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.

 

Kremlin launches new disinformation agency

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Hmm. Maybe Comrade News Network would be a better name.




posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi


I am not American, but is there really political censorship going on? Any evidence that news is being filtered out by the US authorities?


Nope.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: underwerks
Anyone else find it strange how many so-called patriots showed up in this thread arguing in favor of a foreign nations state controlled media?

Actually, I find it quite helpful, and in some cases a confirmation of previous hunches.



That hammer and sickle looks pretty damn close to Q



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

www.abovetopsecret.com...

While your OP makes a ridiculous extrapolation and conclusions which rely on information being taken out of context or not put in proper context, your second post uses "theconserrvativetreehouse" as a source.

A known right wing propaganda source. Did you "filter" that source before you used it?




Well get on over there and prove it wrong. I welcome your flaccid attempt. Did you even comment there and offer any sourcing for what you find wrong about it?

While it's true that The Last Refuge is pro-Trump, they offer very accurate reporting. Please show me where they've made any factual mistakes like, say for example, CNN has done and does repeatedly. I don't think you can deliver on your rhetoric.

When they offer their opinion/commentary they not only clearly state it as such, but give clear and in-depth reasoning to support it.

I can see why you don't like it---the truth hurts when your position is weak.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: dug88


Meh American propaganda, Russian propaganda. It's all the same #. Who cares? There's been no real news for years anyway. If there ever even was.


Smith-Mundt doesn't have anything to do with the American MSM and wasn't really doing anything to limit government propaganda within the US. What it forbade was the dissemination to domestic audiences of propaganda produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors and State Department for foreign audiences.

Think Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, etc.

The biggest influence the US government (or the UK government, French government, etc) has over the media is that the media is wholly dependent on the government as the principal source of what they report about the government and its operations.

Russian state run media is an entirely different beast in which the Kremlin has final editorial control over everything. The editor-in-chief of RT and Sputnik is a woman named Margarita Simonyan and there's literally a phone on her desk that is a direct line to the Kremlin (it's yellow if you're wondering).



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well I never said it won't live up to its claims! In fact I can't see how the claims even differ from FAN's activity so far. So your argument seems irrelevant; whether it lives up to it's claims or not, it can still be biased, or "fake news" (your words, not mine).

No news source writes any articles, they are written by people. And even if we could look into the future and see what they are going to write, we might not agree over it's falsehood or truth. However from the source itself we know it to be a direct offshoot off of an existing organisation.

If you hear about a new McDonald's opening up in your neighborhood, are you going to wonder if you'll actually be served a Big Mac, or a Whopper instead? Maybe the manager will go rogue and make fried chicken? Or tacos? Who knows, right? Just have to wait and see! It's ridiculous to claim they will serve Big Macs, when they haven't even served their first hamburger yet.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: The GUT



Well get on over there and prove it wrong. I welcome your flaccid attempt. Did you even comment there and offer any sourcing for what you find wrong about it?


No. I did not participate in that thread. There is so much wrong with it that it would require quite a bit of time to do it justice. Not only did you use a highly questionable source, you employed several logical fallacies.



While it's true that The Last Refuge is pro-Trump, they offer very accurate reporting. Please show me where they've made any factual mistakes like, say for example, CNN has done and does repeatedly. I don't think you can deliver on your rhetoric.


That's easy. Just do a quick search for Sundance and Jessica Chambers.

While the writer is known for using decent sources, including CNN, they are known for taking things out-of-context and and making illogical extrapolations.



I can see why you don't like it---the truth hurts when your position is weak.


Don't like what? Be specific.

I stand by my point that you are not in any position to lecture others about "filtering" their information when you use sources that are not only questionable in their reporting, they are dishonest enough to wipe unfavorable comments from their social media pages and even went as far as to take content off of their website to cover their asses.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: DJW001

Russia is very interested in influencing and grabbing the attention of Americans


just stupid Americans, which we have a lot of...and of course, it will be used as a "legitimate source" on ATS.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
The biggest influence the US government (or the UK government, French government, etc) has over the media is that the media is wholly dependent on the government as the principal source of what they report about the government and its operations.

Russian state run media is an entirely different beast in which the Kremlin has final editorial control over everything. The editor-in-chief of RT and Sputnik is a woman named Margarita Simonyan and there's literally a phone on her desk that is a direct line to the Kremlin (it's yellow if you're wondering).


Especially TV in America has a lot of problems with sensationalism, spin and putting profit over journalistic quality. But the Founding Fathers would turn in their graves if they saw how some people on this site openly prefer a completely state-controlled media system.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

No. I did not participate in that thread. There is so much wrong with it that it would require quite a bit of time to do it justice. Not only did you use a highly questionable source, you employed several logical fallacies.


I mostly sourced the OIG report itself and other public statements. Stuff like the 99-page ruling on FISA abuse by the Obama Admin. I went back and looked and I'm confident it's a solid offering.

As for the logical fallacies...so far you're all rhetoric and zero facts. I do give some opinions here & there, but I'm heavy on sourcing and my reasoning. You don't seem to do a lot of that here on the boards.



That's easy. Just do a quick search for Sundance and Jessica Chambers.

While the writer is known for using decent sources, including CNN, they are known for taking things out-of-context and and making illogical extrapolations.


