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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Is OUR news really THE news??

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 04:58 AM
link   
The source of my news, like most of us, are the principle news sources that really catch our eyes that remain embedded into our endless Facebook feed, satisfying our need to “stay informed” of current events. I underwent an investigation to see how the sources we find everyday are similar or changed depending on who wrote it. Referencing Eli Pariser’s Filter Bubbles, I strove to find news altered due to their writer’s boss’s political agenda. A quick search on Google will tell you that BBC is the biggest news source on Facebook with 33 million fans, CNN maintaining the two spots right after. However scouring the top 20 list, you notice that they are all either British or American networks. Not only that, but a number of news networks on the list are owned by the same company. How does this funnel of information affect the way we receive new.

I took a look at current events across a multitude of platforms and medias to see how they compared. The topic of interest was the Syrian ceasefire, which was covered in variety of interesting headlines across the Internet. My primary source of news, The Guardian, titles their piece; Syria ceasefire begins as agencies prepare to deliver aid. Nothing suspicious at first, the article describes a ceasefire brought together by the kindness of the United States and Russia. The writing continues innocently to advocate for the high powers working for the truce in this carefully crafted propaganda. Follow this cohesive evangelism with the writing of Kareem Khadder of the CNN who suggest a completely different story. “At least 90 killed in Syria, including 28 children, after ceasefire plan announced.” The writing tells quite a different story, the crack of violence and death upon the news of the ceasefire. However the perpetrators are not identified in the piece. However the only piece of evidence given in the story is that of Russian forces and the medical centers they have targeted. Anyone reviewing such news would immediately piece two and two together, and thus conclude that the Russians were the cause of the attack in some twisted irony. Why does this difference actually matter? Well, based on your Internet footprint, either one of the story may be presented to you. The former story describe the justice of democracy and puts a positive spin on a terrible situation and even spills light onto Russia. It may be so that even your political standpoint would factor in to give you a pro-Russian article. On the latter side, there is an indirect accusation to the Russians. The latter, incidentally, was the one article that popped up on my feed. What was even more worrisome was when I attempted to search for this news event and mostly articles shedding Russia in a negative light was found and the promotion of the US was omnipresent. Conversely when an acquaintance did the same the BBC told a different story.

The piece “Syria Conflict: Russia Fears Collapse of ceasefire” suggest a completely different story than that of the CNN article. Given, the BBC article was posted a day after, but it describes how the Russians are, in fact, the ones fearing that the ceasefire may be compromised due to the US’s targeted airstrikes after the ceasefire was announced. This is a completely opposing view compared to the BBC.

These two articles can be presented to sway a person one of two ways. The former shuns Russia for killing innocent civilians, while the latter does the same, just placing the blame on the US instead. What factors could affect what you see? Liking different politicians may have an effect, or simply what kind of news you are drawn to like. Just like Mat Honan was able to showcase by Liking Everything He Saw On Facebook. Obviously liking everything isn’t especially realistic, but the principle is the same.
If you like something consistently, you give the Facebook (or other sites) an algorithm to construct the perfect filter bubble just for you.
However, even if we are showed all of these different articles, how do you know what the truth is? What is shown to us is the truth?
What you can do, and what I decided to do, was to go to a different news source that is notorious for giving out real news and is completely impartial. Aljazeera and Mother Jones are great examples of just that. For this exploration, I found an article in Aljazeera named Tentative Syria Truce to begin after surge of killings with a good dose of skepticism. It describes the how the killings had, in fact, not been caused by either Russia or the US, but the airstrikes that terrorized the civilians and killed many, was in fact the government of Syria. Although it’s true that Russia backs the Syrian government, Russian fighters did not carry out the airstrike as the CNN article insinuated.
The underlying question in the exploration that you should be asking at this point is; what can I do? In order to ensure that you do not partake in schemes from up the food chain, you have to be skeptical and smart. Read sources, which offer an impartial opinion and have a skeptical mindset when browsing Facebook or any other social media site in search for news.


edit on 26-9-2016 by TheTinHatExposer because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 05:07 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish

You do realise not every member comes from an English speaking background . Not saying this is the case here but he/she gets a star and flag for effort from me .
edit on 26-9-2016 by hutch622 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2016 by hutch622 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TheTinHatExposer

Interesting thread.

It's impossible to ever know the truth.

All our news through the major channels is filtered. It's an eye level snapshot of what those who control the media want us to see.

It's driven by advertising, politics, donors and ultimately the control the elites need to have over the masses. The news is a brilliant way of controlling our thoughts and agendas.

It's incredible frustrating because we'll probably never know the real truths.

As for the grammar nazi up there... Ignore her, some people don't know how to welcome new members.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TheTinHatExposer

Yes, you must get your news from multiple sources. All news outlets have a slant. Some slight, some waaay to the left or right. That is the difference you see in the stories.

Here, we try, mainly, to find the most balanced news. Though I see a lot on here from far right wing click bait sites, I can identify them. If there was an article from a far eleft wing click bait site, I would recognize that too.

In regard to MSM, the have always had a slight slant. They speak to their readers, it sells papers or views, now.

In general, whether it is FOX or CNN (general examples), I would imagine the news story is pretty solid. Each one may add a slight slant, but the WHO, WHEN, WHAT and WHERE should be obvious.

Beyond that, we have the issue of where they get the information. That could be controlled by people who do not want us to know those basic facts. There is often, no real way to know, 100%.

It is a good thing we have non mainstream sources. Some really suck and will tell you X person is a reptilian, for example. But some are better than others, right or left. A conglomeration of them often end up here.

That is why I look here first for news. Unless my news aggregator goes off when I am not on here .


Do we know the news we get is REALLY the news? In a general way yes. Since we have social media and people on scene reporting. I would think our news is more real than it was 10 years ago and definitely more real than 30 or 50 years ago.. Things are harder to hide.


edit on 26-9-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TheTinHatExposer

Welcome dear sir/madam....

It is somewhat disturbing to find out that the entire media spectrum is owned by like 6 corporations.....it takes time to digest..may i suggest an aged bourbon or perhaps a nice cognac to go with the ride ....



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 05:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheTinHatExposer
However scouring the top 20 list, you notice that they are all either British or American networks. Not only that, but a number of news networks on the list are owned by the same company.


Four words: cross media ownership laws.

You can thank neoliberal politicians for killing them off.

If you haven't already, it's time to embrace state owned media (BBC, SBS, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, etc.) and the last of the true independents (Vice, etc.) You'll find these sources far more accurate and objective than anything served up by the corporate media machine.



(post by MongolianPaellaFish removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish

originally posted by: TheTinHatExposer
However scouring the top 20 list, you notice that they are all either British or American networks. Not only that, but a number of news networks on the list are owned by the same company.


Four words: cross media ownership laws.

You can thank neoliberal politicians for killing them off.

If you haven't already, it's time to embrace state owned media (BBC, SBS, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, etc.) and the last of the true independents (Vice, etc.) You'll find these sources far more accurate and objective than anything served up by the corporate media machine.


Most of the big ones are fairly accurate. Even with a slant. I actually look at infowars ion occasion to scan the front page. Always looking for 'firsts' . I am usually disappointed there, but on a rare ocasion they pick something up.




top topics



 
8

log in

join