Question ATS More…

This websites owner apparently believes there’s little propaganda, inside Western Media…

SkepticOverlordv 2nd post: The difference between propaganda and bias is very important. US (and other western) news media exhibits bias, with RT represents propaganda. My posts in another thread outline my experience with such matters. www.abovetopsecret.com...

But: My first thread on ATS (in 2005) was an open letter from Saddam, in which he condemned 9/11, and advocated peace between the U.S and Iraqi people (one day after 9/11 had happened).
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Naturally enough: Our media (being so superior to the Kremlins) didn’t publish it, because the whole truth isn’t something our media specialises in –or ever will (unless it serves propaganda purposes, as co-ordinated by Bilderberg & Co). Here’s more open letters from the dictator who provided Iraqis more liberty & security than exists today (at least in reality)…
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Here’s the third
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Here’s one before his execution, the link is now broken, yet much can still be found…
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Big Point Being…
There was nothing commercial about the big 6 media companies (controlling 90% of U.S media
www.storyleak.com... ) in preventing around 99.75% of America’s people, consider these very letters.

Yet (according to some): CNN and Fox News only exhibit bias for entirely commercial purposes, whilst (it’s more or less) only RT, that is twisted enough to engage in real propaganda.

SkepticOverlord: Now, certainly there can be side-agendas. FoxNews, by it's hard-core right-lean, can push hard to get favor among conservative politicians and issue-drivers. MsNBC, with a left-lean, can earn favor with a Democratic administration. But that's the lucky-strike-extra benefit from picking an audience and tailoring biased newsertainment to that audience.

CNN's money (using CNN as an example) comes from advertisers, hence, it's beholding to the whim of the advertising market, which is defined by CNN's audience demographics. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wow! Aren’t we so lucky to live here in the “free West”?

By Implication…
If e.g. Ron Pauls views were actually popular (and therefore news worthy!) then the mass media would be tripping over themselves to cover them. After all: We only have commercial bias, we don’t have (much) propaganda.

Likewise: If our media was really advert-money driven then: We’d e.g. have seen the Blockbuster movie, in which His Majesty (“Bush the 2nd”) ordered (from his Oval Office) a terrorist attack, against Americas people.
Later (in this same movie) we would have laughed when Donald Rumsfeld and Condalisa Rice turned to horror, on seeing their private, kinky, Iraqi porn collection, leaked to the planets newspapers: www.theguardian.com...

This movie sold millions and really got people thinking (though it didn’t, because it doesn’t exist).

Why Hasn’t It Been Made?
There are 9.6 million, millionaires in the United States (i.e. people with over a million, even excluding the value of their primary residence)
money.cnn.com...

Why has none of these 9.6 million (each of whom could probably make such a film) not done so?
I imagine: If you plan such a film, chances are you will suffer a e.g. tragic car “accident”! But there’s also non-lethal ways to bring down a film (bank withdrawing funding, or single key actor being persuaded, to walk away, half way through).

In Addition…
As a long-term ATS member, here’s just some of the cases published here…
1. The BBC erasing this news report of a prisoner of war, being tricked into becoming a suicide bomber in Syria… www.youtube.com...
2. But what’s most common is to broadcast the inconvenient truth and “forget” to broadcast it again: Here our Libyan mercenary-fighters crying over not getting paid www.youtube.com... God they fought for freedom, didn’t they???
3. Then we have fake news from CNN (there’s tonnes of this on Youtube, though you often have to know the exact titles for it to bring them up) www.youtube.com... of course this isn’t propaganda, oh no… creating the news is just bias (if it’s for solely commercial reasons)
4. Maybe the broadcasting of crowds waving the Indian Flag in Libya was a genuine broadcasting mistake…
www.youtube.com...
5. But how about the toppling of Saddam’s Statue. This short video is very tame in criticism, but worth seeing… www.youtube.com...
Here MSM admits the whole thing was staged by a U.S Military Psychological Team… www.youtube.com...

