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.

 

When Journalists Cry Wolf

page: 6
66
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

It's a general statement.




posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Considering that this President is attacking the media every day now and spoke of changing laws to be able to sue them for saying things he doesn't like, it's obvious that the people crying wolf are not the press but you conservatives who are crying about the media like babies every day, making a fake issue while very serious problems are occurring in our country.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
Considering that this President is attacking the media every day now and spoke of changing laws to be able to sue them for saying things he doesn't like, it's obvious that the people crying wolf are not the press but you conservatives who are crying about the media like babies every day, making a fake issue while very serious problems are occurring in our country.


I SEEMS Trump fans constantly NEED reassurance of their "MAN" dong a GOOD job. They continually compare/contrast HIM to Obama and Hillary.

It's as IF ... they know...
edit on 3-7-2017 by DanteGaland because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I , and Many Others Refuse to be Silent in the Face of the Suppression of our Constitutional Right to Free Speech in the United States by a Minority of Anarchists with a Progressive Liberal Agenda to somehow Amend it . Over Our Dead Bodies , or Theirs would be the Only Result of such a Dangerous and Foolish Endeavor .



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Lab4Us

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Lab4Us

You should read the wiki on it. The whole story around it is fascinating.


I hope you’ll understand if I don’t use Wiki as a news source. If by story, you mean a fictional accounting, I might give it a read.

However, this is exactly the point I think OP was trying to make. Why can’t I, as an American citizen, count on my press corps to provide me accurate facts? No rumours, no innuendo, no spin, but actual facts? Anything else is akin to “crying wolf”.


then quit listening to "COMMENTATORS" and talking heads on cable.....journalists are different, they go into detail and 99% of the time they "WRITE" in publications...maddow and tucker are NOT journalists. they both give their opinions...

when journalists go on these talking head shows, you'll see that they are careful to say what they have as fact, and what is speculation


I can assure you that I am very clear on newspersons vs commentators. There are plenty of journalists in broadcast media that owe us facts. The publications you refer to are much worse, since each picks a candidate to endorse. Kind of slants their perspective, don’t you think? I believe the NYT even fired their quality control editor since she was calling them out for the unsourced reporting.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Jonjonj

Our press is not perfect but it is not fake. We can make it better but the push is not to make it better but to delegitimize it. That's scary.



I think they call it "motivation".

I guess the press better get moving on that legitimacy.




posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64



I seem to remember Obama actually locking up members of the press.


I seem to remember Donald Trump calling for Julien Assange's death at the same time.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Notice the language she used. The first amendment enshrines freedom of the press, not freedom of speech. There is a huge difference.

But let's look at the actual text:


... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ...


Not only are the two concepts mentioned, but they are separated by "or" recognizing that they are two different things. Not only that, but a presidential does not rise to the standard of Congress passing a law to abridge that freedom of the press. Joka can still be just as nasty today as they could yesterday, a few days ago, two weeks ago, etc.

But this is what the left does. It's like talking about how the first amendment enshrines freedom to worship like Hillary Clinton was wont to do when it actually talks about freedom of religion as if worship and religion are synonymous which they aren't.
edit on 3-7-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: redtic
If you think this is all about a single tweet, you really haven't been paying attention.

What's sad is that Trump has been able to get his base all worked up about this false "fake news" paradigm.


There is little that is false about it, that is, unless, we're simply repeating that narrative because that's all we can do.


There is much that is false about it - the new definition of "fake news" is "news that Trumps deems as unfavorable towards him or his administration". There's a lot of negative press about Trump because, well, there's a lot of not-positive news to report about him. When you have a near historically low favorability rating hovering in the 30s, that's kinda just bound to happen..


That's not true. As recently proven, the negative press is a lucrative business. It works especially well in a pacified, media-addicted populace.


There's a rather large difference between knowingly perpetuating false stories and (subjectively) over-reporting a perfectly valid one. If we're mostly talking about Russia here, I for one am fascinated with the story. Ignoring any possibly collusion, it's quite likely one of the biggest stories we've had in decades.

