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.

 

Fox News anchor Chris Wallace warns viewers: Trump crossed the line in latest attack on media

page: 6
56
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: uncommitted

Only a fools trusts an organization. The people within the organization may (or may not) be trust worthy. But the organization itself cannot be.

I don't trust any news outlet. I read stories, then read transcripts. I don't need to read editorialized comments when I can read the transcript and make my own conclusion.

There isn't anything else to reporting anymore. Its all political gossip anymore.


So you do acknowledge then that the BBC isn't state run?

Every news organisation will editorialise, you self editorialise when you make your conclusions. The only real difference is you base your conclusion on your opinion alone. That's fine, but it doesn't make it right, it's just what you want to think is right.

I, and from the sound of it others, would like to take in a broad array of views, particularly from those with more experience and knowledge when forming my opinion - but that's just to prevent me falling pray to confirmation bias.
edit on 20-2-2017 by uncommitted because: missed out an it




posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




Oh patdon me it is currently TRENDY to bash the potus. Carry on.


No, it's ALWAYS been TRENDY. Remember the muslim, antichrist, monkey faced, Dogeating Sarong boy, Empty suit, Gaybama. Chairman Mau Mau, that just left the office of POTUS? Carry on indeed....
edit on 20-2-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: shooterbrody




Oh patdon me it is currently TRENDY to bash the potus. Carry on.


No, it's ALWAYS been TRENDY. Remember the muslim, antichrist, monkey faced, Chairman Mau Mau, that just left the office of POTUS? Carry on indeed....

the media IN NO WAY subjected the former mediocre potus to what the current potus gets.
The former potus made many of the same comments about fox news DURING THE ELECTION SEASON. All those bars playing fox news were responsible for the win dont you know.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

The press is stating that some criticisms have "crossed the line".

They are determining what anyone can say about them.


Not really, attacking freedom of the press is an attack against American principles. You are American right?


show us anything close to a law, and EO, an official plea, from the US government (See also TRUMP) that says anything at all about closing down, or limiting the press in any way.

There is a difference between talking about something and attacking free press. Does Freedom of speech still exist?



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

The press is stating that some criticisms have "crossed the line".

They are determining what anyone can say about them.


Not really, attacking freedom of the press is an attack against American principles. You are American right?


show us anything close to a law, and EO, an official plea, from the US government (See also TRUMP) that says anything at all about closing down, or limiting the press in any way.

There is a difference between talking about something and attacking free press. Does Freedom of speech still exist?


Well Trump is effectively attacking free press by planting seeds of doubt about their efficacy. Just carefully watching how he capitalizes "FAKE NEWS" in almost every one of his tweets seems to suggest that he has an agenda. My personal belief is that if he can get his most loyal fanbase to completely ignore (as fact-filled as they might be) anything a "formerly" credible news source has in print, then he can get away with almost anything without it being questioned. And let's face it, Trump thinks only what Trump says should ever be heeded or has any importance.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Nope. Because a quick Google search shows that the board of directors is put in place by the government, and there are large amounts of government funding rolling in.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
It's a tweet. Life must be pretty good in the Twitter bubble if a tweet is cause for outrage and indignation.

Trump trolled Wallace and other parrots, and you deserve it.



Having a president that embraces the twitterbitch modality is more than just a little embarrassing. imo


Fair enough. But hanging on everyone of those tweets, reporting on them, and being led to be offended and scared by said reporting, is much more embarrassing.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Side note: i editorialize here because a) im not a journalist, b) this is not a news publication.

Other side note: i battle confirmation bias by reading things that remove the members of the media from my viewpoints. If Trump says something, I read what he says and make my own conclusions on it. In so doing I find out that the media is obtuse and purosefully misconstrues what is said in order to actually feed peoples confirmation bias.

If you want a breadth of viewpoints, talk to real people. Not the self proclaimed "pro's" who spend their time greasing palms in order to get paid.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
So you do acknowledge then that the BBC isn't state run?


Well it is and it isn't. On paper, they call themselves a private company. But during WWII, the BBC was a strong propaganda arm and often required to insert items as news by the UK Government. It's likely a lot of those ties haven't quite dissolved.



Every news organisation will editorialise, you self editorialise when you make your conclusions. The only real difference is you base your conclusion on your opinion alone. That's fine, but it doesn't make it right, it's just what you want to think is right.

I, and from the sound of it others, would like to take in a broad array of views, particularly from those with more experience and knowledge when forming my opinion - but that's just to prevent me falling pray to confirmation bias.


With this, I agree completely.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

A tweet or criticism cannot be an attack on free press, especially in a world where a cartoon can lead to gunmen storming the offices and slaughtering the staff of a magazine. Firebombs thrown into a newspaper office is an attack on the free press. A government that does not allow its people to start their own periodicals is an attack on free press. A tweet isn't an attack on the free press.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: alphabetaone

A tweet or criticism cannot be an attack on free press, especially in a world where a cartoon can lead to gunmen storming the offices and slaughtering the staff of a magazine. Firebombs thrown into a newspaper office is an attack on the free press. A government that does not allow its people to start their own periodicals is an attack on free press. A tweet isn't an attack on the free press.


I think you may be deluding yourself a bit, if you believe that the spoken or written word isn't every bit as powerful (and sometimes more so) as armament.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

People didn't just up and decide to storm offices on their own. Or kill journalists. Or bomb offices. None of that started out of the blue. It started with words.

