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.

 

Would you be OK with Trump being the only source of news in America?

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
a reply to: underwerks

No, I dont want the only source to come from Trump. I think what most people want is honest reporting with proof of their claims. (And not manufactured proof either... like the dossier..which came from 4chan...)
People are sick of the the false narrative, but we don't want Trump monopolizing the Media either. Honestly? It's time for something new, and it's already here.


The Mainstream media has committed suicide, and even more now after they demonized pewdiepie for a joke that he made... pewdiepie... a guy with 53 million + subscribers. Wanna know what he did? He put a nail in their coffin.




That is simply one example on the massive backlash they have already received. But my point is, we should find alternatives and not just give power to one entity but a big group of entities who are actually doing their job.




Trump even said earlier today the press is the enemy of the American people.


Correction, he signaled out those who were demonizing him without cause. But he did mention a few underated ones as good. (which already exist.)

Here is the full press conference.
Donald Trump press briefing lasts more than an hour



I think you're giving pewdiepie too much credit. All 53 million subscribers aren't standing behind him. Hell, I'm a subscriber. Just because of how big an idiot he is.

The narrative you're being fed of some kind of revolution against the msm is just that, a narrative. By the people who want to take the place of the msm.




posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

I Edited my post to clarify the point more. (My apologies, I have that bad habit of editing posts and adding more to the thought.)




The narrative you're being fed of some kind of revolution against the msm is just that, a narrative. By the people who want to take the place of the msm.


There is a revolution against the MSM, but that is when we the people take part in it. I believe that youtube is the new way to report things, as well as other outlets like radio. Something people should have a shot at doing as their carreers. This is what I would find as a fair market. But Not just one entity (like we had for years) monopolizing everything.

Many years back, it was a crime to have your own radio show and "stealing the air waves." now there is alot of radio hosts. Then there are sites like matt drudge that also helped aid in that revolution.


There are Existing alternatives out there. We should give those a try, and let the old just go away.
edit on th2017000000Fridayth000000Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:43:53 -0600fAmerica/ChicagoFri, 17 Feb 2017 21:43:53 -0600 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: SoulSurfer

Thing is, the media is an amorphous group, comprised of thousands of individuals. Not a hive mind type of thing where everyone holds the same values and thinks the same.

Pewdiepie being dropped by Disney for antisemetic comments isn't a surprise at all, given their history of antisemitism stemming from Walt himself. I can see why they'd want to distance themselves from anything resembling that now.

What I see is incidents like what happened with pewdiepie being used and parroted about by everyone who wants the msm to fall so they can step in and take their place, and then control information how they like.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

The problem is, MSM is very fake news. And no one with common sense will ever trust them again. Mainstream is dead, and people like me, anti-illuminati, are glad to watch them burn for all the lies they have done.

Let them burn, it is simply karma.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: SoulSurfer

So who are the trusted news sources then?? The ones who aren't fake??



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

That is up to discernment. People should know right and wrong and do their own research on stories. If they turn out to be factual, you will have the answer.
edit on th2017000000Fridayth000000Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:04:41 -0600fAmerica/ChicagoFri, 17 Feb 2017 22:04:41 -0600 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
a reply to: mOjOm

That is up to discernment. People should know right and wrong and do their own research on stories. If they turn out to be factual, you will have the answer.

So are all the articles in the msm with verifiable fact checking of the constant lies Trump spouts fake?

Trump says they are, but I can research and verify it myself.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: SoulSurfer

There is a revolution against the MSM, but that is when we the people take part in it. I believe that youtube is the new way to report things, as well as other outlets like radio. Something people should have a shot at doing as their carreers. This is what I would find as a fair market. But Not just one entity (like we had for years) monopolizing everything.

Many years back, it was a crime to have your own radio show and "stealing the air waves." now there is alot of radio hosts. Then there are sites like matt drudge that also helped aid in that revolution.


There are Existing alternatives out there. We should give those a try, and let the old just go away.


