I don't trust O'keefe anymore than I trust claims made by Michael Moore. He's dicredited himself too much to the point that I simply can't take anything he produces as even remotely reflective of reality. I especially don't like his long winded narration with quick soundbites from his subjects.
Question: When O'Keefe's amateurish stunts masquerading as stings do not produce the results he wants, does he "publish" them anyway, or does he manipulate the data via sloppy editing in order to present his pre-determined conclusion?
Oh yeah, we know the answer:
(google "Sherrod Hoax Exposed, but Breitbart's ACORN Fraud Lives On")
(google "A Refresher Course On Andrew Breitbart's Dishonest Tactics")
(google "No Shocker: O'Keefe's NPR "Sting" Video Is a Lie")
Wow, attack the messenger instead of being disgusted with the "professor" giving phony results for money. His behavior gives you an idea on how these liberals get all these phony "polls" they always come up with doesn't it? They keep asking the questions a different way until they get the answer they want!
Let me guess, you must be a left winger and / or union member? I'm disgusted by the video no matter who did the sting and to whom it was done and so should you.
Don't make excuses, people. That's all I see in the comments. If you're going to kill and destroy your own study findings so that they never become published and public because they run contrary to a POLITICAL AGENDA, that's not being an honest academic.
"Playing with data" is not scandalous. That is an expression used by anyone reviewing raw data and trying to extrapolate something sensible to pass along to others. There is absolutely nothing in this video supporting the idea that data would be changed.
Bruce Baker explicitly stated "I'm not going to stretch anything".
The conversation with Baker would have been the same if you replace a union group with a conservative group or if Baker was in the private sector.
@MuseYouCanUse In the legal profession we have highly paid expert witnesses hired to testify in support of the defense. Sometimes called "hired guns." Their testimony is completely acceptable within the context of the legal system, and the "reasonable doubt" standard. However, in science a different, more rigorous standard applies. The scientific method requires us to actively seek and report data that contraindicates any hypothesis. Baker seems to offer his services as a hired gun.
@Mathview That is a silly comparison. Courtroom expert witnesses are most often scientists... medical doctors, forensic specialists, etc. And they may be hired by either the plaintiff or the defendant. Baker did not approach this bogus union group - - so he could not have an agenda beyond getting paid (like anyone else) for doing their job. To make the worst assumption of Baker, we all need to hear the full 20 minute recording, which the reporting goofball in this video promised.
@spamjim To be clear, Prof. Baker was approached with a offer for payment in return for a research report. Nothing wrong with getting paid to do a report. We can ask the question: Is it ethical to offer to prepare a "research report" supporting conclusions desired by the payer? and "avoiding a nightmare scenario" as Prof. Baker says. As a hired gun, it is ethical, and common practice. In scientific research it's not ethical. Think of big tobacco cancer research. The comparison is apt.
First, Please tell me you are not lowering all of us to the standards of the "run of the mill" defense lawyers...
Second, this was actually worse. You're right that the Professor didn't approach the decoy, but he actually agreed to do all of the work and NOT get paid in exchange for concealing scientific data showing any negative results toward the education system.
The preservation of a flawed, profitable, education system IS his agenda...
@tkdtko You are looking at this oddly. This is not like a government grant-funded study where the results (whatever they may be) would be published. This is a private group seeking to publish information to support their organization's goal. Baker is not saying that he's going to conceal anything. He's saying that he wants to look at preliminary data to see if such a study would benefit the sponsor of the research. If it would not benefit the sponsor, they do not do a full study.
We're not talking about soliciting a report on the spotted gecko! We're talking about a report of the state of education, and education funding. If you can put your ideology in your back pocket for 10 seconds, you should be outraged by this as well!
How many times have YOUR taxes been raised to pay for education (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually pay taxes)?
This just shows that many of the previously released studies are compromised.
@tkdtko I'm not exercising any ideology. This is about facts and how ALL research works, whether it is for an academic study or a journalist's report. Nobody does this stuff for free, not even the asshats at ProjectVeritas that make up bogus controversies. If you really want to show previous studies are compromised, go to the original data and prove that there was a false analysis. No telephone recording or ambush journalism is needed.
@spamjim A new scientific method: 1) Get a phd. 2) Look for an issue with deep pockets. 3) accept partisan money. 4) Publish results to match the cash.
No, we don't all know how it works. That new method is not what I mean when I say science.