Question ATS More…
And this websites owner calls RT “propaganda”. I feel like laughing aloud!
In my experience RT is closer to the truth than any outlet I’ve ever found. Nor should this surprise anyone, with half a brain. That’s because it’s always been true that…
“If you wish to know the truth inside Russia, then you should listen to American broadcasts (plus domestic ones).
Likewise: If you wish to know the truth in America, then you listen to RT, plus any other media (like Press TV now totally banned in the UK) plus domestic ones”.

Neither side gives you the full truth. Yet both sides provide infinitely more truth. Consequently by watching RT I have learnt much more about: Ron Paul, U.S police oppression, and far more about the various environmental-health effects of fracking. In short: If U.S government doesn’t want you to know about it, then be about 99% confident, RT wants you to hear, all about it.

“Question More” and then can you “Deny Ignorance”…
One would assume any (real) believer in self-education, would welcome RT for simply providing more inconvenient truths, to this worlds many people.
It’s obviously true that every information source, deserves a health warning.

Yet given I can show you at least several CNN videos where the “news” was a scripted, artificial lie, from the first word, till the very last. E.g. here’s a leaked video from: “Syrian Danny” www.youtube.com...
And given the worst anyone has ever shown about RT is two disgruntled staff, walking off on air, at a politically sensitive moment, and where bribery (e.g. in exchange for new job prospects, within mainstream media) isn’t exactly off the table…

Isn’t it amazing that CNN and Fox News are not mentioned along with RT when those channels have even less of financial motivate, to upset than their backers, than ATS (might possibly)?

In Conclusion…
I don’t deny that RT is sometimes a personal mouthpiece for non-other than President Putin himself.
But neither should you deny that ATS is sometimes a personal mouthpiece for Sketpic Overlord. Thankfully it’s still our personal mouthpieces too.

Maybe the best person, to answer anyone still asserting RT deserves special treatment is the Fox presenter fired simply for asking thought provoking questions in his very last performance (last as the show was then cancelled) www.youtube.com...
Andrew Napolitano didn’t make any unbacked assertions (unlike those RT girls did). So I say this broadcast is worth seeing, more than any other link I put here.

Disclaimer: (For added resistance) this thread was created without any RT assistance!

RT is Anti-western propaganda

It is a unreliable source because it will take any line automatically that is anti-western particularly if it puts America in a bad light.

It is a pure propaganda machine.

Sure FOX, CNN, BBC and all the rest of them are bias or could even be accused of pushing propaganda but they are not quite in the same league of RT.

That is why i support Skepticoverlord (who is not the owner of the site fyi) when he says that RT is not a reliable source.

I would rate it as reliable as infowars or before its new or other alternative media outlets.

Yet it tries to dress itself up as mainstream

its not, its just propaganda it is totally bias and as such i believe it should never be used as a source in isolation.

a reply to: Liberal1984

I certainly must question the motives of a conspiracy site owner who is so biased on media sources to the point where they must single one out a certain organization while ignoring the fact that the other ones are just the same.

The justifications of "why they are different" when they try and explain are also suspect, sometimes they seem scripted by the US media outlets themselves. I'm not claiming this to be fact but this is just a personal observation that I have pondered upon.

Great post.

I hope the thread is still here when I click the reply button.

OtherSideOfTheCoin: ATS is only an anti-western propaganda weapon, if its members are also an anti-western propaganda weapon. Simple as.
Nobody knows all there is to know, but it could be in the ultimate, God known truth, (whatever that may be) it's only relatively an anti propaganda weapon. Certainly when I joined, this site was still (relatively) pro-war in Iraq.

a reply to: Liberal1984

Thankyou Liberal.. Fine post.
Good link to Judge Napolitano video. I didn't know he had been fired by Fox. But man oh man did he get in a good lick with that broadcast. Thanks again.

originally posted by: Liberal1984
In my experience RT is closer to the truth than any outlet I’ve ever found.

Well, the Russian Ministry of Mass Media's long-term plan of building affinity with specific American audiences has certainly worked well on you.

