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.

 

Mainstream Media as requirement for authenticity

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Often I see things discounted because some major mainstream outlet hasn't covered something, or said it was true.

Often it seems the authenticity of things rely on major news picking it up.

But in light of various things, it's become clear that, news has an agenda. That even the most alternate media and most mainstream media has an agenda and bias. It's fact that many corporations are in control of mainstream media, and so are some alternate media as big business starts pushing their money in that direction.

We can't trust the media, we simply can't. We need to question every bit of news, from every source, we need to decide what's true, why we're being shown one thing, and why other things aren't covered.

We can't depend on any source for authenticity, because often the truth is counter the agenda of the news networks involved, and we can't just accept things simply because it's from alternate media either.

It's all one big cluster#, and with the the election, it's only going to get worse.

There are lots of powerful people, with lots of skeletons, and lots of media sway. The media has an agenda, and there are a lot of people involved.

We CANNOT depend on media to give us the truth, only snippets of it twisted to fit an agenda.

So let's start thinking critically, and stop letting media lies and propaganda be the authority we rely on exclusively for truth and authenticity.




posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   
This is generally the reason we are all here on ATS....



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ColaTesla

Yeah, but even here, half the people say, "If that were true it'd be on mainstream media somewhere, if they haven't picked it up, it hasn't happened" is that really a rational way to think?

It's that line of thinking I've seen and am challenging.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

That is part of the playbook for some here.

If they can't challenge the idea they challenge the source.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColaTesla
This is generally the reason we are all here on ATS....


MSM does have low standards, but ATS has none. I'm not sure this is the best place to get "truth" when so many people see conspiracies behind every tree. It's just as difficult to discern truth here as it is in the MSM. I think using a variety of sources is the best you can do. Relying on one, like ATS or CNN, is doing yourself a disservice.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Let's look at this another way. We ban websites for being a proven hoax site, even if the occasional thing is not necessarily a hoax.

Now I'm not saying that's wrong, hoaxes need to be exposed as hoaxes, and such behavior discouraged and unrewarded.

But we have proof that all media lies, some just better and more subtly than others. Some misrepresent the truth, and other lie through omission.

In a sense, all media could be banned if we truly enforced a no hoax policy. We don't however, that would be silly. We need media to get new out there, we can't just blankly ban all media, what would we have to talk about?

So instead we compare, contrast and make a judgement call, "You don't even try" "You're way too full of #" "You're mostly full of #" "Your sometimes full of #" "You're occasionally full of #" and you "try really hard to be authentic"

Somewhere along that spectrum we draw the line.

Where my issue is, when the cognitive dissonance is so great we believe the line has been drawn at "You try really hard to be authentic." Which is not even close to the case, and we forget that even the highest level is "Try to be authentic." and not actually "Authentic and without bias."

The other issue is, people believing their favored media magically falls into the "try's really hard to be authentic category" honestly I'm not sure any does. I do think there's a lot of "Tries really hard to give off the appearance of trying to be truly authentic and unbiased" though.
edit on 8/1/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
once the green light for propaganda against the citizens was passed, all reality went out the window

-especially when they were all Gannettized first




posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
It's more about the quality of the source rather than it's appearance on one of the major news outlets.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

I see ATS as an alternative news site, Its true that it has an above average amount of BS, But its one of many alternative news sites i use, I haven't switched my television on for 3 years now, it's not even plugged into the aerial.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Every media is set by an agenda...theirs, someone's elses, or for fun.

I know quite a few...dozens and dozens of media areas of communicating "news"...that are equally suspect as to the validity of their "reporting".

Now a days...there are many non-mainstream sources...that are equal to the MSM.

PS Oh. And the use of the word "authenticity" and MSM in the same context in the same sentence and thread is ludacris (not the rapper)
edit on 1-8-2016 by mysterioustranger because: oops 2..again, again



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Here's how it works. MSM is distrustful, but alternative news is FAAAAAAR more distrustful.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColaTesla
a reply to: schuyler

I see ATS as an alternative news site, Its true that it has an above average amount of BS, But its one of many alternative news sites i use, I haven't switched my television on for 3 years now, it's not even plugged into the aerial.


