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.

 

POLITICS: Internet Replacing Mainstream Media: Update 16-3-05

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Muadibb
The internet is different than TV, because it doesn't take 30 million dollars to post a webpage during the superbowl. There is no executive producer in charge of global online content. How can you say there is no difference when one is controlled by money and the other by people?

Also, what makes you want to put words in my mouth? I never said every news outlet was corrupt, I never said everyone who disagrees with me is a disinfo agent. I never said there is no bias on the internet. Are you even reading my posts or are you mad about something? What are you, 13 or 14, just about to enter high school? I appreciate the fact that you can operate the keyboard, but do you have anything to say other than
?




posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   

They are definitely up to their dirty tricks everywhere and everyway. They use the internet, and they certainly use the trust people have in the internet.

WyrdeOne: What places on the Internet do you not trust? I understand how the technology of the Internet works, but why shouldn't I trust the Internet?



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
smallpeeps
I don't really trust any news source that relies on advertising or corporate subsidies to remain in business. There is too great a tendency to avoid the whole truth in favor of a partial, 'sexier' truth. I certainly don't put my trust in any ONE source, I'd much rather assemble a composite of the information available and make my assesments based on the whole picture, or as close to it as I can get.

I wouldn't trust anyone who is selling books, tapes, CDs, DVDs, or healing crystals. Similarly I wouldn't trust anyone who stands to make money off of my foolishness. I tend to trust those who have nothing to gain by deception, those who appear to have the same fervent love of truth that I do. I've been wrong before, I'm sure it'll happen again, without errors there would be little learning.

Oh, and don't trust whitey!



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Remember always the first rule of war - Divide and conquer. The powerful are a small minority, and they seek to control the weak, a great majority. They must divide us and pit us against each other in order to remain in power. If the people ever united against their masters, well, you remember the French Revolutions..

That is why the news and media are so partisan. We are supposed to be on opposite sides, to be at each other's throats.
We're so busy battling phantoms and propaganda that the real stuff sails right past us. That's what THEY want.

And, that is why the Internet is becoming a widespread news source. You can go to individual sites. You can come to ATSNN. But you can get fairly balanced information



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Outright deception is not easy on the web 'cause you'll be exposed if you are not being truthful. What's more popular among the big-web media giants is to have memory-holes that stories just fall through. This is called 'filtering' the information. If you are getting news from only them, you will miss big stories until they can be 'spun' correctly. In the end, however, even Abu Garib ends up on Fox's websites. :^)



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
two inspirations in one day. not bad, wyrdeone
! you're one sensible fellow or fellowette.
soficrow, if i could give you every vote i ever had for the 'way above top secret' award, i would. your contribution here is outstanding.

great point about the masks of the internet. try using your real name and saying whatever comes to your mind. you will take on a different personality. ever notice the only ones who use their real names around here are always toting the party line? i have. i didn't do a documented statistical study or anything, but not too many people use their real names. the beauty of anonimity is that people are sounding more like the little voice they use to talk to themselves in their heads, instead of the voice that comes out of the mouth.
the partisanship we constantly see here(that i have come to rather enjoy
) is for the most part, i surmise, a golem of professional agent provocateurs. divide the flock and all. obviously the think tanks know what to generally expect with regards to social paradigm shifts, and they are pulling out all the stops to maintain control of their pyramidal empire.
that's why the internet is full of what amount to government versions of 'cleaners'. trained character assassins and truth diffusers.
of course, some people do it for free, because they have taken the party line, hook, and sinker. these are the sheeple that make me the saddest. it's one thing to rationalise evil so you can put food on your family(like cointel professionals), but another thing entirely to be one of the 'one born every minute' marks(like republicans, HAHA! ...couldn't resist, ....democrats, too).

[edit on 21-2-2005 by billybob]



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
That is why the news and media are so partisan. We are supposed to be on opposite sides, to be at each other's throats.
We're so busy battling phantoms and propaganda that the real stuff sails right past us. That's what THEY want.


