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.

 

2016: The year that UK propaganda demagogued the US election.

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dude, are you seriously going to act like Hillary's list of ethical & character flaws and corruptive etc etc don't even the scales with Trump's character flaws and dubious behaviors? Please don't tell me you have total amnesia from the past 12 months.
not amnesia, denial.




posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Did you read my OP? UK press demagoguing our election and political process here is annoying me. Especially since foreign news publishing about our election and our people being able to read it is now UNACCEPTABLE according to the liberal & MSM hordes.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   
There was a thread about the negativity of the MSM in the U.K towards Trump, during the U.S Election.

Yes, they were very negative and still the MSM remain negative.

Populism isn't popular with the MSM though is it? So we see more and more negativity being generated and the unknowing and compliant citizenry are lapping it up.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Okay I thought up abetter thread title. That was the best I had thought up when I wrote this piece at like 4am last night.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
When someone (Trump) says absolutely outrageous and idiotic things every single day during the campaign you get more daily negative coverage (and a lot more coverage in general). A lot more. He forced it to be that way. This was no mistake. And sadly, somehow it worked for him.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: crayzeed

Then how come every single time on a daily basis I'd open google news and see these UK outlets in the front page of results?

Now if RT doing some coverage in their little corner, and some FAKE news sites that so far I've seen were banner ad mining and weren't even connected to the Russian government, that a on the brink of war RESPONSE is warranted, yet when we see the UK press and Google News (Google being practically part or Obama's cabinet by the way), that's to be tolerated?

Google is in many minds, part of American intelligence, and intelligence didn't do Trump opposition so much good.
The UK tabloid press is mainly crap, where any truthful story printed story is nicked from some of the better press, otherwise they just make things up.
UK coverage of the American election? BBC usually had about 15 minutes per hour of coverage, but a bit longer during the video scandal...for obvious reasons.
Other foreign news gets around the same coverage, excepting some new horror attack, (that includes made up stories), same as America does wholesale.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Jesus Ignorance, how the heck did you do that? Change the wording of your post. What a brilliant way to troll.
Make up a title say " All women are ugly", get loads of answers then change your title to "All women are beautiful". Look up the word demagogue it ain't got the same connotations as rigged.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

Trying to title it where it captured both the truth and the spirit of the context was challenging. I was at odds with the wording since I wrote it. I actually prefer the original structure in terms of 'capturing the spirit', but there just wasn't a word that better replaced "rig". But rig just wasn't realistic enough either (despite the way the DNC are wielding their weasel words). I didn't think I'd manage to craft a better title in time, actually, but then I did. And now you're complaining. Should I change it back?

edit on 4-1-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


that even includes Fox News amongst the favoring Clinton camp


Actually that's not what the chart you embedded shows.

Fox news coverage

Clinton: Negative 81%, Positive 19%
Trump: Negative 73%, Positive 27%


Now while I didn't find a clean study as above covering UK press, below I've pulled some story examples from Google News, and also applied the same search methodology that I used in my above 'tapes vs. leaks' analysis piece.


Your tapes vs leaks analysis is interesting. #1 there was only ever a single direct rape allegation and that came from Juanita Broaddrick. That allegation was made decades ago about an alleged rape (for which there was not one shred of evidence) occuring even more decades ago. More importantly Bill Clinton's sex scandals/assault scandals/whatever have been the subject of YEARS of coverage. I don't even know why you would include this. It's unfair that they didn't dig up that old dead horse that has already been beaten into jelly (and investigated and the subject of hearings and written about in books) some more?

As for the WikiLeak's releases. Which came first? The video or the Podesta emails? (the video was released first) Which was more sensational? A batch of emails from Podesta with one or two among thousands that directly involve Clinton herself or an audio of Trump talking about how because he's a rich celebrity, he can walk up to strange women and grab them by the p***y?

Nobody ever said that the media outlets didn't have bias. Clearly they do as they always have. What you forget is that Donald Trump is a gaffe factory who says crazy, sometimes stupid and often divisive and controversial s#. Trump was out in public pretty much every day yammering loudly. Clinton hid out for months and didn't do any press conferences to minimize her exposure to potential embarassment.