@tkdtko Look at Veritas' web site. Veritas is begging for money to do biased pro-conservative reports. How is this any different than what they criticize in this Rutger's matter? This is just silly hypocrisy.
@tkdtko You are really an odd fellow to not see the greater picture here. I am "lowering all of us to the standards" of Veritas. Veritas would not publish anything unless it fits their conservative agenda. Veritas seeks donations to fund specifically political reports. This is exactly what is being criticized in this video and by you. How are you so blind? Google "hypocrisy".
@spamjim Except O'Keefe is paid by private people as part of their first amendment rights. Everyone knows who he is and what his methods are.
This professor is paid by the university to perform dispassionate research. Accepting money to study a question only if it gives the results desired is not science. It is the antithesis of science.
Bruce Baker needs to find a new job on K Street and stop pretending to be a scientist.
Can't trust anyone these days. And why are these profs making so much damn money, with such great benefits? Ridiculous. The dean is jokes. lol. Going for the camera. What a doofus.
I can just imagine this kind of shenanigans going on with Global Warming. Congrats to James O'Keeffe. If he doesn't deserve a journalistic prize -- something like the Nobel in journalism -- who the hell does!
i got one of these useless degrees. atleast i got mine 20 years ago.. you have to be a fucking fool to actually go to college today...what a useless waste of 4 years...that kid in votech will make more before 30 in HVAC (heating and air conditioning) than 90% of all college students today will make by the time their 50
Liars-- disgusting Universities raise their rates, take money from tax payers to skew any data for those that pay. Could you imagine if Conservatives paid to skew data to debunk man-made global warming? It would be on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC twenty-four hours a day. Quit watching the crap networks, watch their false news. It is disgusting and the cat is out of the bag. Corruption is just as rampant on universities as in Congress.
@deckertone it's sad though. that people on the left ONLY go after criminals on the right. and people on the right ONLY go after criminals on the left.
Not what I hoped (cuz we know there are a lot of crooked academics selling out for their pet causes), but he is scratching the serface. Keep 'em coming.
@nrf91 Agreed. Baker even said he would send them a bill should his research happen to produce a conclusion that supports their views (hardly some shady "under the table" deal). This isn't some conspiracy, it's just a research professor selling his research.
The more I think about this, if James is really interested in exposing the problems with certain education research, then he should be going after organizations like The New Teacher Project (a Michelle Rhee organization), the Broad Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and others who pass of ideological "reports" as credible research. Does anyone really think they would produce research that discredits their own positions? Of course not.
I'm confused. He says that he'd rather not commit to selling his research until he sees what the results are. What is the problem here? If he set up a deal beforehand, that might influence the outcome of the research (make it something like Gates Foundation research on education which is horribly biased given that the Gates Foundation itself is horribly biased).
The problem here is, the decoy has approached this professor to endorse this hypothetical data research to show in favor of the education system. What the professor is suggesting is that if the research on the data shows the opposite, he will collaborate with the union official about not releasing the data, or releasing it such a way as to show them in a positive light.
Basically, he [the professor] was offering compromised results on this study via omission.
When the Day of the Rope comes, communist bastards like these will be hanging from every tree, telephone pole and flagpole in this country! Joining the zionists, globalists, race-traitors and mud people!
Amazing this is why no one watches network news its all bought and paid for just like these professors, keep at it O'keefe, you will be very wealthy in no time with this true work!
The ones you really want to be going after are the professors who are willing to distort their data and/or conclusions to suit the client. That's where your real corruption is.
Also, it is fairly routine these days for professors to take on consulting projects outside of their university jobs. I'm not defending that, but simply pointing out that this is hardly a smoking gun.
Ya know, I find it funny that you think this is some kind of great corruption you've uncovered. What I hear is a professor telling a potential client that he'd rather not waste their time and money on a project if he feels the results wouldn't satisfy them. He made it clear that he would not be interested in producing anything for his client that disagreed with his data -- that's as ethical as you can get.
@nrf91 - Maybe ethical from a business standpoint, but not ethical from an academic standpoint. Since when is it ethical for an academic to promote, suppress or "interpret" scientific data to promote an agenda?
here is a story for you Mr o keefe. Ricardo Charles just published a book titled Mexican Cliques in Texas Construction. He has worked 31 years in Texas and documents how there are no longer any native born black or white construction workers in texas and hispanics working there must pay millions in bribes to get and keep their jobs to get and keep jobs. This evil is spreading to other states and industries fast, yet NO ONE is covering this story.
