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

Obama Enters Media Wars: Why His Recent Attack On Free Speech Is So Dangerous and Radical

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   
The World is going to hell in a handbasket. And no one seems to know what to do about it. The Leadership can't Lead, The Politicians Police, And The People walk lifelessly about with their lives, no thought no concern no care.

Is this the Future? Really? All i can say anymore is WTF?


Control of the news media is an instrumental, key feature to any totalitarian government. In contrast, the primary reason this experiment known as the United States has lasted so long under relatively free conditions is due to the preservation of free speech (and press) via the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In case you haven’t read it in a while, here’s the text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in there do I see an exception for “conspiracy theories,” but apparently Constitutional scholar Barack Obama has an alternative interpretation.




Nowhere in there do I see an exception for “conspiracy theories,” but apparently Constitutional scholar Barack Obama has an alternative interpretation.

As reported by AFP:


Pittsburgh (AFP) – President Barack Obama on Thursday decried America’s “wild, wild west” media environment for allowing conspiracy theorists a broad platform and destroying a common basis for debate.

Recalling past days when three television channels delivered fact-based news that most people trusted, Obama said democracy require citizens to be able to sift through lies and distortions.

“We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to,” Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.

“There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world,” Obama added.

“That is hard to do, but I think it’s going to be necessary, it’s going to be possible,” he added.

“The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it."

He notes that there needs to be “some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard.” This sounds good on the surface because, after all, who doesn’t want truth? The problem lies in the fact that governments can and do lie all the time about stuff of monumental significance. Let’s take the Iraq war for example. As I discussed in August’s post, Questioning Hillary’s Health is Not Conspiracy Theory:

Of course, the New York Times rendering judgment on those pushing conspiracy theories would be downright hilarious if it weren’t so sad. For example, the paper itself exhibited no such restraint when it came to peddling U.S. government conspiracies about Iraq in the run up to one of the most inhumane, unnecessary and destructive foreign policy blunders in American history. In fact, the paper was ultimately so embarrassed by its own behavior, it issued a statement in 2004 titled, FROM THE EDITORS; The Times and Iraq.

Meanwhile, there were millions of people in the “wild west” of opinion making yelling and screaming that the government was misleading the public about Iraq in order to go to war. So who got it right, the New York Times, or the wild, wild west?


Obama's recent attack on Free Speech
edit on 16-10-2016 by Encryptor because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Btw most of the "APF" article you quoted is Zerohedge editorial.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 03:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

Yeah, but we're all thinking it. This attack on Free everything has been going on for a while, it's just worse now than it was 5 yrs ago, and counting.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Encryptor

You can only think, say and print what I and my associates deem accurate!

Guess we know what he'll be up to in Feb '17




posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 04:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Encryptor

You can only think, say and print what I and my associates deem accurate!

Guess we know what he'll be up to in Feb '17


Hope "up to" 20 years if the Fed Pen????



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

yeah, a frightening thought isn't it. The whole world feels surreal right now, to me anyways. Like an awakening dream, half in and half out of it.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 04:34 AM
link   
You know, as I was reading what Obama had to say about creating a place where "fact checked" truths can be filtered from data tainted by public opinions, my first thoughts were that sounds something like Above Top Secret.



“The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it."


He also seems to be taking about Snopes and similar websites to me. There are places online where what he talked about exist already IMO.

Personally I think that the free thinking websites should be protected, not filtered out, just like that piece of paper said,



"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; . . ."



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

You're right it does. Every few months they inch closer to censorship while the people pay with their Freedom's being stripped away little by little. That's why few people notice, it's being done slowly.

Well stated



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 05:00 AM
link   
And they wanna know how big your dump is in a morning !

I suppose there's only so much meat on a chicken .

Stripping every piece of our lives bit by bit !

Hey Obama how did the ,bring races together , pan out !

Pffft there all just full of # !



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Denoli

That sounded like a really awesome poem
Patent that, then make t-shirts before the Election. People will buy those!



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Here is a couple of new ATS threads that relate to this.

Google added a fact-check feature

online newspapers; removing ability to comment



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Encryptor

He was referring to the totally unbiased google fact checker
edit on 16-10-2016 by ssenerawa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Where in Obama's speech does it say anything about limiting free speech? All I see is him pondering about how to be able to easily fact check some of the ludicrous op-eds that try to pass themselves off as news found on the WWW.

Up here in the GWN it is illegal to misrepresent editorials as news, it a sure-fire way to lose your broadcast license. This is why FOXNews was unable to acquire a license up here. Maybe the US should consider a similar approach. Or at least make broadcasters make it apparent a story is an editorial and not factual news via a banner or text box.

As for internet based "information" well they will just have to trust that the consumer is smart enough to figure it out for themselves. (OK,OK enough laughing. you can get off the floor and get on with your day now).



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Kukri

So Kukri, do you think it ok to have an "official" fact checker that is "approved" as the final decision maker of the "facts"?

It is unmistakable that an official fact checker was the implication to me. Correct me ATS if I am wrong.

ETA:

Facts that are washed for the masses is what I think we all hear him say. Can't have the masses thinking their own thoughts. God forbid, if someone shares something the rest of us need to know that powerful people would hide.
edit on 16-10-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: Kukri

So Kukri, do you think it ok to have an "official" fact checker that is "approved" as the final decision maker of the "facts"?

It is unmistakable that an official fact checker was the implication to me. Correct me ATS if I am wrong.


Actually no I didn't construe it that way and after rereading I still don't see it that way. Maybe I'm not as conspiratorial as some. Although now that you mention I guess you would need an "official" fact checker for the fact checkers.

The better plan would be to make sure the populace is properly educated and capable of critical thinking. Something that seems to be seriously lacking in a large chunk of the population if your Presidential election is anything to go by.




top topics



 
11

log in

join