And I suppose, that caused the epic knee-jerk reaction that, just because I focused on one news organization, I must think western organizations are A-OK by omission.

The point I was making was/is/will-continue-to-be completely missed by you and other ATS members because Russia Today has fooled you into trusting it through an expert deployment of confirmation bias strategies. That's too bad. Sad really.

Operation Mockingbird was a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, it was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA.

The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA's views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA.

In addition to earlier exposés of CIA activities in foreign affairs, in 1966 Ramparts magazine published an article revealing that the National Student Association was funded by the CIA. The United States Congress investigated, and published its report in 1976…

Operation Mockingbird

I realize that much of our society is easily led, but I think the majority here accept little as fact from any media outlet, research for themselves, and see through most of the propaganda no matter which side it comes from.

Isn't there some recent legislation or debate going on about further legalizing/legitimatizing lying to the American public for propaganda purposes?

originally posted by: Liberal1984
OtherSideOfTheCoin: ATS is only an anti-western propaganda weapon, if its members are also an anti-western propaganda weapon. Simple as.
Nobody knows all there is to know, but it could be in the ultimate, God known truth, (whatever that may be) it's only relatively an anti propaganda weapon. Certainly when I joined, this site was still (relatively) pro-war in Iraq.

Actually lots of people on ATS like to use RT for this very reason, RT will quite happily publish articles about how 9/11 was a inside job for instance yet the Telegraph might then go and publish a article about how 9/11 conspiracies are all a load of rubbish (just a example not wanting a 9/11 debate)

So the result of this is that anyone wanting to "prove" 9/11 was a false flag will run to the RT article just like a "OSer" will run to the telegraph.

At the end of the day it all comes down to balance and common sense lots of people on ATS like to cherry pick their sources and lots of them like to write about how Obama is a Kenyan. And if RT happens to agree with this they will source RT, even if there are a dozen other news sources highlighting that its utter BS.

a reply to: Liberal1984

Fine example of double Speak...

DENY IGNORANCE

Deny;

1.
state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of.
"both firms deny any responsibility for the tragedy"

2.
refuse to give (something requested or desired) to (someone).
"the inquiry was denied access to intelligence sources"



A STATE THAT ONE REFUSES TO ADMIT THE TRUTH OR EXISTENCE OF IGNORANCE.

Refusing to acknowledge your ignorance is the first step to being stuck with it.

Lol, the first thread I had deleted here was called 'The conspiracy of a Conspiracy Forum Conspiring to Silence me.'

Am I obeying and denying my ignorance in questioning the denial of my ignorance?

William Dunbar: They (RT) forced me out for telling the truth about Georgia

But my reports on the plight of Georgians displaced from the breakaway region of Abkhazia never made it on air. When I quoted a diplomat as saying that Georgia's 2008 parliamentary election marked significant progress I almost got the sack. But the big test was the Georgia-Russia war of August 2008. Would RT try to be objective, and offer both sides of the story? Or would it see its main role as being a cheerleader for the Russian army?

I found out on the second day of hostilities when asked in a live interview what the situation was. Carefully loading my answer with phrases like "unconfirmed reports" and "too early to tell", I responded that we had just heard that Russian jets had bombed civilian buildings in the town of Gori. Although accurate, my answer did not go down well. I had been booked to do hourly updates via satellite. On my way to the studio, I was told they were cancelled. The frustration I felt at not being able to cover the biggest news story of my career was immense, and I was tempted to quit then and there.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The point I was making was/is/will-continue-to-be completely missed by you and other ATS members because Russia Today has fooled you into trusting it through an expert deployment of confirmation bias strategies. That's too bad. Sad really

For me, I can tell when RT is pulling my leg, I can filter through the BS.

To me it's obvious that most other members can do this as well. I question all news stories from all outlets, most of them are a load of crap but there are a few gems from time to time, even from your beloved RT.

What is sad, is that you automatically assume that we have been "fooled" simply because we disagree with certain aspects of your opinion in regards to this topic.

We could easily say that it's you who has been fooled but I'm not trying to get banned.