It's more of a news aggregator site. Most of the posts point to other sites. Drudge does the same thing. The only difference between the two, really, is that Drudge posts articles from elsewhere with no comment, and ATS is all comments. Essentially, most posts are editorials, and the news is late. If it says "breaking news!" on this site, it's already been broken and some ATS poster has finally found it. That's one of my concerns about the site. The "New" ATS has become a news aggregator site. The "old" ATS was a conspiracy site with emphasis on alternative issues like UFOs and the paranormal. Today we have mostly political bashing threads. It's rare to see well-researched posts such as those of Isaac Koi on UFOs or Slayer69 on ancient civilizations.

To put up ATS as a great purveyor of truth is, I think, a great error. On the scale of truthfulness, any MSM outlet has a greater percentage because they won't put up with "Souls can cause your body to burn up" types of posts.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
A great OP and a very subtle subject that's not often discussed; it's so easy to wait 'until you've seen it in the NY Times' as authority even though most or many of us would be able to remember times when the NYT was not only in error, but deadly wrong in their conclusions.

No one was allowed to make the point that invading Iraq because Saudi agents had hijacked planes and attacked us (the original story that I don't believe either) was insane - we just wanted revenge and the NYT and almost every outlet ginned up the fever, which resulted in 10s of 1000s of dead Americans and 100,000s of dead foreign civilians.

I keep wondering what the level of cognitive dissonance will be when some 'authoritative' outlet publishes 'proof' of alien visitation to Earth, even after a huge amount of evidence was already out in the public sphere for going on decades now. Will the public need a President to announce 'yeah, it's real' or the Pope, or what?

How many Aljazeera's and Real News Networks does it take to counter balance a lying New York Times?

And how many years will we tolerate being lied to before we rebel with more than our own words?

What's the proper 'rebellion' against a grotesquely misrepresented historical narrative? And what would our history look like if it wasn't the victors who wrote it?



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes but MSM's bias is for their corporate and big bank sponsors with no love and nothing but disdain for the common man.

So while their quality may be better, with better resources, etc, we know where their bias is.

So if we rely on just them, well, none of the news is actually to benefit us with the truth. It may often be more accurate, but it's also more biased, controlled and aimed at manipulating us.

The best way to manipulate is through half-truths and lies of omission. This is where main stream's manipulations specialize.
edit on 8/1/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove


We CANNOT depend on media to give us the truth, only snippets of it twisted to fit an agenda.

Repeated over and over. The seeds of a rumor germinate online and a day or two later it turns up on CNN. We all go yah, we already talked about that, way ahead of you mainstream.

Probably in most cases they generate the memes online now first, then act as though they are only picking up on the chatter. Both serve to cement it in our minds.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes but MSM's bias is for their corporate and big bank sponsors with no love and nothing but disdain for the common man.

That sounds strangely like an opinion and not so much like a fact that is verifiable.


So while their quality may be better, with better resources, etc, we know where their bias is.

Sounds like you are the one that is biased here.


So if we rely on just them, well, none of the news is actually to benefit us with the truth. It may often be more accurate, but it's also more biased, controlled and aimed at manipulating us.

I can rely on a large sampling of MSM outlets to get a good idea of the truth. I don't need to rely on just one MSM outlet. Not all of the outlets are owned by the same people with the same agendas and interests.


The best way to manipulate is through half-truths and lies of omission. This is where main stream's manipulations specialize.

As opposed to the alternative news that functions on sensationalism, fear, half-truths, hyperbole, and is HIGHLY over opinionated?



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

If the MSM doesn't want to report a story, they just skip it and hope it gets buried.

At least alternative media and citizen-journalists will report stories the MSM wants to ignore.

For that reason, I give the edge to alternative media and citizen-journalists.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The alternative media skips stuff too. There is one type of news that is anathema to ALL news outlets mainstream or alternative. GOOD news.
24 News Stories Too Hopeful For The Media To Report Them



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove
Well said PL.

To me you need to read and watch everything you can and use your own discernment to find the truth.

Many choose to reinforce their pre conceived notions and only watch things that help their confirmation bias.

Willful ignorance.

The blatant agenda of the MSM is criminal. But just like the corruption in government it is ignored by so many.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

The reason I like ATS for news is its vetting process.

If a post is BS it gets shredded. I always read all posts in topics I am interested in just to make me think.

There are some things I have not altered my stance on since I joined ATS, however, thanks to such a wide ranging point of view my beliefs have been changed on a variety of things.

The vetting is what makes ATS a great news site.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join