Trump's whining has already gotten people to start suggesting, seriously, that MSM outlets be branded as traitors. To include the ol' standby conservative outlet FoxNews. Hell, somebody here on ATS just pointed at the #ing Chinese media as an example of how American media should run.

So no, words themselves are not a direct physical attack. They're "just" words. Words that are working their way into people's brains and causing them to turn on even FoxNews, when just a few months ago Fox was a conservative bastion against Obama and his policies.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I remember when the media used to shape the president and it was a mutual respect about that, because people respected the media also.

Now the president is shaping the media and is not respect from any side at all. People no longer believe everything the media is tells.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: uncommitted

Side note: i editorialize here because a) im not a journalist, b) this is not a news publication.

Other side note: i battle confirmation bias by reading things that remove the members of the media from my viewpoints. If Trump says something, I read what he says and make my own conclusions on it. In so doing I find out that the media is obtuse and purosefully misconstrues what is said in order to actually feed peoples confirmation bias.

If you want a breadth of viewpoints, talk to real people. Not the self proclaimed "pro's" who spend their time greasing palms in order to get paid.






If you want a breadth of viewpoints, talk to real people. Not the self proclaimed "pro's" who spend their time greasing palms in order to get paid.


Personally I'm not so naive that I can't see "real people" and their agendas, ideologies, and propensity to lie and BS to aggrandize their egos.....sound like anyone you are familiar with?

I always try and stick with the age old adage...."question authority"

btw...I do consider myself a media "pro" and yes, I am well paid. My last gig with the GOP during the campaign was wonderful!!


edit on 20-2-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
I remember when the media used to shape the president and it was a mutual respect about that, because people respected the media also.

Now the president is shaping the media and is not respect from any side at all. People no longer believe everything the media is tells.

And coming soon to a theater near you!!!> The Day The Citizens of The USA Realized They Can't Believe ANYTHING AT ALL <

Real news is out there. As my dad used to say: "Look it up."



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: uncommitted

Nope. Because a quick Google search shows that the board of directors is put in place by the government, and there are large amounts of government funding rolling in.


The funding for the BBC is public, not sure where you see otherwise. Not sure where you are getting the board of directors is put in place by the government, that would imply that should Labour win the next UK election all the current governors would be sacked and replaced.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: uncommitted

Side note: i editorialize here because a) im not a journalist, b) this is not a news publication.

Other side note: i battle confirmation bias by reading things that remove the members of the media from my viewpoints. If Trump says something, I read what he says and make my own conclusions on it. In so doing I find out that the media is obtuse and purosefully misconstrues what is said in order to actually feed peoples confirmation bias.

If you want a breadth of viewpoints, talk to real people. Not the self proclaimed "pro's" who spend their time greasing palms in order to get paid.


So when Trump said 'Look what happening last night in Sweden', what conclusions can you come to without finding out what indeed did happen in Sweden the previous night?

Talking to 'real people' is always good to get opinions, but if I'm reading a piece about climbing Everest for example, talking to a mate who once walked up a really steep hill isn't really going to give me any context, is he?

I expected something a little better to be honest, but well done.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: uncommitted
So you do acknowledge then that the BBC isn't state run?


Well it is and it isn't. On paper, they call themselves a private company. But during WWII, the BBC was a strong propaganda arm and often required to insert items as news by the UK Government. It's likely a lot of those ties haven't quite dissolved.



Every news organisation will editorialise, you self editorialise when you make your conclusions. The only real difference is you base your conclusion on your opinion alone. That's fine, but it doesn't make it right, it's just what you want to think is right.

I, and from the sound of it others, would like to take in a broad array of views, particularly from those with more experience and knowledge when forming my opinion - but that's just to prevent me falling pray to confirmation bias.


With this, I agree completely.


Thank you, but I must point out it's well known that in WWII the BBC refused to broadcast propaganda, something that the BBC is quite rightly proud to highlight.

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Alex Jones is a paid shill now and has completely jumped the shark.

First he went at GWB for 9/11.

Now we have a Russian scandal where he praises Trump.

Watching you right wingers eat Alex Jones' garbage up is sadly hilarious. Not only that, it goes to show where you have to go to be in your "safe space" for news. Take a hint right wingers, fringe news sites are in the outer rim of news for a reason.



originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Star and Flag.

I am only partially through your OP, but wanted to applaud you right away.

Chris Wallace is the son of Mike Wallace. I believe in him.

Alex Jones is a puffer-fish-humanoid who has no cred at all.

Jim Jefferies is a genius who tells us what is real:





posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
From reading this thread, it seems that people are just now finding out the press is biased in their reporting.

Its been that way for over 200 years.

And yes, biased doesn't mean fake.

I think this may be part of the disconnect here. People are being told by Trump that the news is "fake" when it's just biased the same way its been since the first newspaper opened in America. In fact, if you look at history, it used to be a lot worse.

Biased is just bias, but fake means an entirely different thing in its implications. That may not seem like a huge distinction to you, but just yesterday I woke up to a thread by a Trump supporter who actually believes after Trump made the comments about the fake news being an enemy of the people, that we should shut down any news media critical of Trump. And they should be punished.

That's right. A Trump supporter who now thinks "Making America Great Again" means making ourselves more like North Korea and China in limiting free speech, just because they don't agree with what's being said.

That's the power of the distinction between being called biased news coverage and fake news. A better example couldn't be right here in front of us.
edit on 20-2-2017 by underwerks because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
56
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join