Can we all just agree that they are all agenda driven?

As the OP stated RT, regardless of their obvious pro-Russia stance in defense of Putin are STILL THE BEST NEWS OUTLET OUT THERE.

How do some of you like them apples?

originally posted by: Fr33domPoet
DENY IGNORANCE

The ATS site no longer advocates the mindset of "Deny Ignorance" and the motto has been erradicated from all but the small print.

Advertising is more important in the money per pixel scenario.

It's up to US to continue the motto and show that we're not all goons.

a reply to: FlyersFan

That is a very good question so i second it.

Why should we trust RT more than other news sources?

Dear Skeptic: If you know there’s something better than RT for challenging Western propaganda, then I’m sure everyone would love to hear recommendations? You must surely know quite a few?

I myself noticed an extremely strong tendency for RT to broadcast whatever the U.S government does not want you to hear about. But the Kremlin has not "worked on me"...

I already believe the Russian populations in Eastern Ukraine should be allowed to determine whichever country they wish to belong to, because anything else, can never be termed "liberty". Furthermore: That if Ukraine had any genuine respect for liberty, then they should conduct their own referendum as soon as possible. Otherwise (if they don’t) then they should hardly complain if Russian tanks do it for them (just like in Crimea). I believe in self-determination, and believed long before I ever switched on RT.

a reply to: Liberal1984

It's called confirmation bias. You "trust" RT more because they are telling you what you already believe.

I believe we can trust the fluff stories from any news outlet, and I believe RT is quick to cover less fluffy pieces that have the ability to give you your confirmation bias - and their propaganda.

I agree with you that the less fluffy pieces need aired, (eg. cop shoots homeless man) but most people cannot deal with being constantly inundated with really bad stuff. They need a break.

Is our media biased toward our politics, our system of life here? Yes. They are, and they also know that bad bad bad doesn't sell... and neither does crazy - in this country. It's main stream for a reason... and if all they covered was blood and gore, real stuff not fake stuff, cops shooting civilians, etc then they would end up without any viewers.

They work off ratings, and we were "leave it to beaver" not too long ago. We are largely a coddled and protected society, and we like it that way. Until the ratings say otherwise....

because of the explosion of the information age. You know in real time what is happening in Wisconsin from Florida now... with second to second updates. It may be slightly worse than before, or it may not be... but what we don't like about our own system, can still be changed. Should we as a people decide to change it.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: FlyersFan

That is a very good question so i second it.

Why should we trust RT more than other news sources?

In my opinion, in response to the both of you. We should not trust any news source more than the other. What we should do is judge on a story by story basis. RT put out an article that sourced Sorcha Faal a while back, I certainly did not fall for that one!

That being said, what about the stuff they covered which the OP mentioned?

Why do Western outlets ignore these things?

Is it possible that they might also be agenda driven and guided by a hidden hand?

I certainly believe it to be possible! In fact it would be foolish to think not.

We are all being played on many levels from various directions and it is our job as an individual to make up our own minds and do our own research and not blindly believe anything that any of these outlets say.

People get trolled for posting an RT article, but what can you do when no Western outlets are willing to touch a story that has been proven to be true? I have a problem with this, it is not fair to dismiss a source due to its name. The content needs to be judged not the source.

It's evident that all outlets have egg on their face and as I said we need to judge the content not the source as we are walking on egg-shells here at ATS and I fear that censorship is on the way. I pray that I'm wrong.

FlyersFanCan you give us a reason why we should TRUST Russia Today?

I only told you my own experience. My experience is that ATS and Youtube is full of various examples where Western Media has basically lied.
Now: If anyone (yep anyone) can please reveal some examples of where RT has actually lied, then I will begin to Question them More.

Right now: I believe RT has more to lose through direct lies. As for "only telling one side of the story": Well that’s what people everywhere do, and so only constitutes one reason, to make use of the fact, your TV has more than one button.

a reply to: Liberal1984


Propaganda (Public relations) is a good thing. RT is doing a fine job.