So if we're talking differences of opinion on what should and should not be reported, I'll just respectfully disagree with yours, but at the same time respect it. But, in that case, the label of "fake news" is at best inaccurate, and Trump should just focus on making more positive news for himself.


It's not about what they report on, but that they do so without the principles of ethical journalism, i.e. Fairness, accuracy, and without bias.


I'm curious as to who you, or even Trump, view as "fair, accurate and without bias"? How do you determine what's "real" and what's "fake" out there? I have a sneaky feeling this swings both ways and it's not just "Trump vs the lying liberal media".


Check out The Society of Professional Journalists


They have a good blog..



Journalists and news organizations must realize at this point that President Trump will not tone down his rhetoric. He used his pulpit to attack the press when he was a rising star in the political world. He harassed and taunted news organizations and journalists when he was a candidate. He continues these behaviors 163 days into his presidency.

Instead of fruitlessly hoping the president changes his behavior, the press should immediately focus a large portion of its attention on educating the public about journalism.

.
.


The press needs to teach the public what it does and why it matters. If the press succeeds, it won’t matter how many times the president publishes the words “fake news” on Twitter. The public will know the truth about responsible journalists and news organizations.


blogs.spjnetwork.org...



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: redtic
Perhaps it would be easier to just report real news instead of making up stuff or just taking the word of sources who won't allow their identity to be revealed. We've seen the dishonesty revealed by Trump's insistence that a lot of what they say/print is fake. It isn't the first time the press had driven the narrative. It began back in the Nixon days. It's just that Trump is the first president to have the courage to call them out.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Sublimecraft

20% done.
Evidence of collusion
Comey refuses to offer opinion on collusion

You come closest with 'Stop assuming innocence'. An opinion piece though.

And don't call me a liar when you're literally stating words that don't exist, do.



Did you forget why there is a special counsel?

Manafort? Page?




posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

They have nothing to do with the discussion that was being had.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In my opinion the POTUS has better things to do than tweet about his personal, quite childish grudges against a part of the media. For example explaining to the American people how it is that IBM keeps laying off jobs to Asia and Europe. Or how it is that he can spend 67 BILLION of tax payers dollars on a totally unneccessary wall. Or how it is that a plan that ends decades of deferred maintenance of the American people's health (the ACA) is undermined, whilst offering nothing in return.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

A very thoughtful, verbose whilst pointed observation which mirrors my own feelings. Well delivered. The supposed fomentation of violence in the form of a symbolic attack on media institutions struck me as so embittered. Political cartoons filled the niche which memes currently occupy. The difference is that you don't have to work for the newspaper to publish them. The wrestling match was no different than a political cartoon, and served the same purpose. Why the outrage?

I wanted to commend you before I read the rest of the thread because I think it's important. You are spot on. Thanks for sharing your writing style and bringing some sanity to the discussion.

TooSoon



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 02:29 AM
link   
It is a known fact that Journalists, writers, and artists are injustice collectors. a reply to: LesMisanthrope



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Journalists, writers, and artists have suffered legitimate casualties in the war on free speech. In recent memory there was the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, or the firebombing at Hamburger Morgenpost, both of whom were attacked for printing the same cartoons. That is to say nothing about the censorship in unfree societies, which we might easily refer to had they been able to tell their own tales in the first place.


Thanks for acknowledging that.



But the real threats risk being confused for the false ones. Over the last week, we have been further blinded to the real threats to free expression by unscrupulous journalists, pundits and politicians who continually raise false alarms for the sake of political gain, when it suits them, and never when it is really needed.


Here's where I can't go along with your premise. The "real threat to free expression" is not overblown or exaggerated warnings, in the opinion of those being warned, or the public becoming inured to or leery of bad news. Too many voices, saying contrary things are not a threat to free speech. That's like saying the threat to the free market are people being able to buy and sell what ever they want.

The Free Press is a watchdog for the American people, and if you've ever had a dog, you knw they love to bark. Dogs bark at birds and other dogs, they bark at speeding cars and bicyclists, the post man and sometimes, they bark just to hear their own voice. But, If you've ever had a dog, you recognize the change in timber of those barks when there is something wrong, and there is a prowler or a bear in your garage.