I don't trust O'keefe anymore than I trust claims made by Michael Moore. He's dicredited himself too much to the point that I simply can't take anything he produces as even remotely reflective of reality. I especially don't like his long winded narration with quick soundbites from his subjects.
firstatheist 5 days ago
Amazing how, otherwise loud-mouthed left-wingers can immediately clam up when confronted with facts, no?
bobbytiger 1 month ago
4:11 skype =]
arsenal0095 1 month ago
But.... Unions keep wages up for everyone... I dont get it
redeggo14 1 month ago
To catch a fraud = jimmy okeefe
Deprofundis2 2 months ago
Question: When O'Keefe's amateurish stunts masquerading as stings do not produce the results he wants, does he "publish" them anyway, or does he manipulate the data via sloppy editing in order to present his pre-determined conclusion?
Oh yeah, we know the answer:
(google "Sherrod Hoax Exposed, but Breitbart's ACORN Fraud Lives On")
(google "A Refresher Course On Andrew Breitbart's Dishonest Tactics")
(google "No Shocker: O'Keefe's NPR "Sting" Video Is a Lie")
foggylane22 2 months ago
Wow, attack the messenger instead of being disgusted with the "professor" giving phony results for money. His behavior gives you an idea on how these liberals get all these phony "polls" they always come up with doesn't it? They keep asking the questions a different way until they get the answer they want!
Let me guess, you must be a left winger and / or union member? I'm disgusted by the video no matter who did the sting and to whom it was done and so should you.
RazorMacDaddy 1 month ago
Awesome job!
ashken79 3 months ago
#OccupyRutgers?
stopstickers 3 months ago
Fire these guys along with the department of education. Criminal.
GotGetGut 3 months ago 3
The ho's at Rutgers ae not just the nappy-headed ones on the basketball court.
saricher 3 months ago
The universities are filled with people as corrupt as the ones in the Obama Administration.
WeAreTheFreakies 3 months ago
The liberal Nazis don't like having their swastikas exposed.
captianusa 3 months ago
that one dumb dean. what he thinks they ONLY got one copy of that tape? LOL
studinthemaking 3 months ago
Don't make excuses, people. That's all I see in the comments. If you're going to kill and destroy your own study findings so that they never become published and public because they run contrary to a POLITICAL AGENDA, that's not being an honest academic.
tugger 3 months ago
Where is the 20 minute phone call recording that was supposed to be shared on YouTube?
MuseYouCanUse 3 months ago
"Playing with data" is not scandalous. That is an expression used by anyone reviewing raw data and trying to extrapolate something sensible to pass along to others. There is absolutely nothing in this video supporting the idea that data would be changed.
Bruce Baker explicitly stated "I'm not going to stretch anything".
The conversation with Baker would have been the same if you replace a union group with a conservative group or if Baker was in the private sector.
This video is nonsense.
MuseYouCanUse 3 months ago
@MuseYouCanUse In the legal profession we have highly paid expert witnesses hired to testify in support of the defense. Sometimes called "hired guns." Their testimony is completely acceptable within the context of the legal system, and the "reasonable doubt" standard. However, in science a different, more rigorous standard applies. The scientific method requires us to actively seek and report data that contraindicates any hypothesis. Baker seems to offer his services as a hired gun.
Mathview 3 months ago
Comment removed
spamjim 3 months ago
@Mathview That is a silly comparison. Courtroom expert witnesses are most often scientists... medical doctors, forensic specialists, etc. And they may be hired by either the plaintiff or the defendant. Baker did not approach this bogus union group - - so he could not have an agenda beyond getting paid (like anyone else) for doing their job. To make the worst assumption of Baker, we all need to hear the full 20 minute recording, which the reporting goofball in this video promised.
spamjim 3 months ago
@spamjim To be clear, Prof. Baker was approached with a offer for payment in return for a research report. Nothing wrong with getting paid to do a report. We can ask the question: Is it ethical to offer to prepare a "research report" supporting conclusions desired by the payer? and "avoiding a nightmare scenario" as Prof. Baker says. As a hired gun, it is ethical, and common practice. In scientific research it's not ethical. Think of big tobacco cancer research. The comparison is apt.
