It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Really?! Is this what has become of ATS?

page: 12
60
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
test

www.voanews.com...

voa

so 2 down 194 more to go? this should be top list

www.granma.cu...

www.kcna.co.jp...
edit on 14-8-2014 by Indigent because: (no reason given)


www.bbc.com...

www.cbc.ca...

www.dw.de...

www.rtve.es...


edit on 14-8-2014 by Indigent because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

Not impressed, ATS is not the one who gets to decide.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

Wow! I tried quoting your post first to see how you typed that and I have to say it looks fair to me. VOA gets the same treatment.

Nicely played on this!



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

If you type in just the "naked URL" with no [url= BBcode tags, it kicks in. If people wanted to make their own link text, I didn't want to screw with that.

Also, this is only going to apply to situations were the state dictates editorial policy and content… hence, propaganda.
edit on 14-8-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord




Also, this is only going to apply to situations were the state dictates editorial policy and content… hence, propaganda.


So any state owned channel, or is it you cannot see the bias on each?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: MessageforAll
a reply to: Indigent

Not impressed, ATS is not the one who gets to decide.


Wanna bet.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
Also, this is only going to apply to situations were the state dictates editorial policy and content… hence, propaganda.


So basically every news medium out there? Really, how selective can you be? How is this any different then private owned media company's where money( read government ) decides what gets printed and how it gets printed?

Like I said in that last thread Liberal1984 made I understood what you where pointing out, but this just seems like a lame excuse to profit from the whole coldwar tensions. Or drive people to actually start fearing/hating Russia.

You are creating a divide.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
I don't mind RT being labeled a 'state owned propaganda source'.

Plainly, it is.

But I do wonder if this new approach by ATS will have consequences beyond what was intended?

One of the things I love most about this website is that it provides me with ample opportunity to interact with or read from people NOT like me. With this new change, I'm concerned we'll miss out on some on the diversity of participants this website seems to naturally attract.

I don't know about any of you, but if I had stumbled upon ATS for the first time and seen a source automatically labeled by the site in the manner done here, I'd likely make an immediate judgement about the forum's 'leanings' and miss the fact of how special this place can be.

In a sea of available forums, ATS stands out as a place of enforced civility and for the most part neutrality, but you need at least some time here to realize this. Otherwise, it's too easy to just assume ATS is like nearly every other forum out there.

I have seen this website described by the ownership in the past as being a virtual town square. I have also seen people come into this town square with one perspective, and over time, change that perspective because of the wonderful information and discussion to be found here.

It would sadden me, if that were to change.

Frankly, this would be a very dull place if the only people this site had a propensity to attract were the ones who already shared a common perspective and the agenda driven extremists who just sign up to oppose them.

There's already plenty of that on the internet.





Great post loam.

I think sadly with the way the world is going, people are getting more defensive and perhaps nationalistic.
You notice it with small things and you clearly notice it with larger issues.
I personally think this is just interference and micromanaging gone mad... we've had it drilled into us that RT and Russia are bad... from the top down, repeatedly, and now we even have a little annotation just in case anyone didn't get the message already.
I get that this is an American site...but this whole "Neo Cold War" stuff is getting a little but weird now.


Can we not just use our brains? Discern our own truths? Without ATS policing us?

I've never bought in to the old ATS is CIA or been bothered by the WITD hoax stuff or frankly any of the crap levelled at ATS over the years, honestly it's just childish nonsense made up by disgruntled former members.
This one though... really sticks in the throat.
It's quite frankly sad.
But this is going down a road of censorship, it begins with a little "message" next to the post... where does it end?


Oh well.

As usual, members opinions mean nothing on here.



edit on 14/8/14 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Fine. There's more important things for all of us to be focusing on than this. The changes have been removed.

There was very good reason for this, essentially for the same reasons we've had to restrict using before itsnews as a source. But fine, embrace you state mandated deceptions and the troll army that comes with.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
Fine. There's more important things for all of us to be focusing on than this. The changes have been removed.

