than easily resonates with people with similar worldviews.
• Invoking God and faith is usually a very effective “icing on the cake”. No one can speak against the divine lest they want to face curse and damnation of some sort. It’s like putting the final period on a sentence and shuts off further possible conversation and debate. Who is going to argue against God and faith? Again, be aware of such tactics.
• Therefore, this whole video acts to confirm the sentiment, “See, I knew it! The vaccine is evil. It kills people. The government is covering it up. I told you so. Can’t trust them!” None of it is true.
• PV provides content that confirms the bias of its audience.

Again, let me reiterate how throughout this piece there is NO ACTUAL PROOF of any government wrong-doing or cover-up.

There is only a sequence of accusations wrapped in and around intense emotions of doubt, outrage, incredulousness and anger creating the semblance of, belief of and insinuations of wrong-doing when actually there isn’t anything by the government.

There is, however, self-admitted failure to report adverse reactions by healthcare workers to publicly available VAERS — which, it would seem, THIS is the true disturbing story — WHY did these nurses and doctors not report—too tedious, too lazy???

This video is a good example of how editing is used to create effective propaganda material.

Photo credit: Adobe Stock. An example of ‘forced perspective’ where lighting and camera angles/positioning can shape the composition of what see, creating an illusion of “reality,” not at all unlike what is happening in Project Veritas’ videos.

PV does a fantastic job at it—creating fiction, that is.
Don’t believe everything you see.