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: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: onthedownlow




Wow, pretty big jump there! News is information, and to suggest that you can't share information without formulating an opinion is rediculous.


I didn't say that. What I said.....is that,

One can't serve as a watch dog and alert the public of questionable activity without applying critical thought and explaining to the public why any given questionable activity might be of public interest, That's why news outlets inform the public of news and current events AND give OPEDs (Opinion Editorials).

It's up to you to decide the difference between fact and opinion, truth and propaganda.



Wouldn't you agree that MSM should be held accountable for purposefully misrepresenting the news?


The courts have ruled that news outlets have that right. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Fox News Wins Lawsuit To Misinform Public – Seriously
edit on 17-11-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Paid protesters...SMH. Enough said.

The man admitted to writing a lie for advertising revenue:



It was created by Paul Horner, who posts fake news on a variety of websites. Some of his posts go viral, presumably boosting his standing with Google’s news algorithm. The fake news posts typically earn Horner -- according to an interview with the Washington Post -- $10,000 a month in ad sales. In the Post interview, Horner took credit for the fake news item about the protester being paid $3,500.

Link

Full interview with Washington Post



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

umm, I don't think you know what sensationalize means

to describe or show something in a way that makes it seem more shocking than it really is

That isn't how protests should be conducted, at least if you want people to support your cause anyway.



Politicians sensationalize.
No arguments there, however, this discussion is about the MSM doing that in collusion with a certain (former) presidential candidate.

Had the MSM reporting been unbiased and forthright, you might see some protesting, but not in the manner you have now.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vector99

Protect the first by infringing on the first? Now I've read everything.

A very well thought out reply from you as usual.

There are already laws in place regarding free speech. Maybe had you read the entire OP you would see I was looking for opinions regarding legal propaganda.

I DID read the entire OP (most of it was useless fluff), and the one line that stood out to me was this one:

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?

You know your conclusion question? The one at the VERY end of the OP, that I'd have to read the whole OP to get to? Yeah that is an assault on freedom of press. You can't arbitrarily label something as "false journalism" as a pretext to silence it. Things don't work that way.
edit on 18-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




umm, I don't think you know what sensationalize means to describe or show something in a way that makes it seem more shocking than it really is


First of all, that isn't the only meaning of the word "sensational".


sensational
ADJECTIVE
(of an event, a person, or a piece of information) causing great public interest and excitement:
"a sensational murder trial"
synonyms: shocking · scandalous · appalling · amazing · startling · astonishing ·
 

(of an account or a publication) presenting information in a way that is intended to provoke public interest and excitement, at the expense of accuracy:
"cheap sensational periodicals"
synonyms: overdramatized · dramatic · melodramatic · exaggerated ·
 

informal
very good indeed; very impressive or attractive:·
"you look sensational" ·
 

synonyms: gorgeous · stunning · wonderful · exquisite · lovely · radiant


Secondly, "sensationalism" is exactly the reason protests are organized and put on. You have nothing to base your allegations that the protesters' grievances are based in media lies, and not on the actual words, actions and campaign promises if President Elect Donald Trump, which were SENSATIONAL, but not in a good way for many Americans.

Third, you don't have the right to determine the legitimately of anyone's right to speech or protest, outside of your own personal opinion.

edit on 18-11-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



You can't arbitrarily label something as "false journalism" as a pretext to silence it.

Except what i'm talking about isn't arbitrarily labeling it. There is direct evidence of media falsifications, and also direct evidence of it being planned, and not mistaken journalism.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Sorry, I had to laugh a little... it is exactly what you are saying. The part that rubbed me the wrong way was when you suggested that I might be okay with dismissing the constitutional litmus for guilt.

It is my belief that the first ammendment protects the press from government reprisal for the release of information. Does wiki leaks get afforded first ammendment protection? If not, why not?



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
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.



We are not seeing free press really. We are seeing production, in association with, news movie propaganda. Besides burning and destroying personal property of others is NOT protected by the constitution but we see our press outlets selling it.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t



You can't arbitrarily label something as "false journalism" as a pretext to silence it.

Except what i'm talking about isn't arbitrarily labeling it. There is direct evidence of media falsifications, and also direct evidence of it being planned, and not mistaken journalism.


They could be sued by government for operating as subversives if it could be clearly demonstrated that they were giving out misleading and false information to affect elections.

There was a day when they would at least be subtle but they are melting down......years of careful work is being exposed as criminally subversive......folks are getting hip to the 5th column nature of much of the press and educational system.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t



You can't arbitrarily label something as "false journalism" as a pretext to silence it.

Except what i'm talking about isn't arbitrarily labeling it. There is direct evidence of media falsifications, and also direct evidence of it being planned, and not mistaken journalism.

So what? Brietbart has been identified as doing that, as has the majority of the right wing blog-o-sphere. WND is literally OVERRUN with it. Infowars and Alex Jones has been caught lying more times than I can count. Yet I don't see you calling out those publications for silencing. Naturally just the news organizations you don't agree with need silencing. Typical authoritarian attitude there.
edit on 21-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock


They could be sued by government for operating as subversives if it could be clearly demonstrated that they were giving out misleading and false information to affect elections.


Too bad that pesky First Amendment gets in the way, eh? By the way, should the media outlets that influenced the election by circulating Russian propaganda be "sued by the government for operating as subversives?"



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Typical authoritarian attitude there.

Typical Krazyshot assumption there, I absolutely include those sites in my opinion, why the heck wouldn't I? For one I can't stand Alex Jones, and second I don't think I've ever actually been to briebart's site. My main focus is broadcast television news though, it's the medium the majority of Americans still get their news from.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join