Mathview 3 months ago 2
@spamjim,
First, Please tell me you are not lowering all of us to the standards of the "run of the mill" defense lawyers...
Second, this was actually worse. You're right that the Professor didn't approach the decoy, but he actually agreed to do all of the work and NOT get paid in exchange for concealing scientific data showing any negative results toward the education system.
The preservation of a flawed, profitable, education system IS his agenda...
A lie by omission is still a lie.
tkdtko 3 months ago 2
@tkdtko You are looking at this oddly. This is not like a government grant-funded study where the results (whatever they may be) would be published. This is a private group seeking to publish information to support their organization's goal. Baker is not saying that he's going to conceal anything. He's saying that he wants to look at preliminary data to see if such a study would benefit the sponsor of the research. If it would not benefit the sponsor, they do not do a full study.
MuseYouCanUse 3 months ago
@MuseYouCanUse,
We're not talking about soliciting a report on the spotted gecko! We're talking about a report of the state of education, and education funding. If you can put your ideology in your back pocket for 10 seconds, you should be outraged by this as well!
How many times have YOUR taxes been raised to pay for education (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually pay taxes)?
This just shows that many of the previously released studies are compromised.
tkdtko 3 months ago
@tkdtko I'm not exercising any ideology. This is about facts and how ALL research works, whether it is for an academic study or a journalist's report. Nobody does this stuff for free, not even the asshats at ProjectVeritas that make up bogus controversies. If you really want to show previous studies are compromised, go to the original data and prove that there was a false analysis. No telephone recording or ambush journalism is needed.
spamjim 3 months ago
@spamjim A new scientific method: 1) Get a phd. 2) Look for an issue with deep pockets. 3) accept partisan money. 4) Publish results to match the cash.
No, we don't all know how it works. That new method is not what I mean when I say science.
jwrosenbury 2 months ago
@tkdtko Look at Veritas' web site. Veritas is begging for money to do biased pro-conservative reports. How is this any different than what they criticize in this Rutger's matter? This is just silly hypocrisy.
MuseYouCanUse 3 months ago
@tkdtko You are really an odd fellow to not see the greater picture here. I am "lowering all of us to the standards" of Veritas. Veritas would not publish anything unless it fits their conservative agenda. Veritas seeks donations to fund specifically political reports. This is exactly what is being criticized in this video and by you. How are you so blind? Google "hypocrisy".
spamjim 2 months ago
@spamjim Except O'Keefe is paid by private people as part of their first amendment rights. Everyone knows who he is and what his methods are.
This professor is paid by the university to perform dispassionate research. Accepting money to study a question only if it gives the results desired is not science. It is the antithesis of science.
Bruce Baker needs to find a new job on K Street and stop pretending to be a scientist.
Thank you Mr. O'Keefe
jwrosenbury 2 months ago
Can't trust anyone these days. And why are these profs making so much damn money, with such great benefits? Ridiculous. The dean is jokes. lol. Going for the camera. What a doofus.
slickvguy 3 months ago
I can just imagine this kind of shenanigans going on with Global Warming. Congrats to James O'Keeffe. If he doesn't deserve a journalistic prize -- something like the Nobel in journalism -- who the hell does!
BlindEyeJones 3 months ago 2
i got one of these useless degrees. atleast i got mine 20 years ago.. you have to be a fucking fool to actually go to college today...what a useless waste of 4 years...that kid in votech will make more before 30 in HVAC (heating and air conditioning) than 90% of all college students today will make by the time their 50
Killerbee80 3 months ago 2
Good job O'Keefe! This is what the lamestream media would never do because they are lazy slobs.
truthforamerica 3 months ago 2
Now go find some climate researchers and ask them the same questions.
drrjtco 3 months ago 3
And we're supposed to rely on studies that come out of academia. Just a gaggle of unscrupulous, unprincipled hacks and whores.
bookerdooker 3 months ago 3
Liars-- disgusting Universities raise their rates, take money from tax payers to skew any data for those that pay. Could you imagine if Conservatives paid to skew data to debunk man-made global warming? It would be on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC twenty-four hours a day. Quit watching the crap networks, watch their false news. It is disgusting and the cat is out of the bag. Corruption is just as rampant on universities as in Congress.
pmesser1 3 months ago 3
Awesome work ProjectVeritas
U2XM202 3 months ago 2
What do you call the person who graduates last in his medical school class?