I'll definitely take your suggestion and look into that. I try my very best to follow the evidence wherever it leads even if it's not what I'd prefer to hear.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Cutepants

I think that most folk are just open to real information wherever they can get it. And they should be.

The only problem comes when folk take headlines and blurbs at face value and don't do their own fact-checking.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: The GUT



I mostly sourced the OIG report itself and other public statements. Stuff like the 99-page ruling on FISA abuse by the Obama Admin. I went back and looked and I'm confident it's a solid offering.


Read what I said again, in my first post on the issue. I am referring to the source for your 2nd post.



As for the logical fallacies...so far you're all rhetoric and zero facts. I do give some opinions here & there, but I'm heavy on sourcing and my reasoning.


It would appear that you do not understand what a logical fallacy is. Here is an example from the OP in question:



Those who are willing to follow the truth wherever it leads and have been following the politicization of the DOJ know that there is much more to come.


That is a logical fallacy.



You don't seem to do a lot of that here on the boards.


I just did. If you are trying to trash talk, you need to work on your skills.



I'll definitely take your suggestion and look into that. I try my very best to follow the evidence wherever it leads even if it's not what I'd prefer to hear.


Sure.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT
a reply to: Cutepants
I think that most folk are just open to real information wherever they can get it. And they should be.
The only problem comes when folk take headlines and blurbs at face value and don't do their own fact-checking.

Problem is that is seems too many folks allow their opinions and knowledge base to be reinforced by the filters that they themselves have imposed.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Cutepants




Well I never said it won't live up to its claims! In fact I can't see how the claims even differ from FAN's activity so far. So your argument seems irrelevant; whether it lives up to it's claims or not, it can still be biased, or "fake news" (your words, not mine).

No news source writes any articles, they are written by people. And even if we could look into the future and see what they are going to write, we might not agree over it's falsehood or truth. However from the source itself we know it to be a direct offshoot off of an existing organisation.

If you hear about a new McDonald's opening up in your neighborhood, are you going to wonder if you'll actually be served a Big Mac, or a Whopper instead? Maybe the manager will go rogue and make fried chicken? Or tacos? Who knows, right? Just have to wait and see! It's ridiculous to claim they will serve Big Macs, when they haven't even served their first hamburger yet.



Of course it can be biased, and likely will be. But if it puts out something truthful, it will be your bias, not theirs, that compels you to dismiss it.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: dug88


Meh American propaganda, Russian propaganda. It's all the same #. Who cares? There's been no real news for years anyway. If there ever even was.


Smith-Mundt doesn't have anything to do with the American MSM and wasn't really doing anything to limit government propaganda within the US. What it forbade was the dissemination to domestic audiences of propaganda produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors and State Department for foreign audiences.

Think Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, etc.

The biggest influence the US government (or the UK government, French government, etc) has over the media is that the media is wholly dependent on the government as the principal source of what they report about the government and its operations.

Russian state run media is an entirely different beast in which the Kremlin has final editorial control over everything. The editor-in-chief of RT and Sputnik is a woman named Margarita Simonyan and there's literally a phone on her desk that is a direct line to the Kremlin (it's yellow if you're wondering).


Your country literally had an 'award show' this year where your government awarded what it said was 'real News' while telling everyone what 'fake news' is. How is that not propaganda?

Also because America has been in a constant state of war for the last...well we'll go with 17 years...cause ya know...I guess all the 'police action' in other countries doesn't count as war I guess..

Anyway because of America's wartime laws all the media in America is approved by your government.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

That's the official story. And then there's things like this:


But the Obama administration appealed her 2011 ruling quashing the trial subpoena, and in 2013, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a split decision, sided with the administration, ruling that there was no such thing as a reporter’s privilege. In 2014, the Supreme Court refused to hear my appeal, allowing the 4th Circuit ruling to stand. Now there was nothing legally stopping the Justice Department from forcing me to either reveal my sources or be jailed for contempt of court.

But even as I was losing in the courts, I was gaining ground in the court of public opinion. My decision to go to the Supreme Court had captured the attention of the nation’s political and media classes. Instead of ignoring the case, as they had for years, the national media now framed it as a major constitutional battle over press freedom.

theintercept.com...

It's a lengthy article and a topic worth two threads of their own. Just saying that we're essentially on our own, the literal we. I really think we are.



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Watch it be more honest than "our own" "news media" is.



edit on 19-4-2018 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: The GUT

You've got the right spirit, there; information coming from any channel can be real. When you read something you can separate between spin and factual claims that can be checked.

But I was talking about structural problems in American television or in Russian media. Obviously not even the worst propaganda outlet is going to lie about everything; they'll just lie when it suits their agenda, when and if they think they can get away with lying.

In a state controlled media climate the state can try to force most of the actors to tell the truth. But of course the state is not able to do this, it ends up enforcing it's own, one-sided agenda instead, depending on who controls the state machinery. In America media is dominated by owners of corporations, and they can spread their agenda, but at least they'll be challenged by each other. Everyone is free to start their own TV station, if they're rich. On the internet even poor people can make a site, and the government wont shut it down nearly as easily as happens in some countries. People like Alex Jones would be dead or bankrupt in Russia, or jailed.

Of course I agree with everything you said in this post



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Why would I dismiss something truthful



posted on Apr, 19 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Cutepants

Yep, were on the same page. Nicely stated. And we better fight for the internet because that's the real power we have if unbridled.



edit on 19-4-2018 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join