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: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: testingtesting

Remind everyone when Pizzagate began. What date was that? And just because the "right" went after it doesn't mean the left wouldn't have if the tables were turned.

I'd never pretend that the left/right model isn't dig and smear, but this Trump IS Hitler thing went way beyond the mark and a lot of people were hurt. I'm not a conservative/republican or even a liberarian now apparently. When i saw how the Ruling Establishment's MSM was full bore GET TRUMP that's what got my interest to begin with. It clearly wasn't run of the mill left/right BS, this was a whole nother level and when the forces that drive endless global wars and human suffering all the sudden pull out ALL the stops to stop someone from breaking through their electioneering barricades, that's when you know who is NOT their guy.

Meanwhile, the left around here have been grandstanding for over a month that foreign influence is UNACCEPTABLE, and yet here it is totally UNDENIABLE, and yet you're all now cool with it?
edit on 4-1-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Like nerf said it is journalism in rags mostly. There is a difference between hacking (supposedly) and reporting opinion.
Why not do a thread how the Canadians covered the election? or the japanese I'm sure most countries said Trump is a twat....I agree with them (not a clinton fan btw so don't bother) he played you all like a fiddle and you are too stupid to see it.
I hope you don't blindly follow him though he has already backed out of some of his campaign promises.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Which part of Trump - and some of his supporters said and did the things that the media then reacted to have you missed, exactly?

If Donald Trump doesn't appear in a video mocking a disabled reporter, then the press can't report on him mocking a disabled reporter.

If Donald Trump doesn't suggest that hispanics are all rapists, murderers and drug dealers, then the press can't report on it.

If Donald Trump hadn't suggested that he can "grab women by the ..." then the press wouldn't have reported on it.

If Donald Trump doesn't say "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." then the press aren't going to be suggesting that's just a little unconstitutional, not the american way and smacks of xenophobia .

(Which, by the way when taken into context with the comments about hispanics and a wall on the mexico border, and comments about refugees and immigrants causing problems certainly doesn't make him out to be everyone's favourite uncle and does draw historical comparisons from other countries.)

And in all of those cases, people wouldn't have reacted to it.

See, running for President requires some diplomacy and responsibility, and people do react to things - you know, in the same way that a guy discharges a firearm in a restaurant over made up crap?

And with regards to "your side" (lol, like it isn't, because you're sure as hell making it seem that way), you have the luxury of being on the winning team, but lets face it the crap would have hit the fan in the other direction had Hilary won (yeah yeah, you'll say it wouldn't have but the ramped up "shes a criminal, lock her up, traitor, not fit to be president" screams civil disorder had she won) and the rash of hate crimes against minorities since Trumps victory doesn't exactly sit well, does it?

I'm suggesting is that while you are trying to wage your little war on dissenting voices/news stories to Trump, you need to take a long, hard look in the mirror, because the knee jerk reactions came from knee jerk statements, and screaming about propaganda, while discounting your own, is massively hypocritical.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   
www.theguardian.com...

Maybe if the US minded their own business, Britain would mind theirs.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Which part of Trump - and some of his supporters said and did the things that the media then reacted to have you missed, exactly?

If Donald Trump doesn't appear in a video mocking a disabled reporter, then the press can't report on him mocking a disabled reporter.


Surely you've been around long enough to know that was liberal FAKE NEWS?


But a great example of everything I'm talking about. From there the rhetoric turned into he mocks disable PEOPLE (not person).

Shall I go on?



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

If Donald Trump doesn't suggest that hispanics are all rapists, murderers and drug dealers, then the press can't report on it.


DID he?

Or was he talking about how a lot of the CRIMINAL illegal immigrants are running amok doing that stuff?

This is all text book pretzel logic weasel wording to demagogue the issues.

And for FOREIGN newspapers to come in here and constantly pump out these deliberately twisted slogan campaigns is SUBVERSION. And to what what ends? Oh, multinational corporatist Globalism (wars, overthrowing governments, rigging elections, and so on).