In other words, did you stop at some point to consider that maybe Trump could have had less instances of "negative" reporting (what exactly consitutes "negative reporting" anyway?) if he'd have not continuously said off the wall s#? What is it that you expect exactly? Every media outlet to balance a negative (if true) story about Trump with a piece about Clinton even if there isn't anything new to report or if what you want reported wasn't as sensational or easy to communicate to an audience?

How much do you think certain outlets' coverage of Trump was impacted by Donald Trump's treatment of the press?

If it makes you feel any better, the media's principal sources of information about the government, the military, intelligence, etc will soon be under the control of PE Trump. You'll get all the Trump-filtered propaganda you can handle.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

speaking of the Trump tape, how many women did he "grab by the Pu$$y"? And what were his exact words on that, I don't remember, but it sure seemed like it was phrased like " you could just grab them by the ##", not "I like to, or I often do, or even I have in the past...."

Context, it's an amazing thing when you are smart enough to comprehend it.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude




Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

are you smart enough to comprehend that? good lord.
edit on 4-1-2017 by knoxie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dude, are you seriously going to act like Hillary's list of ethical & character flaws and corruptive etc etc don't even the scales with Trump's character flaws and dubious behaviors? Please don't tell me you have total amnesia from the past 12 months.

This coming from the side who used to practically sing whenever anti-Trump news would be posted in the news, "10,000 more votes for Trump!" You are so shallow its not even funny.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ColaTesla

Would you like my phone number so you can stalk me easier?

PS: Read the word that is written underneath my user name. Then go look it up in a dictionary.
edit on 4-1-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Haha!

I never actually once used that line, as alas it wasn't mine.

And that's why you always drown in the deep end.

Anyways, this sin't the mud pit.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Pretty fair arguments... that is until the Podesta dumps started hitting everyday. I'm surprised you're so surprised about the Bill rape thing as your entire counter campaign to prop up the MSM and Clinton's Paid Riot Squad's & CTR was to huff and puff to and fro about how the Bill Rape "SHILL" campaign somehow held a candle to all of that. And yet it wasn't hardly in the news a wink. Or are you now going to admit that aside from being a fun thing for the counter-culture is wasn't anything near on par with MSM+CTR+PRS?



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed


Bloody heck Ignorance, if you stretch it any further it will vanish. Would like you to tell me just how many Americans actually read the Times or the Guardian? What you quote is certainly NOT rigging. Propaganda yes, but your own newspapers carried more vociferous pieces than any put out by any British paper.


I think it's very important that IIB covers the British angle. All throughout the election I had noticed hit-piece after hit-piece come from the British press. I had begun to wonder what the connection was, myself.

I can tell you that a lot of Americans read The Guardian.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

This coming from the side...

Nuance is important, but you are right this isn't the mud pit so I'll keep it civil. But whether you specifically want to claim a backing on that line or not is irrelevant. You should damn well know that the negative press was free publicity for Trump which allowed him to not spend as much money on his campaign as normal candidates. You aren't fooling anyone with your fake outrage here. Just you upset because you apparently can't accept that Trump isn't as popular in the country as you'd like.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Thanks, and yeah, you know, I was out of politics for some years, and never before gotten much of an impression from UK news, and then last year when back in it all all the sudden again it was like daily inundation by the UK propaganda front where I had nearly zero recollection of it ever being like that before (Internet-2010). So many times I wondered when it came to be like that all the influence coming from over there. Why they're so lock step with our corporate MSM; why they're covering our stuff as if writing directly targeting US as if they're here and not there; when did it get to being like that, and why? These kinds of questions I was constantly contemplating, and still am.
edit on 4-1-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually, I wouldn't even be bringing any of this up except for the MSM & DNC (and the UK press) wont stop harping about all of their opposition being fake news that something needs to be done about it (all as a vehicle for CENSORSHIP of course).

And that is the actual topic. Which falls completely to pieces now all that FOREIGN INFLUENCE AHHHH RUN FOR YOUR LIVES madness when the UK was posting Hitler and KKK crap about ONE of our candidates with articles geared towards US consumers.



www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 4-1-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join