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: 7
66
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Sublimecraft



'Trump and Russia collude to interfere in US elections'.


No MSM outlet has claimed such. There are several investigations underway on collusion. They are newsworthy.


They all claimed it....thousands of times.

Someone with time to research it would likely find at least 50,000 examples of it on youtube alone.

What we are noticing is the left have completely descended into TOTAL delusion.

Keep crying wolf while the REAL wolves are descending upon you all.

Not one of us will do anything but laugh through our tears......




posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

I disagree. If it's been claimed thousands of times, why does it seem an impossibility for someone to quote just one?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tulpa
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Didn't someone, not so long ago, make it legal for propaganda to be used against the American people?
Seems like his plan is really bearing fruit.
Much of it low hanging.


The laws restraining government are but window dressing.

They have been using propaganda against the American people long before the change you mention.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   
You sir win the internet forever and throughout the universe.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ParasuvO

I disagree. If it's been claimed thousands of times, why does it seem an impossibility for someone to quote just one?


Here read this headline for ONE

CNN

www.cnn.com...


My google "Trump colludes with Russian" literally got hundreds of MSM stories.


Here is another lie about DJT with a shot from Col-burt spelled (colbert).

www.newsweek.com...
edit on 4-7-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ParasuvO

I disagree. If it's been claimed thousands of times, why does it seem an impossibility for someone to quote just one?


Here read this headline for ONE

CNN

www.cnn.com...


My google "Trump colludes with Russian" literally got hundreds of MSM stories.


Here is another lie about DJT with a shot from Col-burt spelled (colbert).

www.newsweek.com...


That's nice - please quote the text in either that asserts Trump colluded with Russia.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

That's true.
We are all victims of propaganda but that legislation was a green light to open the floodgates.
Its more blatant than ever now.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: redtic

Considering the 80/20 rule of headline writing, it's enough that the headline alleges it. Most people don't read past that. So if the headline says "Trump Colludes With Russia," most people aren't going to read anything else.

What message does that send?
edit on 4-7-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

This is the title of the article you linked from CNN:

"Intel chiefs tell investigators Trump suggested they refute collusion with Russians"

Where is the claim that an MSM source has stated that Trump colluded with Russia?

Here's your News Week article:

"Fox News Figureheads Suggest Trump Campaign Collusion With Russia Would Not Be Illegal"

In what way does that claim that Trump colluded with Russia?

You typed key words into google and think that means that any MSM source has lied to the public by stating that Trump colluded with Russia?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The point is, no such headline exists in the MSM.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
For those of you having trouble seeing the "Trump-Russia collusion" pushed by the media, cogitate over the following:


By now, everyone knows that a headline determines how many people will read a piece, particularly in this era of social media. But, more interesting, a headline changes the way people read an article and the way they remember it.
...
a headline can influence your mindset as you read so that you later recall details that coincide with what you were expecting.
...
Inferences, however, remained sound: the misdirection was blatant enough that readers were aware of it and proceeded to correct their impressions accordingly.


How Headlines Change the Way We Think

See also reframing



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: redtic

Considering the 80/20 rule of headline writing, it's enough that the headline alleges it. Most people don't read past that. So if the headline says "Trump Colludes With Russia," most people aren't going to read anything else.

What message does that send?


Yeah, you seem to be moving the goalposts here. So it's now not a matter of the MSM explicitly peddling that Trump colluded with Russia, but that their headlines could possibly suggest that if read incorrectly and if the actual article isn't read. Got it.

The facts are:
1) Russia attempted to interfere with our election
2) Russia at the very least wanted Hillary to lose, if not wanting Trump to win
3) The possibility of collusion with Trump or members of his campaign/administration is very real

Considering that and how very big this whole story is, I am not surprised there are numerous headlines about Trump, Russia and possible collusion. Are you?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: redtic




1) Russia attempted to interfere with our election


Not a fact. The intelligence community concluded with high confidence. That means it's only an accusation. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.


2) Russia at the very least wanted Hillary to lose, if not wanting Trump to win


Only according to the CIA, which claims they received that information from Russian sources. Yet, no evidence was shown or given.



3) The possibility of collusion with Trump or members of his campaign/administration is very real


So is the opposite. But we never hear anything about that.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Fair enough. Let's go with 'near certitudes'.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: redtic




Fair enough. Let's go with 'near certitudes'.


Accusations is more fitting.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: redtic

Playing Devil's Advocate here, but with a fairly strong stance:


1) Russia attempted to interfere with our election


The DNC was hacked, apparently by someone/a group inside Russia. Whether or not the Russian state was behind it, who knows.


2) Russia at the very least wanted Hillary to lose, if not wanting Trump to win


Quite probably, yes. But this is unclear, and such sentiments wouldn't necessarily be confined to the Russian government.


3) The possibility of collusion with Trump or members of his campaign/administration is very real


Define "very real." Trump has extensive business connections all across the planet. It's not surprising some are Russian. No-one has yet shown that any of Trump's Russian business contacts played any role in any campaign to swing the election.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ketsuko

The point is, no such headline exists in the MSM.


You guys are not ignorant now after all, as you know I was going to find quotes, right?
Read and weep:

www.dailykos.com...
"This, then, would be the precise sort of "collusion" with foreign intelligence efforts that probes of the Trump campaign's association with Russian election hacks have been exploring."

nymag.com...

"that U.S. investigators “have examined reports from intelligence agencies that describe Russian hackers discussing how to obtain emails from Mrs. Clinton’s server and then transmit them to Mr. Flynn via an intermediary.” "

www.newsweek.com...
"Below is a new timeline of publicly reported events of Donald J. Trump’s acts of accommodation toward Russia since the U.S. presidential election."


nymag.com...
"What’s new is that explicit evidence of collusion may now extend to the Trump campaign itself."

NOW DENY AWAY for your lying MSM.
edit on 4-7-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: redtic

Where is the evidence?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: redtic

Where is the evidence?


Red can't find you any since we all know it didn't exist from the start.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I haven't read a single headline from any major media outlet that has lead me to believe that the investigations are over and Trump or his team are guilty of anything. I interpret exactly what they say... evidence mounts or so and so met with such and such... yadda yadda.

I think the real problem here is that anyone that says anything negative about Trump is automatically wrong in his supporters eyes.




top topics



 
66
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join