I cant understand how anyone thats been on this board for years could get behind that kind of agenda. Its plain as day.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
And with regards to "your side" (lol, like it isn't, because you're sure as hell making it seem that way), you have the luxury of being on the winning team, but lets face it the crap would have hit the fan in the other direction had Hilary won (yeah yeah, you'll say it wouldn't have but the ramped up "shes a criminal, lock her up, traitor, not fit to be president" screams civil disorder had she won) and the rash of hate crimes against minorities since Trumps victory doesn't exactly sit well, does it?


She's a media colluding terrorist funding imperialism bent mass murdering drug running hate speech mongering democracy subverting NWO goose-stepping two-faced bigot of a criminal who had to be stopped (note thats 10 links).

But Trump, he's a jerk, and she's not?!?

This all goes way beyond left/right politics, but whatever floats your boat.
edit on 4-1-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
and the rash of hate crimes against minorities since Trumps victory doesn't exactly sit well, does it?


Source please. Do you have sources for anything you assert? Just because the MSM repeated their demogogueries endlessly doesn't make it the truth. And yes, I realize he said a lot of dumb stuff, and even a bunch of provactive inflammatory stuff (majority of that which was early on and never let go of).

And beyond that how do you rationalize the FACT that the SJW bent liberal horde's have started this war on their fellow man over here as "racist sexist etc etc etc etc" for not being liberal,and for being white (YEARS before the election)? Who drew the first blood?

And how is it the UK's business to fuel the flames of civil war in our nation here? (the actual topic, remember)
edit on 4-1-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Thank god for The Guardian



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I'm guessing we wouldn't have our wars, that the UK wouldn't support and nurture them that is, without The Guardian. I never kept an eye on them until now. They couldn't stay out of our domestic propaganda war, and now they're on my list.

A quick GoogleFu lets see....


INSIDE THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT: WAR, PROPAGANDA, CLINTON & TRUMP
Propaganda is most effective when our consent is engineered by those with a fine education - Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia -- and with careers on the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post. These organisations are known as the liberal media. They present themselves as enlightened, progressive tribunes of the moral zeitgeist. They are anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-LGBT.

And they love war.

While they speak up for feminism, they support rapacious wars that deny the rights of countless women, including the right to life. In 2011, Libya, then a modern state, was destroyed on the pretext that Muammar Gaddafi was about to commit genocide on his own people. That was the incessant news; and there was no evidence. It was a lie.


Note that's John Pilger, whom I clearly recall back during the Bush days he was constantly labelled a "liberal" around here (as was I). And this here proves that Quadaffi was about to open up democratic elections, but the ObamaHillaryCo. blew him and the country up anyways.

Pilger goes on:

So he was murdered with a knife in his rear by fanatics, backed by America, Britain and France. Hillary Clinton cheered his gruesome death for the camera, declaring, "We came, we saw, he died!" The destruction of Libya was a media triumph. As the war drums were beaten, Jonathan Freedland wrote in the Guardian: "Though the risks are very real, the case for intervention remains strong."

Intervention - what a polite, benign, Guardian word, whose real meaning, for Libya, was death and destruction.

According to its own records, Nato launched 9,700 "strike sorties" against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. They included missiles with uranium warheads. Look at the photographs of the rubble of Misurata and Sirte, and the mass graves identified by the Red Cross. The Unicef report on the children killed says, "most [of them] under the age of ten".


Here goes an entire website dedicated to following the war machine propaganda front known as The Guardian:
guardianwarpropaganda.wordpress.com...

This blog documented media bias and war propaganda on the Guardian website from January 2013 to August 2015.

I believe some writers displayed their own genuine opinions that were perhaps at odds with my own ideas.

I believe some writers probably worked for or with think tanks which influenced their writing.

I believe some writers were directly paid by intelligence agencies or think tanks to propagate untruths and steer public opinion.


Here goes some more:
www.medialens.org...

It isn't hard to pull up analysis on the Google I'm noticing now that I'm bothering to look. Does anyone ever do such critical thinkery about the mainstream sources they choose to champion, or do they just see some bits that fit their fervor and then just run wild parroting it even when truth isn't on their side and they know it?