Conversely, it's the government that sabre rattles false alarms, and inures folks to the sounds of sirens. It's the government leaders that promote the "Us Vs Them" and "If you're not with us, you're against us" mentality. It's the government that puts out color coded terror threat alerts, that hardly ever manifest into actual threats to the average American citizen's life. So, if you're going to point fingers at "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", I suggest you look straight to the government.

Your problem is not with the press, or even the government. Your problem is with gullible people who misplace their trust in untrustworthy sources, sources that don't hold the best interest of their listeners at heart, but have the agenda of tricking their listeners into complacency through fear, in order to further their own agendas. Your problem is with the masses who don't understand the concept of "Buyer Beware" whether the seller is the Press or the Government.



edit on 4-7-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 03:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
Considering that this President is attacking the media every day now and spoke of changing laws to be able to sue them for saying things he doesn't like, it's obvious that the people crying wolf are not the press but you conservatives who are crying about the media like babies every day, making a fake issue while very serious problems are occurring in our country.


I think that the press really needs to be scrutinized. I think it's on-topic, but I defer to the moderators, to mention Roberta Baskin and how she was treated by CBS after she exposed abuses by Nike in their factories in Vietnam back in '98.

www.democracynow.org...
observer.com...

Initially enthused by getting the scoop, CBS eventually froze her out when Nike was to be a major sponsor the Winter Olympics. The CBS correspondents at the event even wore Nike logos on their mandated cold weather wear. This all has to do with media consolidation and corporate ownership of major media outlets. The consolidation of media ownership was further forwarded by the FCC under the leadership of Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell who, incidentally, sold us on the notion of yellowcake uranium and mobile WMD labs as a justification for the second Iraq war. But back to Michael:

www.nytimes.com...

This decision was soon overturned by the Senate in a 55 to 40 vote.

lawecommons.luc.edu...

here are some highlights:


Commissioner Adelstein stated, "This is the most sweeping and destructive rollback of consumer protection rules in the history of American broadcasting ... Consumers' anger will flash as they surf through their channels only to find more sensationalism, commercialism, crassness, violence, homogenization and noticeable less serious coverage of news and local events."



As big media companies get bigger, they're likely to broadcast even more homogenized programming that increasingly appeals to the lowest common denominator. If this is the toaster with pictures, soon only Wonder Bread will pop out," charges Commissioner Adelstein.


2003 folks. 14 years ago. How's your TV looking these days? Media consolidation is a big deal. It means corporate interests govern what news you get and what you don't get.

The most interesting thing to me is that Republicans are the ones, generally speaking, who are supportive of deregulation, and yet here's a President elected on a Republican ticket who is openly attacking the media. The media, in turn, is in lockstep decrying with outrage this attack on first amendment rights. Perhaps the source of the problem is corporate personhood. Here's a cool yet challenging article on the subject:

reclaimdemocracy.org...

Here's an article arguing on the other side:

www.npr.org...

It's a tricky topic. I personally do not think that corporations deserve the fundamental rights which the Constitution guarantees for individuals. I see the arguments for and against and I respect them. However I feel it does much more harm than good to allow a corporation to hide behind Constitutional protections.

How're you all feeling? What do you think?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Seriously, this coming from someone who thinks fox news is the truth, after 8 years of obama is an evil muslim devil that will take away all your guns, destroy you with ebola while forcing you into a fema camp to live under sharia law.

Cry me a river.


edit on 4-7-2017 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Seriously, this coming from someone who thinks fox news is the truth, after 8 years of obama is an evil muslim devil that will take away all your guns, destroy you with ebola while forcing you into a fema camp to live under sharia law.

Cry me a river.



Maybe that should be turned to coming from a poster like Les to say who cares about FOX news? It is CNN and the BSNBC, CBS and ABC we have caught lying, not retracting and generally producing fake news to push the public to extremes. I don't watch much of any of them but the mantra of words I can't avoid that I hear from the 'journalist', have proven to be lies lately. Lies intended to bring down the DJT administration are only hurting the USA and helping our enemies.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

CNN is acting like they have been landing under sniper fire for about 12 years now.

This is a great commentary les mis.



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join