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: 9
60
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: Lady_Tuatha
I watched how major American news organizations aided and abetted the war on Iraq which turned out to be started on false premises.



Fair enough, lemme ask

How do you feel about everything coming from RT about Syria, Ukraine etc


Can I answer?

WAY WAY WAY more "Fair and Balanced" than Western Media. But hey, I'm just a Russian Agent according to a previous poster.

And here's a pic for you slayer




edit on 14-8-2014 by Dingo80 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
I think a lot of posters are completely missing the point here.

RT parrots their government's brand of opinion.
Fox parrots their own brand of conservative opinion.
CNN parrots their own brand of flip-flop opinion.
MSNBC parrots their own brand of Left opinion.
HuffPo parrots their own brand of Left opinion.
So too does Press TV & BBC parrot their own brand of opinion, and CBC, and Australian ABC, et al.

The fricking point here is that when you take out the emotional buzzwords, every. single. one. of them is peddling their own point of view, regardless of who rubber-stamp's it. Media bias is still media bias no matter how you dress it up. I thought we already knew this? Now. To the original post I made:

Why aren't we labeling every news outlet accordingly? If the site is going to "help" readers by pointing out the source's bias, why only one thus far instead of an equally appropriate designation for each?


Yes.. and that brings into question 'Is ATS biased ?' It appears so.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Nyiah

Maybe because its only one site that is the cause of so many members angry that RT is even questioned?

I think that has a LOT to do with it!

Huh? That could use a little clarification, kind of muddled a bit. Are you trying to say that since it's the only one "tagged" so far, that that's the reason people are getting upset? Because if so, that sums it up for me, its unfair to label one and ignore the rest whom are just as guilty of pushing a one-sided opinion through rose-colored glasses.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Lady_Tuatha

Again, RT is the ONLY media outlet that I have ever seen a member get downright angry that it was called propaganda, or angry that another member asked for a second source for the story.

I think that has everything to do with it.

Someone recently made a thread cussing out members on this site for calling RT propaganda. I have seen two or three of those threads lately.... people literally cussing people out because they said it should be questioned.

That is a problem, I believe.
edit on 14-8-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: Lady_Tuatha
I watched how major American news organizations aided and abetted the war on Iraq which turned out to be started on false premises.



Fair enough, lemme ask

How do you feel about everything coming from RT about Syria, Ukraine etc


Why does it matter what I feel about that? It is not relevant. I am not going to say I agree with everything RT spews out just like I don't agree with everything the BBC, CNN etc spew out.

This thread is about one media source being cited as propaganda whilst others are not.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Lady_Tuatha

Again, RT is the ONLY media outlet that I have ever seen a member get downright angry that it was called propaganda, or angry that another member asked for a second source for the story.

I think that has everything to do with it.

Really? Because I see people disregard Faux News all the time. And Press TV. And Al Jazeera. And CNN. And MSNBC, and BBC, etc etc. Multiple sources for an article is just good sleuthing, everyone should at least try to remember to grab a link from more than just one spot. It helps to see something from all angles better. As to calling a source propaganda, well, they all are to an extent anyway, so there's no point in arguing that.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dingo80
WAY WAY WAY more "Fair and Balanced" than Western Media. But hey, I'm just a Russian Agent according to a previous poster.



You have a right to your opinion.

Don't mind if others disagree, debate, discuss and keep posting do ya?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB

That is a very odd phenomenon I have noticed here too. I would wager that Fox being questioned this way might bring rounds of applause and congratulations. Suggest RT is propaganda and some act like they just watched someone walk in and spit on their birthday cake.

For a source people claim is no better or worse, they sure go on to prove just the opposite by the defense worthy of an employee of the place.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: sosobad

You see it depending on what channel you are watching and who is in office.


Exactly


RT is terribly biased but so is the US media


True


Russia has one channel, they can't get away with it so they are just blatant.


And,,, whose fault is that?


Any thoughts on the rest of what I said?

Give Russia a few years to get a few more channels up then they might be deemed "reliable" enough to be a source here



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I can't believe all the crying going on over this.

I love how people who get something for free still cry about not getting their way.

Lol.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: sosobad




Give Russia a few years to get a few more channels up then they might be deemed "reliable" enough to be a source here


Not if they are state ran.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrCynic
a reply to: OpinionatedB

That is a very odd phenomenon I have noticed here too. I would wager that Fox being questioned this way might bring rounds of applause and congratulations. Suggest RT is propaganda and some act like they just watched someone walk in and spit on their birthday cake.