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



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I really got my moneys worth with that post :-)

Propaganda you say? The Guardian is on your list? Let's just deal with Pilger for now:


The Anglo-American writer Christopher Hitchens said of Pilger: "I remember thinking that his work from Vietnam was very good at the time. I dare say if I went back and read it again I'd probably still admire quite a lot of it. But there is a word that gets overused and can be misused – namely, anti-American – and it has to be used about him. So that for me sort of spoils it... even when I'm inclined to agree."



The Economist's Lexington columnist commented on Pilger's account of the Arab uprising: Next up is the egregious John Pilger, who thinks the Arab revolts show that the West in general and the United States in particular are "fascist." ... Maybe he hasn't noticed, but what most of the Arab protesters say they want are the very freedoms that they know full well, even if Pilger doesn't, to be available in the West. No doubt he believes they are labouring under some massive mind-control delusion engineered by the CIA.



The New York magazine columnist Jonathan Chait responded to Pilger's 13 May 2014 column in The Guardian about Ukraine.[110] In the view of Chait, Pilger "defend[s] Vladimir Putin on the grounds that he stands opposed to the United States, which is the font of all evil" as a comical "attempt to cast land-grabbing, ultranationalist dictator Vladimir Putin as an enemy of fascism."[111] It has also been reported that Pilger's column contained a bogus quote from a non-existent Jewish Doctor which misleadingly gave the impression that the demonstrators expressed pro Nazi and antisemitic views while preventing the victims of the Odessa tragedy of 2 May from being rescued.


Those are just opinions of course - same as yours


Despite the journalist’s long career of opposing tyranny, oppression, and dictatorship wherever he may find it, Pilger’s loathing of the United States has led him to produce a film that acts as an apology for Chinese totalitarianism, distorts the truth about Asian politics, and presents China as a passive victim in a potential new superpower war. Actually, my sympathy for his intellectual descent is less sincere than my anger; what I watched was an incendiary spectacle that manages to circle the triumvirate of narcissism, ignorance, and propaganda.


I must admit a few things first. Among others it was Pilger who first sparked my interest in journalism.

I have no problem with being anti-American. This country should be criticized and constantly scrutinized. But bias is bias - not good journalism

And so - what have you got to trade with? :-)

The Guardian doesn't always get it right, and they really pissed me off yesterday. Since they're criticizing Trump far too much to suit you, you think they're meddling in our affairs and propagandizing? See - that's funny, because I think they could have stood to criticize him more often and earlier on

I wonder which of us is the more objective?

:-)


edit on 1/4/2017 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Ah, ad hominem. What about his report there? Have you no words for that?

And about that Arab Spring, have you not seen this:
ObamaHillaryCo.'s TIMELINE OF TERROR In The Middle East

This wasn't even about Trump er se. What Trump and WikiLeaks combined gave us was a total MSM caught with their pants down. It'd be like if Ron Paul had managed to get passed the Primary's they'd have done the exact same thing I know this in my bones I've studied them for too long. This was about foreign propagandists meddling with our public opinion during a major election (and in more such as fueling the budding civil war we're facing down over here now), and the hypocrisy of the left that for months now have been grandstanding about foreign influence being INTOLERABLE when it came critical of Hillary, but when it was against Trump now all the sudden that's a-okay and there must be something wrong with me for even spotting it and pointing it out.
edit on 4-1-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


What about his report there? Have you no words for that?


No - I really couldn't care less. The entire point of your OP is that you think certain media are biased. How are you not biased? You didn't hold up a single example from the sources you criticized as an example of good reporting

Get it?


And about that Arab Spring, have you not seen this:


You're sourcing yourself?




posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think the important thing the OP is trying to get at is that this showed exactly how bought and paid for Western media really is, and how afraid the elite seemed to be of someone like Trump being elected. Like he wasn't a part of their regular plan.. a dark horse.

The media has exposed themselves as puppets of the globalist elite, that is what we can take away from this. Do you not find this noteworthy and important? You want to pretend that this is unimportant and of no real consequence because Trump won? What about the consequence of a shadow government controlling the media? Is that to be ignored? The powers behind the media, that own the media and everything else.. you can't see the forest for the trees. You can't see a hidden consensus behind the mainstream media? That they are trying to enforce? They're all establishment shills.