What??? Radio??? Radio isn't a new outlet that hasn't or isn't already being used. What planet are you on exactly??? People have been making a career in radio for quite some time now. BTW, those radio news sources are owned by the same media monopolies as the cable news and network news are owned by. But that isn't the end of it either. Because even those who own the media are also owned, or perhaps obligated to someone else as well, the advertisers who pay them for air time.

The problem with trusting YouTube or just anyone and everyone out there who has something to say is they are not obligated or lawfully responsible for reporting accurate information like established media outlets. Nor are they trained or practiced in accurate reporting of something. There is a reason people study journalism and things like that and why they are more reliable than just some dude on youtube.

I'm not saying that the internet and independent or alternative media is BS. It's not. It's the future of media to a large degree. But even they need to be vetted and watched too.

Also, when was it a crime to have your own radio show??? Are you talking about pirate radio or something??? Or are you using crime in an over exaggerated way here??? It's not a crime to have a radio show. It is illegal to hijack a signal that you aren't allowed to broadcast on though. Be it for a radio show or even just signal jamming.

None of which matters now though because Radio isn't the future. Neither is print, television or carrier pigeon. It's the internet and podcasts and whatever new platform comes out. People have a voice already if they want to say something and it's as equal across the board as it has ever been. The internet is already providing us with this and it's made a huge impact on society.

However, as we know, most people out in the world spend most of their time talking sh*t or just making stuff up or are simply ignorant about what they talk about. So we still rely on trusted sources even though the platform and delivery is different. Some independent sources are also trust worth. Some maybe even more so than the established media obviously. But even they have some sort of method to test their credibility. Trusting random people in general would just be insane. Most people know very little about what is really happening outside their own lives. It takes way too much effort and research for average people to gather extra info like that.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: SoulSurfer

That's a BS answer.

How do they research the stories if they don't rely on the reporting of others who are researching it???

If they are doing that then why are they using the media at all in the first place??? They would obviously have the time and resources to be the media or be the news who's doing the reporting.

Where do you gather your info about the news??? How do you even first hear about what's in the news?? What sources do you use other than alternate media to gather info about the news???

What makes them right vs. wrong??? The fact that you agree with them??? How do you know they are correct???



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm



What??? Radio??? Radio isn't a new outlet that hasn't or isn't already being used. What planet are you on exactly??


I know radio has existed since forever, that wasn't the point. I was merely saying that just like radio had their revolution away from the mainstream's radio, so should we the people have our own revolution with News/Media Outlets. It is about breaking monopolies and dividing power. Not unifying it to a single entity. Noone should have that power. It belongs to the people.

I felt inspired by Pump up the volume. (Scene below)



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: SoulSurfer

We have that though. It's called PodCasts and the internet.

YouTube and the internet and twitter, etc. has given a voice to anyone who has something to say. More importantly it's given those who have something to say an audience who's willing to listen.

If you have a talent or something to say that people want to hear. You can say it or show it to the world all by yourself for super cheap and get an almost instant feedback on whether or not the world cares about it. Anything from getting famous to getting arrested or being hated or loved by everyone is available to us all know.

But when you look over that vast ocean of self expression you realize that most people have nothing worth saying but say it anyway. Some people do have info worth listening to, at least for some things and we should listen. A very few people have incredible talents or amazing info and they should probably get more attention than some of the idiots who do get the attention. Then just a tiny fraction of people actually have something ground breaking. They also only come around once in a while.

Most people are just semi intelligent apes and all people when you get right down to it don't actually know most of what they think they know. They believe the majority of it and know a very few things and those are some of the smartest people around. The rest pretty much just believe stuff and know almost nothing.

But that's how I see it and I'm a bit of a cynic. Maybe it's not as bad as that. After all, what the f*ck do I know????



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Newsflash:

Everyone says they want "just the news, just the facts without spin". We already have it, it's called the AP and Reuters. No one reads those though because they're "boring" or "dry".