For a source people claim is no better or worse, they sure go on to prove just the opposite by the defense worthy of an employee of the place.


I know... to me it's just plain weird, and I'll be honest it makes me very tentative of trusting RT or their proponents a whole lot less than I otherwise would.

If they accepted it as just another source, they wouldn't get so darn offended. Yet they act like religious fanatics who just heard someone call their God a liar and a cheat.
edit on 14-8-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrCynic
a reply to: OpinionatedB

That is a very odd phenomenon I have noticed here too. I would wager that Fox being questioned this way might bring rounds of applause and congratulations. Suggest RT is propaganda and some act like they just watched someone walk in and spit on their birthday cake.

For a source people claim is no better or worse, they sure go on to prove just the opposite by the defense worthy of an employee of the place.


You are also missing the point. RT is the one labelled by the site administration whilst CNN, BBC etc are not. Hence the questions and debate. If CNN were the only news channel labelled I would be posting the same question, why one and not the others?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Lady_Tuatha

Again, labeling it is due to how people act concerning it... I'd bet money on it. If people accepted RT as being possible propaganda that needs to be verified the same as any other MSM source, they wouldn't throw these fits when you ask them to and/or call it such.

So, they need the label... until people understand we MUST question everything, no matter what.
edit on 14-8-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Lady_Tuatha

Why one and not the others? Why Above Top Secret and not Beyond Top Secret? I have no idea to guess by myself.

I do think I may have a problem with it all if something was done in a sneaky or underhanded way to manipulate us. That is not what is happening and everything is right out in the open for us to consider as we choose to. I consider it a fair approach. Someone else considers it nit picky or unfair.

As long as it is always in the open? Is it not just a business owner expressing their preference inside their own business?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Since I joined. Which really was not that long ago. So I can not speak as to how ATS has changed over years. I have followed this whole issue and have read pretty much everything the owners have posted about this issue and the site in general. Now this is my opinion and not absolute fact. So take it or leave it. We can all believe what we want.

From reading between the lines. I think there is a lot of behind the scenes stuff we are not aware of concerning this issue. In the recent thread where the new rewording of the T&Cs was revealed and discussed. Didn't the owners say one of the reasons they did it was to make it easier to stop members known to be tied to a media outlet. Didn't they allude or outright say that the media outlet was RT. I could be misremembering. Its too early for me to go digging through threads lol. That is why I stated this was simply my opinion. That coupled with certain members hounding and badmouthing the owners and site, over and over, could of caused this reaction. The owners are human after all.

Now to the issue of labeling and singling out RT. It seems that most members do not like this because RT is labeled as propaganda and the western media is not because the owners consider the western media to be biased. So members are saying, well all media is propaganda. Their is no difference.

In my opinion, I know I am using that a lot. You can prove without a reasonable doubt that RT is state run. They are labeled propaganda because if the government wants a story run they have to run it. They can not criticize their own government or print stories the government does not want them to.

So now your saying well what is the difference between that and the U.S. media. Well the U.S. media has many competing conflicting news sources. Sure they are all biased but none are owned by the state. All have criticized the government at one point from their biased point of view. All can print what they want without government oversight.

Now you can argue that all the media is controlled by a handful of people and all those people are part of a shadowy cabal that all play ball together behind the scenes. Manipulating all of our media and playing us against each other. Heck I believe that most of the time. So do not call me naive for not seeing whats before my eyes lol. The thing is you can not absolutely prove that is a fact. You can believe it with all your heart and brain. But it can not be proven without reasonable doubt. You can prove that RT is state run. Hence why you can call one propaganda and the other bias.

You can also point to stories about the CIA implanting people in news organizations. Which should show you that the media is not controlled by the government. That the government has to pull CIA spy tricks to get favorable reviews lol. Again you can argue that the people who control the government secretly, also control the media. But you can not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the difference.

As to what ATS can and can not do. I would not want the owners to come into my house and tell me what to do. Even if I have them over all the time and let them use my bathroom and wife and eat my food for free. So I will not tell them what they can or can not do on their site. That I use for free. I agreed to abide by their rules. If it ever gets to the point where I can not in good faith be here, due to the beliefs of the owners. I will simply say a goodbye and leave.

Now before anyone misinterprets the above paragraph. The owners have never been to my house lol.
edit on 14-8-2014 by karmicecstasy because: (no reason given)

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

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



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
This entire RT issue has gone full-retard.

There's too many people on both sides of the issue taking this too far.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247




posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: sheepslayer247



Must have got that pic from CNN because RT would never report something like that

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



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: sheepslayer247



Meanwhile back on the Ranch




new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join