Mainstream Media as requirement for authenticity

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

But I wasn't talking about the printed press. So why throw me for a loop there? Who cares about a dead medium like that anyways?

Umm, it's all part of the MSM, so without actually mentioning you were not including the 'Printed press', how was I to know I was throwing a curve ball?

Come on man, you are the first to point out the errors in other member's posts.

Often I see things discounted because some major mainstream outlet hasn't covered something, or said it was true.

Depends. Most non-mainstream media take sh** , put it into their own words , and put it out there just to gain click revenue. Thats the reason they are not "mainstream". They try too hard to make the big-time. But , in doing so ,become epic failures.

Depends on how many bodies you pay to get a true story from the Clintons.

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.

Well being a 'Tesla' You must be aware that a plugged in machine, whether it is 'on' or not is drawing the negative ions from that immediate atmosphere.

"The machines will take over the world..."

The best moment of seeing the manipulation of the news media in the UK was the time when a child went missing and assumed abducted. It was headline news for quite a while as TV appeals from the family tearfully asking her to be returned.

Right from the beginning of this tragedy I knew that these people were lying and had something to hide.

Turned out I was right. In the end they were finally exposed.

a reply to: Puppylove

A little while back I posted This Thread because I think that, although we shouldn't be suckers to "alternative" media..... we shouldn't so quickly disregard non-MSM sources.

From my OP....

I'll make this brief.... For the second time in somewhat recent history The National Enquirer, of all places, has been the organization that has "broken" a story before anyone else. Yes, it was about a Hollywierd star having HIV (not necessarily Earth shattering news, but they did their investigation and all that).

Prior to that, a few years back, they also broke the John Edwards affair deal. (If I recall correctly they either won or were in the running to win a Pulitzer for that one).

Personally, the only time I ever even see the cover of the National Enquirer is when I'm waiting on line at the supermarket. More often than not, I can't even recognize the person featured on the cover (I guess I'm not that hip with current reality show celebrities).

That being said, I have thought for a while now that too many people automatically dismiss some stories/articles/reports simply because it comes from fill-in-the-blank. Now, I'm not saying people should believe everything they read. I'm also not saying that there aren't extremely extreme false "news outlets" out there. I am saying that I encourage people to at least perform a cursory review of an article being presented before dismissing it immediately.

After all, I suspect it is more or less the consensus on this site that the big major media outlets lie (either outright or by omission) and twist and tilt the "facts" to further their agendas. By doing so it forces many of us to look towards other, less mainstream sources.

That's all.

As far as "what is REALLY going on" I put ATS somewhere between The National Enquirer and The Weekly World News (of Bat-Boy fame).

Overall and in general.... I think when we hear something that rings true (at least a little bit) there is not much harm in looking into it further ourselves.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Krazysh0t
If MSM doesn't report it, it didn't happen. Man is that a lot of power.

I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are missing out on a lot of truth relying on the MSM to always cover all the stories that are fit for print. You are basically putting your trust in the MSM, alone.

I choose to trust my own judgment. Whether I am reading a story in the MSM or by alternative news and citizen-journalists.

Here is how I approach alternative media. I let someone on ATS post a story from an alt news site. I read the article. I make a judgement call on how the website is constructed, how the article is laid out, and how the information is presented. I can do all of these things in a snap because I've trained myself to detect propaganda especially well. I can do this for MSM articles too. I like how people always pretend how they KNOW how I do things just because I don't do things EXACTLY like they do.

a reply to: Puppylove

Mainstream media has become the government and corporate puppet since the 70s.

It took a few decades for the take over but now they are fully privately integrated.

Nobody can trust their crap anymore.