This just happens to be more evidence of their control of almost all of our relevant media.. And knowing about that is important, and the first step to hanging these traitors.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

What the hell are they starring? 'You didn't show them being good guys too'. 'Everyone's biased even you'.

WOW! My mind has been blown. My entire thread put to shame. No more reason to go on with any of this. Why did I even take the time to begin with?

The Ruling Establishment that plunder our nations, take us to war with the world, rob us of our liberties and privacy, run all the drugs that they lock us up for having, dumb us down via their media our entire lives, and drive the wedges that divide us all, they own the UK media like the US media too, and wielded it against US to stop rump from being able to win. But their plan didn't work. And here we are. And maybe just maybe the secret wars and crony whores will lose some foothold, and a brighter day might be ahead, but scratch that Trump said some mean things that are 'worse' than Hillary's mass murderful war crimes, so god save the queen and long live The Guardian, and may our nations go full blown civil war, because we all want our brains washed our entire lives, to live forever in polarized bigotry via being divided and conquered, and lets go blow up some Middle Easterners while screaming that its okay for them to marry and consummate 9 years olds and to go about raping women if the women go out past midnight.




posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
and the rash of hate crimes against minorities since Trumps victory doesn't exactly sit well, does it?


You mean like this fresh one today:

Chicago Thugs Kidnap White Teen And Torture Him For Being a Trump Supporter


Who wants to bet their life that this wont be demonized by the MSM like it should be?
edit on 4-1-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 05:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: knoxie
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.


Sure am. Did he state he "did" it, or "could" do it? How many women claim he did this to them?



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 05:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude

Exact words?

"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."

"Grab 'em by the p---y. You can do anything."


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


It is and because I don't want you to miss out on just how amazing it really is, I'm going to help you out!

"I just start kissing them"
"I don't even wait"

Both of of those are in the present progressive tense. The present progressive tense is used for things that are occurring in the present and are on-going. In other words, he hasn't waited, he doesn't wait and he's not planning on waiting in the future.

Why? Because "when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." He's stating his opinion that women allow male celebrities to do whatever they want (to those women). Elaborating on what he means by do anything, Trump gives an example — "grab em by the p---y" — beforing reiterating his point that "you" (by which he means a "star" such as himself) can do anything (to a female stranger).

I believe it was three women who accused him of actually putting his hand on their crotches. Notice that I didn't say "grab" because I didn't want you to get hung up on the minutiae of what constitutes a "grab" versus other forms of uninvited gential touching. Did he do it? The only ones who really know are PE Trump and his accusers.

Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. I'm always glad to help!



Sure, just one more thing, where did he say "I grab them", or "I did grab them", see, what is says is "you could". Lear to read. It's fundamental.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Shall I go on?


Please don't.

Its obvious that you are only interested in your own paradigm, which is that anything/one that criticises Trump = bought/paid for/bad/fake news

And yet you are happy to accept that places like Brietbart, which is owned by Trumps chief strategist are simple factual, un-biased sources.

Hell, you are even trying to palm off the actions of Trump himself as not being true, because it doesn't suit your opinion

Well, sorry to tell you, but opinions vary.

One day, given time you may take off the blinkers you are wearing and when you do you'll probably feel massively stupid that you wore them.

Propaganda comes from both sides of an argument. Not just one.

Failing to accept that is - as I've said before - delusional.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss




WOW! My mind has been blown. My entire thread put to shame. No more reason to go on with any of this. Why did I even take the time to begin with?

So, I get that you're angry. I'm angry too

It's not a joke that money influences journalism. But, it always has. It's not funny that foreign influences play a part in forming our opinion of our national selves. That's always been true too. The United States has done some horrible things - but if you feel you can only look at the world in absolutes then you'll obviously miss that we've done a lot of good in this world as well

What's happened over the past 16 (plus) years (not just the past 8) has been systematic and relentless. Information has been reduced to useless mush. Nobody knows what's valid anymore, what's worth questioning. People want to feel intelligent. The idea that we might not understand something is painful to too many egos and that pain has been soothed by giving everyone a trophy for simply having an opinion

You're worried that your new leader won't get a fair shake? Tough. You should be thankful that there are still people around that are willing to ride his ass every single day. Our country is depending on that now more than ever


edit on 1/5/2017 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join