Total loss of authenticity in the MSM.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

The internet is what has opened many peoples eyes. We used to hear what they said and took it as truth. Now we have many think tanks and outlets of information. You as an individual has to be able to discern what the truth is.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Same thing here. ..as with alternative media as sources.

Believe no one.. .or trust not any sources.

What to believe in,?

a reply to: Cigarettes

Oh, I have to believe there is.

This isn't anything new. It became obvious during Clinton's Presidency.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Something covertly was done years ago to control the MSN. A glaring change was the loss of prime time investigative reporting and the lack of up-front questions being asked by White House reporters at press conferences. Our news organizations now protect and defends our government policies instead of questioning them. They now act as a mouth piece for the current administration. Social media exposes more criminal government videos than our own MSN! Our MSN now spends more time and considers celebrity news more important than exposing wrongs that affect the American public. Exposing the corruption in government and laws that step on our constitutional rights was the basic premises why our founding fathers wanted a free press.

Nixon almost got away with Watergate because the editor of the Washington post wouldn`t print the story with just 2 sources he insisted on 3 sources as was the policy back then.woodward and bernstein finally did find a 3rd source.
back then the media cared about getting a story right to maintain their credibility and to avoid getting sued.
now the media only cares about ratings and money.

There is also a superficiality in the reporting.

As an example, when looking legitimately at the Russian's hacking of the DNC and Podesta emails, and let's assume that the evidence is conclusive, just look at the way that's been used as a political ploy or tool like a weapon against Trump, but without addressing any of the underlying reasons, motives, causes and effects.

On the one hand, the information published by WikiLeaks was TRUE information, so that has to be taken into account.

If it effected the outcome in any way, it's because the American people unpacked the info, the true information, and concluded that all their suspicions about Hillary Clinton were true and thus flipped their vote in favor of a change of system.

Second, when trying to describe Russia's motivations for trying to down Clinton's campaign for POTUS, they describe a personal preference by Putin NOT to have Clinton and the Clinton/Obama machine retain power, because he just doesn't like Clinton and has a vendetta against her personally for helping to foment riots in Russia and being generally hawkish against Russia.

Seems to make sense on the surface, but it doesn't go deep enough into the motivations and the calculations involved.

They make it appear as if Russia is just f'ing around and playing games because they can, and were operating as a traditional enemy, that's the narrative, to which is added a personal vendetta against and dislike of Hillary Clinton on the part of Putin.

But have you heard anyone talk about the idea that this act or gambit on the part of Russia was born of FEAR, and that the Champaign toasting of Clinton's historic loss might have been relief at having potentially averted WWIII, and not simply because they were so happy that Trump got in ie: because they like Trump so much more because he's sympathetic to mutual US-Russian interests?

FEAR of what, precisely?

What was amounting to a Cuban missile crisis on the border of Russia where the new defence missile system can easily be retrofitted to launch warheads, thus cornering Russia in terms of the geostrategic nuclear balance of power, whereby MAD becomes self-assured destruction.

You can't put the bear in such a cage, and then expect to conduct business-as-usual with Iran and China, and solve the ME problem while eliminating ISIS from first Iraq and then Syria, while also disarming the Korean dude and bring together the whole family of nations.

There's no way of sowing up the world's problems without Russia and the appropriate balance of power, which Obama, and Clinton were throwing to the wind in the continuity of their ongoing strategy of tension.

This was Russia's version of the Cuban Missile Crisis, averted, and that's why the champaign was flowing at Clinton's loss.

But to then call this an act of war, when the information published by WikiLeaks was entirely true, is a misnomer, while at the same time confusing and clouding the motives within the appropriate geopolitical context, which Trump appears to have hit on the head in his latest tweet in the simple terms of what is "good" and "bad", without explaining why, and probably not really knowing why, himself.

There's no news reporting and news source out there that's informing not only the public, but our own leaders.

News can help form policy, but, it can be delivered in an honest and objective manner at the same time, which does not have a particular political axe to grind.

Maybe the "Strategy of Tension" is flawed.

Thus, our news imaginary virtual news organization would need to conduct an assessment of the ACTUAL state of affairs, and if there are conclusions and implications to be drawn, to go ahead and say the obvious.

Heck, we could even make recommendations and offer wise council, once functioning as a trusted source, our virtual independent media empire.

It's a good idea. An idea whose time has come.

We're so much smarter than what they're dishing out and they've lost the narrative and don't have the first clue as to what's really going on in our complex world.

We need much more sophisticated and complex reporting and analysis, to get to the simplicity on the far side of chaos, maybe even to help prevent chaos from forming in the first place!

Also, we need to have a 50/50 bad news/good news ratio, if not slightly more good news, than bad. That right there would change everything.

a reply to: WeRpeons

Brilliant reply.

a reply to: Tardacus

Brilliant reply.

You see, we're smart. Way smarter than they give us credit, and I am beginning to suspect, smarter than they are.

But there's no credible news source anywhere right now.

I find that interesting.

Maybe something worth pursuing one way or another.

People have lost touch.

Don't know where to turn or who to trust.

