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.

 

3 lies in a week; msm losing credibility

page: 1
26
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+9 more 
posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   

The media is having a rough week when it comes to reporting on the federal government's multiple ongoing Russia investigations. Three stories in the past seven days have crumbled under greater scrutiny


www.axios.com...

Three fake stories in a week.

The Flynn story, the Deutsche bank story, and now today's CNN story about wikileaks.

For those unaware, all three stories are outlined in the link above.

Now look, I know that many right wing news sources are just as bad.

But there was a time when people would scoff at truepundit or breitbart, etc. and want more main stream sources.

At this point, the msm is no better than these sources.

This week has furthered proved what we all already knew, that these msm sources are interested in journalism, they are activists pushing an agenda.

And they they will push fake news to help their side.

Now I know this is done in the right too.

But the point I am making is we must now lump CNN and ABC etc in as being just as questionable as truepundit and other type sources.

Does this mean that evrything true pundit or CNN or fox says is a lie? Not at all.

But the times of pretending that the msm is somehow more respectable than these other sources is over.

I don't blame anyone for sourcing ABC or cnn or any source, I just will not take any of them at their word without more proof.

Granted this has always been the case, but I just think this week hits that fact home.




posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

They had already lost credibility.

It's just this week a lot of folks are catching up to that fact.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

That's strange I thought that they had already lost credibility, especially for those that know the entire media spectrum is owned by a mere 6 entities, how is it possible to have credible reporting when there are so few players?



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I don't think anyone is surprised about this. The media is doing their part in all of this, they're polarizing people with their blatant hypocrisy and bias. Now if only this kind of dishonesty was recognized equally on both sides.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
And people wonder why Trump has so much power when he yells fake news.

The press has only themselves to blame, and this erosion of trust started long before Trump came on the scene. He's just the first to really capitalize on it.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Yes I know that most people on here, myself indluded, have been saying the msm is full of it and has an agenda.

I am merely pointing out that every person that says "your source is breitbart, I don't trust it" now must admit the same standard needs to be held for msm sources.

Yes many of us conspiracy people have known this about the msm, but it is more out in the open than ever.
edit on 8-12-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

**Insert arbitrary qualifier here as to why MSM is still credible**

We're getting to the point where there really is not a completely trusting source for news. Everything is media.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Breitbart is mainstream, millions of people go to them for news and breaking stories. Just because it's based on the internet doesn't make it not mainstream.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

If Fake was Real , then that would Really be a Real Fake.....Who Knows ?



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   
im just happy that people are finally catching on. ive been telling everyone around me for years that the media from local to national is terribly biased and quite often outright lies or sells mistruths. even today id take every story you read with a grain of salt no matter the source and dig far and wide for any information on the story from all political spectrums. youll usually find that when you collate this data that it refutes whatever point each media outlet is trying to make. so in the end, use whats between your ears
edit on 8-12-2017 by TheScale because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Just like the old narrative from decades ago...

If you flood the news with false truths, the public won't know what to believe.

So let that sink in for a minute...





posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


This week has furthered proved what we all already knew, that these msm sources are interested in journalism, they are activists pushing an agenda.

And they they will push fake news to help their side.


I disagree completely. I don't think that in any of these cases, they intentionally misled. That's what "fake news" is imo. Fake news sites like True Pundit don't correct their mistakes. They don't print retractions. There's no accountability at all because there's nobody to be held to account.

I think these were mistakes. Yes, there were three of them from three separate media outlets in a week and that's unfortunate but mistakes are bound to happen, particularly with breaking news.


But the times of pretending that the msm is somehow more respectable than these other sources is over.


Again, there's a big difference between flubbing the facts in a breaking news piece and then correcting it and fabricating entire news stories with 0 facts, inventing fictional sources to support them and then not correcting bad reporting as soon as it's been revealed to be bad.

I would put 100x more stock in anything from Breitbart than I would True Pundit and 500x as much stock in anything from Fox News. At least when it comes to getting significant facts right. And usually, I'd trust Daily Caller over either of those with the possible exception of a writer or two.

I strongly encourage you not to try to make false equivalences between True Pundit and *any* even remotely mainstream media site. What is the use in that? That doesn't make people more critical of mainstream sources, that makes them less critical of a site like True Pundit.