All the major news outlets get a LOT of their stories from the AP Wire or Reuters, and then expand on them. People enjoy reading a bit of fluff in their news.

If that wasn't true, more people would go straight to the source for the unbiased, dry, flavorless facts.

And let's be real honest -- people saying they want "unbiased news" really are saying they want "news that affirms my worldview and makes me feel like I'm right about my beliefs".

People only complain about biased news when it doesn't agree with their personal beliefs. In this case, it appears that nearly ALL of the news now doesn't agree with them, so that's translated into ALL of the media being biased.

Has anyone thought that maybe it is THEM that has a twisted view of reality, instead of the media? Of course not. It's a huge global conspiracy against a segment of a minority of Americans ...Trump followers. How dare any of them take a moment to ponder if maybe it is them and their fellow Trump followers that might be the ones listening and buying into lies!

Remember, only 56% of all eligible voters turned out, and out of those 3 million more of them voted for Clinton. So, we're talking about a small chunk of actual Americans. You are in the minority of Americans that voted for this man.
edit on 17-2-2017 by Kettu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




We have that though. It's called PodCasts and the internet.


Exactly, that is why we should protect free speech, and fight to keep what we have. There are many talented Podcasters on the internet, but many of them end up either character assassinated, or simply not given the chance to rise. I can tell you cause I encountered many of them. They struggle thorough censorship for the most part. That is the major problem they have.

People are already flocking there yes, with what is going on with the msm. And mostly thanks to organic sharing. But there are still hurdles to go through.

I also think that the media needs to be divided into different sections

News (The truth after the expose has been investigated and confirmed to be true.)
Expose's(this is not fake "news". this is usually theories based on circumstantial evidences. It causes people to think.)
Commentary (Commentary on what they think happened and should happen. It can also go with the expose's.)
Documentary: A set of facts as well as circumstantial evidences based on events that did happen.


In a sense, I just described the scientific method. All 4 medias should be allowed. What mainstream is actually fighting against for the most part, are the Expose's. (Which causes people to think.) Just some ideas out there on how I would handle a media network in a fair way. It may also solve the problem (atleast temporarily).

I enjoy watching commentary, expose's and Documentary more than I do the news. I used to enjoy Alex Jones, but now ... they are becoming mainstream themselves. I liked that channel more when he was doing expose's, and not reporting news. But that is just my opinion. But I guess sometimes people evolve into new platforms.


I dont have a sure answer, but if everyone got together to brainstorm something, I am sure the problem you described may be solved.


edit on th2017000000Fridayth000000Fri, 17 Feb 2017 23:06:15 -0600fAmerica/ChicagoFri, 17 Feb 2017 23:06:15 -0600 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

Exactly. Wish I could give you 5 stars.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: SoulSurfer

It's still called "pirate radio" to have your own radio station with out FCC approval. And it is still very much illegal.

I have no idea what mean by "now there are lots of radio hosts".


edit on 17-2-2017 by Kettu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: SoulSurfer

You are also leaving out editorial which contains personal observations and beliefs. Brietbart is pretty much exclusively an editorial news source.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 11:57 PM
link   
MSM started this war of truth with Trump. Now they have to live with the results.



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 03:06 AM
link   
While your at it why not ban all opposition parties and change the name of the USA to North Korea 2.0?



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts



Seriously? I mean...I agree, but honestly, this 'fake...alt news' cry started with the democrats. Especially, more so during this last election! Now, everything is divided and truthfully, we all need a reset and find a center to agree upon.


No, it did not start with the Democrats. This fake news nonsense started when it was discovered that fake news sites were popping-up to profit off of selling fake news stories to the Right Wing.



It is not fake news because it doesn't fit individuals agendas...it is fake because baises are so apparent through evidence. This is occurring on both sides of the paradigm established, partisianly.


Bias has nothing to do with it. It's only fake news if the story is completely fabricated.



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

No , but I Would be OK with a MSM that Just Reports Actual NEWS , and Not a Constant Stream of Political Commentary...........



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join