But authentic truth and real information and insight, it sells itself according to it's credibility and consistency over time.

There's a vacuum out there awaiting a new voice of reason, which simply cannot be captured in a tweet.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: FamCore

Right because that wasn't a completely fluid situation with details and info changing by the minute.
Scoffs...

when I was watching the big bad MSM kept saying words to the affect that information is preliminary and could be different because the situation is fluid....

a reply to: jimmyx

Me too. I also heard a report of a second shooter. ...not true.
I heard about them evacuating a garage when in fact it was the crowd running when someone heard a bang.
I heard he came in off the street, he came off a flight from Canada and he came out of a restroom near baggage claim.
Yes fluid.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I disagree on your optimism and would gladly be willing to be wrong.

They control the infrastructure and the regulations. They will take control of the Internet by fear , intimation, force , and by non obvious methods.

Such as by getting rid of user anonymity when you connect to the internet.

They are already working on this. This will make sure everybody online falls in line for fear of the ramifications.

While nothing online is truly anonymous you won't even be able to use alias as we use here on ats. Think how different ats would be if all of its users had to use their real names.

Will you post your real identity for us?

Non centralized user controlled network such as mesh network will be defeated as I mentioned in my previous post.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I completely agree. I've been comparing it to the end of the movie They Live, where everyone can see that the media people are actually aliens.

Here is a perfect example of what the new independent media is capable of

Campaigns Should Fear These Four 20-Somethings

Listen· 5:31

Queue
Download
Embed
Transcript
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Email
March 15, 20165:00 AM ET
Heard on Morning Edition

David Folkenflik
Twitter
Naomi LaChance

BuzzFeed's K-File (from left: Andrew Kaczynski, Nathan McDermott, Megan Apper and Chris Massie) has been covering the 2016 election by revealing the candidates' contradictions, hypocrises and misstatements.

Lauren Zaser/BuzzFeed

For more than a generation, politicians have been on notice that political opponents would hold them accountable through deep dives into their records — a practice called oppo research.

This election cycle, candidates for the White House also have found themselves trying to dodge a buzz saw: BuzzFeed.
Andrew Kaczynski, 26, runs a political research unit for the news organization, scouring the historical record to unearth buried stances taken by leading candidates. A surprising number of the controversies and scoops that surface in televised debates and interviews started with Kaczynski's four-person team, called the K-File.

YouTube

They pointed out Hillary Clinton's error when she asserted that all four of her grandparents were immigrants. They found the video where Ben Carson said he thought the pyramids were built to store grain.

They watched enough video (an estimated 3,000 hours overall) to know that Donald Trump's claims of consistently opposing the U.S. invasion of Iraq are not supported by the record.

BuzzFeed has grown past its roots as a viral site focused on lists and GIFs, and has earned credibility among more traditional journalists with some strong reporting from the campaign trail. Now BuzzFeed is offering a new multimedia form of accountability journalism: repeatedly revealing the candidates' contradictions, hypocrisies, misstatements — and, at times, flat-out weirdness.

www.npr.org...

I see it as a good thing in ways. The more they keep up the same tactics that cost them the election in the first place, the farther they will continue to dig and expose more of their wrongdoings. I would hope. It really lies on the "people" and whether enough are able to decypher it all.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
SO, who do we get our news and information from then?

Who's a reliable source. Who can we trust that will keep us informed without an agenda?

There is no such thing as a single reliable source.

Never was never will be.

Everything is case by case.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I have a background in production, Film and TV, and have set up a cable public access channel years ago.
Currently working in New Media.

If you are serious about a "News" project, let me know.

I don't like the air-tubed audio device going into the ears of our news anchors...

To me it just means that 1- their jobs are on the line- 2- somebody is steering the questions/countering a defense; debunk debunk debunk!!!

I want to listen to the audio that my anchor person is listening to, too.

According to a new Rasmussen poll, CNN "the most trusted name in news" has just earned the title of least trusted cable news network. Oh, the irony.

Poll: CNN Earns Title Of Least Trusted Cable News Network

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I have a background in production, Film and TV, and have set up a cable public access channel years ago.
Currently working in New Media.

If you are serious about a "News" project, let me know.

K. Give me about a year then. I'll return to this thread, and message you, but so help me God if you're connected to "them" in any way, I'll find out and we'll have to call it off.

We'll vet our people well. perhaps even administer psych tests to determine what people are committed to.

The whole thing could be set up in the cloud as a virtual community.

The next generation of personal camaras ought to be sufficient for our purposes, even the latest GoPros are very high res.

I think it would be easy to recruit 1000 reporters in every discipline and field, and have 100 or more writers and excellent production value that would meet and exceed anything that the MSM can offer.

Think about it - whether with me or whoever.

Reporters could report via YouTube or better yet, it's competitor. Yeah, we'd use alternative Internet media channels as well like vid.me and Gab, thus bypassing the Mainstream Internet Channels while we're at it.

There's just too much bias on the left and the right and very little objective reporting and analysis.

I sense light and the winds of freedom...

originally posted by: Konduit

CNN "the most trusted name in news"

Voiced by Darth Vader.