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.

 

The Very Fake News should stop using anonymous sources and pull a Snowden if they have any Balls

page: 3
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: Stevemagegod

yeah.
anonymous sources have been used and accepted since i dont know...forever.
journalists kind of have a thing about protecting their source. some have even been jailed for it....

been all good since the beginning of time but now all off a sudden when # goes against the fuhrer....no more

en.wikipedia.org...


Show an example where an anonymous source was used against Obama and accepted.


"Fast and Furious"

www.forbes.com...




posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

so we are talking about obama now?
again

read the link man

journalists have the right to protect their sources



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: Alien Abduct

so we are talking about obama now?
again

read the link man

journalists have the right to protect their sources



Sad how people are willing to throw away the only protection we have from government freedom of the press...



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: RedDragon

A free press is DANGEROUS to dear leader Trump! They must be silenced!!!


Hey at least are dear leader isnt spying on reporters like Obama did.


You got a source for that info?



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: neformore

thats one of the go to plays
deflect to hillary or obama

then regurgitate what trump spews...
drain the swamp
fake news
etc


Obama could do no wrong. The Left always deflected to Bush for the Last 8 years.


You do realize that you are losing this argument because you are standing on quicksand?



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: RedDragon

A free press is DANGEROUS to dear leader Trump! They must be silenced!!!


Hey at least are dear leader isnt spying on reporters like Obama did.


You got a source for that info?


James Rosen

Just to cite one.




posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Wow, can you imagine if we had a president tough enough to handle a free press? That would be pretty.... standard... kinda basic requirement actually. Poor weak 'Special Needs' Trump...



Aw man your right i couldn't imagine that. Special Needs Obama blocked Conservative Reporters all the time, he also had the IRS target those same reporters. Can you imagine if Trump had his IRS go after them they would be calling him a dictator? O wait they already are never mind. I guess its okay when Democrat Presidents do something but selective amnesia when the Republicans do it to.


You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, have no sources, and are just spouting RW BS.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Why Declaring War on Fox News Could Be a Mistake for Obama

(October 12, 2009)

Over the weekend, White House communications director Anita Dunn announced the official beginning of the Obama administration’s war with Fox News. Of course, the battle has been openly brewing for months now. Even during the campaign, Obama’s team gave up on sending surrogates to the network. “It was beyond diminishing returns,” Dunn told the New York Times. “It was no returns.” But now the war is out in the open. “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” she told the paper. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” Yesterday on CNN, she clarified: “Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.”





posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: RedDragon

A free press is DANGEROUS to dear leader Trump! They must be silenced!!!


Hey at least are dear leader isnt spying on reporters like Obama did.


You got a source for that info?


James Rosen

Just to cite one.



except for the fact that you link does not work



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

Why Declaring War on Fox News Could Be a Mistake for Obama

(October 12, 2009)

Over the weekend, White House communications director Anita Dunn announced the official beginning of the Obama administration’s war with Fox News. Of course, the battle has been openly brewing for months now. Even during the campaign, Obama’s team gave up on sending surrogates to the network. “It was beyond diminishing returns,” Dunn told the New York Times. “It was no returns.” But now the war is out in the open. “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” she told the paper. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” Yesterday on CNN, she clarified: “Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.”






Was she wrong?



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   
"Anonymous" and "unnamed" sources have been used for decades by journalists and news organizations. The problem now is that the reputation of the larger news organizations is so degraded, that it's VERY easy to see when there's FAKE news spewing forth.

For instance, CNN took one sentence from an "unnamed source" and turned that sentence into a full 72 hours of bashing Donald Trump's administration. The secret source said that the Trump administration asked the FBI to publically confirm that there was no Russian contact.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
"Anonymous" and "unnamed" sources have been used for decades by journalists and news organizations. The problem now is that the reputation of the larger news organizations is so degraded, that it's VERY easy to see when there's FAKE news spewing forth.

For instance, CNN took one sentence from an "unnamed source" and turned that sentence into a full 72 hours of bashing Donald Trump's administration. The secret source said that the Trump administration asked the FBI to publically confirm that there was no Russian contact.


yep,
in the old days ( the 1970`s) the newspaper editors wouldn`t print a story unless the reporter had 3 sources to verify the story. now 1 anonymous source can say 10 words and the MSM will take those 10 words and create an entire elaborate (fake) hours long program.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: JAY1980



Yeah because being a natural citizen but being convicted under the espionage act for being a whistle blower and subject to the death penalty is completely justified.

He knew the consequences of his actions but chose to flee. Manning faced up for what he did he didn't run like a coward.


He actually fled to Hong Kong first then Russia once they offered asylum... But I know how semantics is largely irrelevant to you on the left.

Snowden released the info in Hong Kong then fled to Russia right afterwards. Seems like semantics are useless to you as well.



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: Alien Abduct

so we are talking about obama now?
again

read the link man

journalists have the right to protect their sources


I agree. I believe in protecting sources. But whatever information is let out should be able to be verified or else it just looks like we are to just take the word of CNN and some unknown anonymous source. CNN at their word has about as much credibility with me as the family drug addict and taking an anonymous person at their word, well I think that one explains itself.

This is why I believe if CNN or anyone for that matter wants to release information and they want the public to believe it then the information it's self should speak for it's own credibility. In other words it should be able to be verified in some way.

It would be very foolish for people to believe CNN or other news outlets without being able to verify the information because information is powerful. Information has started many wars. Also to me CNN and other organizations when they release unverifiable information they lose credibility with me when just making the attempt because they make themselves look like they are trying to be deceitful.

So, yeah protect your source, say whatever you want. But don't expect people to believe you or take you seriously when you release unverifiable information supplied by anonymous sources.
edit on 2/26/2017 by Alien Abduct because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join