"The mainstream media gets it wrong so how is True Pundit any different?" is how people will take it. And that's just wrong. If I go right now and make a fake news site that just pushes fake news stories 24/7 are you going to argue that it's basically the same thing as Fox, CNN, Bloomberg, Reuters, Washington Examiner, etc because any one of them might occasionally get something wrong?

I certainly hope not. If you really believe that is the state of affairs then you must also believe that you have no way of knowing anything to any degree of certainty that you didn't witness with your own senses. In which case, how can people hope to discuss what's going on in the world around us?
edit on 2017-12-8 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:59 PM
link   
If you can't tell the difference between the tabloid that is true pundit and real news, you're the reason the media feels they can pull one over on the public from time to time.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I'll probably get some flak for stating this but who cares. Sara Carter is one of my trusted go to sources as of late. She is pretty good at what she does. Sean Hannity got ridiciuled a lot but he delivered some worthy tick tocks lately.

CNN and ABC are now gone from my imaginary list of trusted sources. I still ponder the idea that it was deliberately done to influence biased people on social media and it worked. Even if you correct the error(hours later in ABC's case) the damage is already done. The tweets i read were in parts sounding like the ramblings of lunatics. It's kinda scary how fast disinformation can spread now.

The thing with the View was of course completely unprofessional and really cringy aswell. You shouldn't do that on live TV because now it's on display forever.



Seriously?



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The point is true pundit has an agenda And is willing to push stories to make their side look good.

They are activists and not journalists.

The same is true of the msm at this point,

I will agree, true pundit tends to be more wrong more often than say CNN.

But at this pojnt, anyone willing to discredit a story just because it is true pundit should do the same with say CNN.

Even true pundit has real stories sometimes.

So the point is we should not disregard a story from any site on the mere fact tje site is biased, we should be skeptical of all of them and look at the merits of the story and look for corroborating sources.

Many people, even in ats have the illusion that the msm is above tjis, and this week has proven that is not the case.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
If you can't tell the difference between the tabloid that is true pundit and real news, you're the reason the media feels they can pull one over on the public from time to time.


Where do you go for real news.

Abc, CNN, Reuters?

Oh yeah they all sick too.

Again, although true pundit may be more brazen and more wrong more often, the msm is just as biased.

They are just usually more sophisticated in pushing that bias. This week is showing that wasn't the case for this week.

And further, true pundit has far less influence than the big names caught lying this week. So pointing out that they are in fact activists and not journalists is important.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


What is the use in that? That doesn't make people more critical of mainstream sources, that makes them less critical of a site like True Pundit.


I think you just answered your own question.




posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Sorry, but with Brian Ross the "mistakes" were things that could have been verified with some easy fact checking.

Take linking the Colorado Theater shooting to a TEA Party guy based on a surface name match alone and running with it. A slightly deeper look would have told him it was not the same guy, and it would have taken about 2 minutes of deeper checking, but he was too excited to confirm his bias to do that.

He pulled the trigger just as prematurely again this past week.

If I was as lackadaisical in my job, I would be fired in a heartbeat.
edit on 8-12-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: theantediluvian


What is the use in that? That doesn't make people more critical of mainstream sources, that makes them less critical of a site like True Pundit.


I think you just answered your own question.



Funny, I have been in several threads recent that sources true pundit claiming they were not to be trusted in their own,

But yep, you got me.

I knew the msm would push three fake stories this week causing me to be able to reverse on my true pundit claims and push them as a legit source.

The long con!!!



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks
If you can't tell the difference between the tabloid that is true pundit and real news, you're the reason the media feels they can pull one over on the public from time to time.


Where do you go for real news.

Abc, CNN, Reuters?

Oh yeah they all sick too.

Again, although true pundit may be more brazen and more wrong more often, the msm is just as biased.

They are just usually more sophisticated in pushing that bias. This week is showing that wasn't the case for this week.

And further, true pundit has far less influence than the big names caught lying this week. So pointing out that they are in fact activists and not journalists is important.

A website where the writers use pen names to escape libel suits because of the inflammatory lies they make up isn't on the same level of legitimacy as a MSM source. I'm not a fan of the MSM, but come on.

There's clearly a difference. Actual tabloids even use the real writers names. True pundit can't because that's just how fake their stories are.

And are you also implying that it's a bad thing that the media corrects stories where they're wrong? If they didn't do that, they'd be, well, true pundit.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<<   2 >>

log in

join