In principle, you're right that there will be James O'Queef style trickery at play, and there's plenty to work with, either by speaking to the fringe, through contrived scenarios, or outright deceptive editing. I fell for it, but I'm not concerned about it. The people who don't understand decentralized movements weren't on the fence; they were ossified conservative ballast to begin with. We don't have time for their crap. Our concern is hitting the 1% back, shaming them through our own media channels, relentlessly exposing them for the parasitic frauds they are.

What should be of concern, IMO, is the dramatic arcs the mainstream media constantly seeks. Their positive editorializing will eventually reach its crescendo, and they will turn against us by latching onto some overblown scandal they can mill into two weeks of distraction, until Lindsey Lohan flips her car on Roxbury, or our dumbass administration starts kicking up dust in Iran.

My belief is coherent messages and directed actions are our next objective.

Also, I say we write and speak under the assumption everything is bugged, and someone in the room is a hostile agent. I don't mean behave with paranoia, but just minimize what you give them to work with, and get everyone on the same page so if they try to bring any surprises it'll be squarely on them. The final reason is to get used to it. There is no reason to care about that. The have the media and our politicians in their pockets, can influence the spin of most things, manufacture stories, etc. That's why we're out there in the first place.

Looking at the Breitbart link, you can even see they claim that OLA people were chanting "9-9-9." That's a total fabrication, and one of those things we can do little about, since it wasn't even dependent on tricking an actual demonstrator. I could bring some actor to CH, have him or her say something weird/dumb, film it, and brag about discrediting something or another.

The one chanting was actually this younger fat guy with crossed eyes (you can tell it's him by the ear-splitting distortion from his being inches away from the camera's mic), in a shirt with some childish design on it. I had the impression he was doing some kind of derogatory "retarded" schtick. He appeared and disappeared with the amoral old guy, along with the guy with the PA, and one or two other cameramen.

My point is this is easy to pull off. It'll happen, or it'll be attempted anyway, repeatedly over the course of this thing. Breitbart, O'Queef in NY, et al, have nothing better to do, and someone is paying them to try to fuck with things however they can because powerful people are worried. But the truth is this really is random people migrating around an idea, not something that can be dispatched as easily as an obscure government program to help poor people. Our job isn't to put out these metaphorical fires started by the sub-journalistic and attention-starved, but to give their bosses more to worry about. We do that by brushing off the bullshit, and organizing more actions.

I don't know if anyone else was involved in Anonymous when it started doing its first physical protests, but there were very similar situations. The Church of Scientology hired PIs to follow protesters home, park on their streets, try to intimidate them. There were a ton of infiltrators posing as protesters. They even "exposed" some of the original Anonymous people from the 4chan boards where the whole thing started, following them with signs ID'ing them.

But it was like, what about it? 

There was nothing to discredit. Everyone appeared on the own accord, with nothing to go by but a time and place. In response, some Anon protesters made signs with arrows pointing down at the infiltrators.

The people who got screwed by the whole thing were the actual hackers who broke the law, and got traced to the defaced sites and DoS attacks.

I hope some of this makes sense. I'm kinda tired.