In the sense that it implies neutrality. This group of people is highly partisan and carefully cuts out context from their video recordings in order to slander their targets.
Their expectation of neutrality probably stems from the word 'journalism'. I'd say that the expectation of neutral journalism is a (commonish) fallacy, though.
Unbiased, neutral, objective reporting is a great ideal and aspiration for those who fancy themselves journalists. But that doesn't mean it could be 100% achieved. The very nature of reporting means that you need to make editorial decisions about which stories are newsworthy and salient. We probably don't need to know how many hairs were on the Senator's head as he gave his speech. Different people will make different choices about which details are important and those choices will inevitably be colored/informed by the things that're important to those making the editorial choices.
As much as it'd be nice if we could somehow fix it, bias affects everything. Even institutions which we hold sacred like education, jurisprudence, science, statesmanship, etc. are all irrevocably tainted. What's especially interesting about the media, though, is that it comes with a megaphone.
The medium is the message: "The most trusted name in news", "Fair and Balanced". Where the self-promotion is repeated often enough, it's particularly easy for people start believing it--at least about their favored side. Every other outlet produces nothing but salacious, yellow, muckraking tabloid-esque sound-bites but 'journalism' is as pure as the wind-driven snow.
You can't apply the term 'journalism' to a real, human organization unless it's one of the organizations that I like. Otherwise, you're implying neutrality where none exists.
Mocking a politician is protected political speech. Complaining that the politician you support has been mocked violates the no-politics rule here. Your understanding of what's allowed is completely backwards.
One comment mentioned slander, which is illegal. Project Veritas in the past has committed slander, and lost the resulting defamation suit.
The response mentioned neutrality with regards to mocking Trump with an out of context video, which is protected political speech. It seems they're equating two instances of media reporting out of context, and saying that the response to those media outlets is not neutral. But they're not equivalent because one instance is illegal, and the other is protected. So I don't see where we'd need to apply neutrality in the first place.
My take is that SeanLuke quoted a contentious description of PV's activities. wnevets said the description was an outright lie. ifyoubuildit asked for details. rootusrootus responded that the description implied neutrality, and said they aren't neutral because they target and slander one side particularly. sourcegrift gave an example of other media not being neutral. Then you said that media aren't obliged to be neutral.
Slander was only relevant insofar as the slander evidenced a lack of neutrality. But the lack of neutrality was never truly relevant in the first place; rootusrootus erred when he said the description quoted by SeanLuke implied PV is neutral. BurningFrog and streamer25 were correct in pointing this out. Describing PV as journalism doesn't imply neutrality, nor does anything else in that contentious description.
You also erred when you assumed sourcegrift considers mockery to be slander. From the context of the conversation, I think it's clear that sourcegrift considered the mockery to be evidence that the rest of the media lacks neutrality; in other words sourcegrift was correctly disputing the supposed contradiction between partisanship and journalism. Journalists aren't neutral; journalists mocking people with plain partisan bias demonstrates this.
So? Police departments manipulate video all the time. Does that mean we should be against having cops wearing body cams? Isn't having the public right to document things at least the greater good?
I don't understand what principle you're defending. Everyone is recorded in public all the time; if you want to stop that, it's a whole different set of laws. If the Starbucks CCTV camera can record it, but you can be arrested for recording it, that's a massive infringement on your rights[0]. You're OK with abolishing the right of people to record just because some right wing group splices video to make people look bad?