There was very good reason for this, essentially for the same reasons we've had to restrict using before itsnews as a source. But fine, embrace you state mandated deceptions and the troll army that comes with.




If people are genuinely shilling and trolling, like they do with Gaza/Israel, 9/11 and other issues, can't you do what you've always done and ban them?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: MessageforAll
a reply to: Indigent

Not impressed, ATS is not the one who gets to decide.


Apparently you still do not get what "privately owned" means vs. "publicly owned"

Yes, they DO get to decide. It's THEIR place. Not yours. Not other members.

You may not agree with what it is they decide to do, but they IN FACT DO GET TO DECIDE THINGS LIKE THIS.

How much plainer can it be said?

Every time you say "They don't get to decide" or "They can't do this." or "They are not allowed to do this." I have to question your basic understanding of things.

Scroll back up just a little bit. You'll see a post made by someone named "SkepticOverlord". Now look just below their name, you'll see letters in blue that say:

"ats owner"

Does that make it ANY clearer? He owns this place. HE get's to decide and change things. Not you.
YOU are a guest. You can complain about his place....but it's still does not change the fact that YOU are a GUEST.

Not the owner.

Now....are you going to continue to sit there and post over and over things that are NOT TRUE?

YES, the ATS site owner can make changes, ban you, change your posts, change how links read, change how this place looks (which they have, several times now).

Quit saying that they can not.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: blupblup

Deterrents to trolling are less time consuming.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I am truly disappointed with some of the people here.
How many of you babies act like this in someone else's home?

Shame on you.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord


“Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.”
― Mahatma Gandhi


We are big enough to discern for our self thank you, even if it can bring some trouble its better in the end.




the troll army that comes with


If they come from the Russian government eventually they will realize their efforts are futile and desist in time... i hope



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: MessageforAll

In 1983 50 corporations owned 90 percent of the media,now only 6 own 90 per cent of the market,CIA infiltration started in the 1950's with operation Mockingbird and continues to this day with Pentagon paid trolls on every network in 2013 the NDAA legalized domestic deceptive propaganda if RT has a warning so should GE,Disney,Time Warner,CBS,Viacom and Newscorp.
edit on 14-8-2014 by khnum because: spelling error



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
I am truly disappointed with some of the people here.
How many of you babies act like this in someone else's home?

Shame on you.


OMG, wish humanity could shout that out to the controlling demons running earth and stealing all their resources, food, land and food and justifying it with long holding traditions of owning the law, military, and banks.

Because this entire system is humanity being overcome by bad guys and having all their joint assets robbed, all that was there for all in abudance.

Basically the OP is correct, the propaganda is on all sides.

I just linked a video last page to show admittedly so.

In that video, the truth is we don't even know who was bombed, we don't know if the care packages went to the right people and am waiting for more and more information to come in. They merely reported government word for word.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
RT *The Official mouthpiece of the Russian Government.




posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: MessageforAll

Your unwarranted sense of entitlement has brought you victory!



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Actually without the broad spectrum of members on ats it would not be much of a forum for discussion and debate now would it? If ATS were to take a biased view and go against it's own stance to deny ignorance then it wouldn't be much of a site.

It is a public forum and as such it's success is due to its members, to alienate a large portion of members is bad business, and let's be honest, it wouldn't be much fun on here if everyone agreed all the time would it? Of course the owner can change whatever he wants about the place, it's his, but each change can be detrimental to membership numbers an I doubt they want that.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I just want to add that I really appreciate what a tough job SO and the others have running and managing this site.

If this were my website, I would not want it to become a vehicle for propaganda or disinformation either. So in that regard, I can easily understand the desire to want to do something to prevent any organized efforts to misinform on this site.

Out of curiosity, I wonder how people would react to a tag that instead simply read: "Caution: state-controlled media source."

Such a statement informs and encourages contemplation of the intentions of the source. It's factual and doesn't do any thinking or concluding for the reader. I'm sure that still wouldn't make everyone happy, but perhaps it would be a slight improvement over the original approach and help address the original problem SO was seeking to resolve.




top topics



 
60
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join