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

Protect The First! At All Costs?

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 03:41 AM
link   
In America right now there are several protests going on regarding Donald Trump winning the Presidential election. Most of these protests are peaceful, and break little to no laws, or as most would define them, proper protests. However, we also have several incidences of these protests evolving into rioting and looting under the guise of protest. While discussing these incidences, one commonly overlooked aspect is the why they are happening. Listening to the chants being chanted, the personal reasons being given, and the general dissent without specifics, one must wonder where these people formed their beliefs. Beliefs so strong they are willing to break the law to express, so strong they are inclined to attack another individual, so strong that they wish to undo the entire democratic process of the US government.

Humans in nature, are actually not violent, that is a learned trait. So what is it we have learned that could cause people to turn violent over personal beliefs and feelings? For one, we have learned that the MSM has worked in tandem with the DNC to push a narrative. We have learned that due to tabloid-style journalism, our MSM has created a general bias and hatred based solely upon selective and out of context reporting. We have seen such an overwhelming avalanche of falsification and in some cases outright fabrication of reporting that it actually became fact. Goebbels actually was correct when he spoke of telling a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. This is directly evidenced in this recent campaign season.

When the impact is so overwhelming, that actual acts of widespread violence and mass devastation occur, should there be any party liable? There in lies the dilemma, in every aspect of our individual lives, there is accountability and liability. Even down to the words we speak. The same does not apply to the press though, and it can be argued that by falsely reporting they are doing the very thing that an individual would be punished for, without consequence, and knowingly doing as such. So, why is there a difference? The difference is the press will find hot button issues and distort them as to anger a demographic, and push the issue to the point of individual break. It is the same concept of finding a violent individual that takes major offense to yo momma jokes, and antagonizing them with those jokes until they snap and attack you. They will be the one charged with any crimes, but it was you that instigated it. The MSM has done exactly that with every single button they could push on every individual they could influence.

I am completely under the impression that the current protesting that is occurring is due largely in part to false beliefs and misinformation. The lie has become so ingrained that people now actually get angered if they are challenged with an opposing discussion. The New York Times has even issued a public non-apology for their biased journalism, but I doubt many others will follow suit. So, if this biased, falsified "journalism" is the reason for these violent instances of protesting and the violence and crime committed amongst individuals over the election, should we start to hold these media outlets responsible for their journalism?




posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

www.abovetopsecret.com...
I agree 100%. At what point does freedom of press no longer apply and at what cost? Well that would fall upon the consumers unless your willing to get the 1st re-written. The problem is we're not just dealing with one paper or magazine or website. We're dealing with a conglomerate or corporation that has many ties.

Where to start? Should we here at ATS start some kind of blacklist? That seems pretty drastic.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI



he problem is we're not just dealing with one paper or magazine or website. We're dealing with a conglomerate or corporation that has many ties.

Yup, but the majority of television media is owned by only 6 entities. That is still where most Americans get their news.


edit on 17-11-2016 by Vector99 because: in b4 i'm called a racist bigot trump supporter that is stupid....just stupid.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Yes, and as I questioned, where would you start? Do you break them up? Make each individual print agency be a single entity?

I think it's a common idea that they cover too much ground and are nothing more than bias echo chambers at this stage.
So, how do we go about combating this?



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

At this point it's hard. Printed media isn't an issue, it's televised media. These networks own all of tv, so how do you go about breaking that up? I don't have an answer to that at all.

I hate to sound anti-first at all, but propaganda via media should be illegal. *ETA - unless it is purposefully and knowingly satirical.
edit on 17-11-2016 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 04:07 AM
link   
I had a flash of insight at the grocery store tonight. As I stood in line gazing at the candy I wanted but shouldn't buy, I noticed the National Enquirer and The Star. It hit me.

The internet is infested with tabloid news. Even the cable news networks, since they're on 24/7 and need something to keep talking about have become infested with it.

20 years ago, would any self-respecting, educated person run around claiming Weekly World News is where they got all their information about the world from? Bat Boy? While entertaining and occasionally having a tiny, tiny nugget of actual factual truth -- it's sensationalized entertainment, nothing more.

Americans now buy into tabloid journalism and aren't even aware of it, mainly because it fits and supports the beliefs they already have. It feels good to read something you agree with, even if the premise for the article is utter crap.

Guys...we're essentially running around with our heads filled with Weekly World News, thinking we're "informed".

God, I'm embarrassed for us all.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




The difference is the press will find hot button issues and distort them as to anger a demographic, and push the issue to the point of individual break.


One of the main objectives of "The Press", is to serve as a watchdog for public interest. It's their job to alert us to questionable activities.



I am completely under the impression that the current protesting that is occurring is due largely in part to false beliefs and misinformation.