..
Doctor.
..
Schools of Education are and have always been, notorious for their rot.
adamitshelanu 3 months ago
I love it! America owes you a debt of gratitude, Mr O'Keefe!! You're a Patriot! Way to expose these leftist thugs!
deckertone 3 months ago 22
@deckertone it's sad though. that people on the left ONLY go after criminals on the right. and people on the right ONLY go after criminals on the left.
alvisc2002 3 months ago
wow, these guys have balls
MrRljohnson77 3 months ago 2
Not what I hoped (cuz we know there are a lot of crooked academics selling out for their pet causes), but he is scratching the serface. Keep 'em coming.
klrdotorg 3 months ago 3
This is awesome. The unions and professors should be held accountable just like any other group of people.
tigerhop 3 months ago 20
Okeefe doing the job the MSM used to do. Great job dude.
uzimodem 3 months ago 2
@nrf91 Agreed. Baker even said he would send them a bill should his research happen to produce a conclusion that supports their views (hardly some shady "under the table" deal). This isn't some conspiracy, it's just a research professor selling his research.
kcmo08 3 months ago
The more I think about this, if James is really interested in exposing the problems with certain education research, then he should be going after organizations like The New Teacher Project (a Michelle Rhee organization), the Broad Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and others who pass of ideological "reports" as credible research. Does anyone really think they would produce research that discredits their own positions? Of course not.
kcmo08 3 months ago
I'm confused. He says that he'd rather not commit to selling his research until he sees what the results are. What is the problem here? If he set up a deal beforehand, that might influence the outcome of the research (make it something like Gates Foundation research on education which is horribly biased given that the Gates Foundation itself is horribly biased).
Can someone tell me what the problem is here?
kcmo08 3 months ago
@kcmo08,
The problem here is, the decoy has approached this professor to endorse this hypothetical data research to show in favor of the education system. What the professor is suggesting is that if the research on the data shows the opposite, he will collaborate with the union official about not releasing the data, or releasing it such a way as to show them in a positive light.
Basically, he [the professor] was offering compromised results on this study via omission.
tkdtko 3 months ago 2
James is the man !
antidoteco 3 months ago
I wonder if you cleared that Bill Withers music that you used in the beginning.
clancyeverafter 3 months ago
I wish your videos got more exposure
RileyMcArthur 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why? Because you are a moron! That's why!
guysion 3 months ago
When the Day of the Rope comes, communist bastards like these will be hanging from every tree, telephone pole and flagpole in this country! Joining the zionists, globalists, race-traitors and mud people!
mcstaford 3 months ago
Keep 'em coming James.
WDierker 3 months ago
Amazing this is why no one watches network news its all bought and paid for just like these professors, keep at it O'keefe, you will be very wealthy in no time with this true work!
deepfriedking 3 months ago
Veritas!
stxrobstar 3 months ago
The ones you really want to be going after are the professors who are willing to distort their data and/or conclusions to suit the client. That's where your real corruption is.
Also, it is fairly routine these days for professors to take on consulting projects outside of their university jobs. I'm not defending that, but simply pointing out that this is hardly a smoking gun.
nrf91 3 months ago
Ya know, I find it funny that you think this is some kind of great corruption you've uncovered. What I hear is a professor telling a potential client that he'd rather not waste their time and money on a project if he feels the results wouldn't satisfy them. He made it clear that he would not be interested in producing anything for his client that disagreed with his data -- that's as ethical as you can get.
nrf91 3 months ago
@nrf91 - Maybe ethical from a business standpoint, but not ethical from an academic standpoint. Since when is it ethical for an academic to promote, suppress or "interpret" scientific data to promote an agenda?
Hiraghm 3 months ago 3
@nrf91 Then, why are they avoiding O'Keefe? Why are they hiding? Why don't they just come out and say what you said?
bookerdooker 3 months ago
here is a story for you Mr o keefe. Ricardo Charles just published a book titled Mexican Cliques in Texas Construction. He has worked 31 years in Texas and documents how there are no longer any native born black or white construction workers in texas and hispanics working there must pay millions in bribes to get and keep their jobs to get and keep jobs. This evil is spreading to other states and industries fast, yet NO ONE is covering this story.
mrhulot101 3 months ago 2
I love you O'Keefe, but these people are gonna make sure you end up on a cold slab one day. Be safe!
bigun89 3 months ago