Some of it, maybe. But I think that the vast majority of the peaceful protesters are protesting based on Donald Trumps actual words, actions and campaign promises, not some false news story. These people are motivated by fear that Donald Trump will actually do what he's promised.


edit on 17-11-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 04:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I've had the same sentiment about the first. The catch is that there happens to be a monopoly on the press and that defeats the purpose for which the protections were meant for IMO.

So, I'd think the one way would be to break them up so we, the consumers can choose.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

While there may be a plethora of tabloid style journalism out there, I do not think we here at ATS are echoing those thoughts.

If you watch a thread as it evolves you'll see that those kinds of things don't last too long. It's one of the many benefits of varying viewpoints.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




One of the main objectives of "The Press", is to serve as a watchdog for public interest. It's their job to alert us to questionable activities.
Alert, not falsify and sensationalize.



Some of it, maybe. But I think that the vast majority of the peaceful protesters are protesting based on Donald Trumps actual words, actions and campaign promises, not some false news story. These people are motivated by fear that Donald Trump will actually do what he's promised.

Exactly what is it he promised?



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




Alert, not falsify and sensationalize.


Who says? We're talking about the 1st Amendment here.
The right to protest is also protected by the 1st Amendment. Sensationalism is what protest is all about.



Exactly what is it he promised?


Ask a protester. This thread isn't about listing Donald Trump's campaign promises, past words or behavior. It'a about the 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech and "Freedom of the Press".


edit on 17-11-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 05:29 AM
link   
I think, or rather, I believe the media is relying on two aspects of the first amandment- freedom of the press and free speech. While I don't believe freedom of the press allows for blatant bias, free speech does. There should be a discussion about dangerous speech, and libel laws should challenge the press' attempt to pass off opinion as news.
While we have the right to gather... there is no right to impinge on the rights of another, and law enforcement should be looking to protect equal rights during the on going protests. S&F!



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 05:48 AM
link   
When a news source fabricates a false story for millions to read or watch there should be some form of accountability. There is if you are rich enough to sue the source. When a political party pays someone to act as an accuser in a false story there should be accountability. The best way to hurt them is sue their editors and even the source itself. I personally would like to see law suits filed when falsehoods are put forth for the general consumption of the population... However... Without honest investigators without a political axe to grind all this is a pipe dream.. Whoever controls the narrative also writes the rules in many cases ...so where is a true answer .... Without honor, which many seem to lack today, the questions are long and the answers seem to be over there somewhere...



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: onthedownlow




There should be a discussion about dangerous speech,


It'a already illegal to incite, or yell "FIRE" in a theater.


and libel laws should challenge the press' attempt to pass off opinion as news.


Slippery slope. How can "The Press" be a watch dog and alert the public to questionable activities without having an opinion, I.E. thinking something will have adverse consequences if continued?

What's wrong with our Libel/Slander/Defamation Laws that you would challenge or change, "innocent until proven guilty"? Do you think a person or media outlet should be sued for sharing their opinions?


edit on 17-11-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


While there may be a plethora of tabloid style journalism out there, I do not think we here at ATS are echoing those thoughts.


ATS is inundated with fake news stories from a variety of sources. The answer is not censorship, it is critical thinking. Critical thinking must be taught, nurtured and rewarded if a liberal democracy is to survive. The constant din of information, misinformation, and disinformation swarming about every citizen in the form of social media, blogs, infotainment, and even press and billboards can short circuit these faculties. As a society, we need to collectively vow that we will consume our information one morsel at a time, chewing it thoroughly before swallowing.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky



I personally would like to see law suits filed when falsehoods are put forth for the general consumption of the population...


DONE!


Hulk Hogan Awarded $115 Million in Privacy Suit Against Gawker

Rolling Stone, Reporter Lose Defamation Suit Over Campus Rape Story



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

The first story was not a falsehood; Hogan really did have sex with his friend's wife. It was invasion of privacy, not libel.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Whew! Something we can agree on! Yes as a whole the statement certainly rings true and critical thinking does need to be applied. So I guess the question is then can MSM still be considered press? IMO, I would think not.

Censorship is a no-go, granted. BUT, freedom of press and the current MSM are hardly synonyms.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


Whew! Something we can agree on! Yes as a whole the statement certainly rings true and critical thinking does need to be applied. So I guess the question is then can MSM still be considered press? IMO, I would think not.


Why not? They are no less truthful than globalresearch.ca. Should that be censored too?



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: windword

The first story was not a falsehood; Hogan really did have sex with his friend's wife. It was invasion of privacy, not libel.


Still, "The Press" is not immune from prosecution and allowed to exist with impunity. "The Press" can be and is held accountable.




top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join