Absolutely. Every action is a distraction. There is a lot of stuff happening every day all around the globe. The job of the news is ostensibly to make the reader aware of a wide range of targeted news stories. Now, the newspapers will argue they're just responding to the desires of their readers when they include more car advertisments and cut investigative pieces to make room. I don't buy it. The papers continue to debate political soap opera minutia while real issues are forgotten, they debate wars that happened thirty years ago and won't talk honestly about the one underway!

It doesn't help that the 'journalists' being churned out by schools are somewhat different than the hard eyed, tough talking, nosey investigative geniuses they used to be. Maybe that's just another cultural myth I was raised on, but I used to hold Journalists in the same esteem as historians. They are torch bearers for crying out loud, to say it is an important position would be an understatement. For the most part, the kids coming out of Journalism departments around the country are no different than your average American. The ones who are being hired are another story; Big Smile, Little Brain. The ones who chase tough stories don't keep their jobs for long, that's a fact. The ones who shut up and report three feet of rain in California with a smile are congratulated and promoted to peon, second class.

There is an incredible amount of dishonesty in America right now, so much so ordinary people have a hard time accepting the full dose at face value. Rationalizations are wholesale. Partisan thinking just helps reinforce traditional hatreds/values.

Something like a 2000 pound woman struggling to get out of her Lay-z-boy, how did it get so bad? They struggle to change their paradigm, to rationalize and control the situation, but the situation is beyond all control. If an informed citizenry is a responsible citizenry, it's pretty much just a train wreck over here on this side of the Atlantic, and anybody who will tell you different has blinders on, lives somewhere with crickets, or is too stoned to care.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
soficrow, if i could give you every vote i ever had for the 'way above top secret' award, i would. your contribution here is outstanding.


I second that. Just don't get disappeared by the Man. Fight the Man! We don't like the Man! heh heh


Originally posted by billybob
..obviously the think tanks know what to generally expect with regards to social paradigm shifts, and they are pulling out all the stops to maintain control of their pyramidal empire.
that's why the internet is full of what amount to government versions of 'cleaners'.
[edit on 21-2-2005 by billybob]


Oh absolutely! The advances in social engineering from the 40's to present didn't go unnoticed. Well, mostly it did. It's really not hard, and it works like a charm on something like 75% of the population. Some people are bad candidates for one reason or another, IQ too high or low, religious beliefs etc. Gitmo was probably a sort of experiment, to see if these men could be broken and reprogrammed.

It's not something that gets talked about a lot, but programming and reprogramming humans is relatively easy, if messy. Those with sufficient lack of morality might even find it enjoyable. Nobody takes this stuff seriously, but the techniques have been employed by every major cult leader since, I dunno, maybe 6 messiahs before Jesus, and they are as effective today as they ever were.

The good thing of course, is that people who are programmed can almost always be deprogrammed. There is plenty of information regarding the techniques, and there are professionals available for consultations if a loved one or family member is being taken advantage of.

Social engineering is the tool by which whole nations are conquered, by which lovers are won, children are raised, it's one of the basic building blocks of our culture. It's so powerful in fact, that government investigative agencies and local law enforcement never fail to capture or kill those employing the techniques. Koresh, Manson, and Mitnick are three that spring to mind off the top of my head.

All the great generals were/are adepts, because if you can anticipate/affect your enemies next move, you are in a better position to counter it. The Chinese are especially good at this sort of war, but American inteligence services are/were no slouches. They've pretty much all quit by now haven't they? Contractor jobs are so much more lucrative..

They're going to do anything it takes to maintain control, because if they lost control ALL the dirt would come spilling out. And there is a lot of it..an unforgivable amount. I'm sure they'll be deposed sooner or later.

They're probably just trying to figure out our limits, our threshold of believability. That way the next muppet they install won't overstep his bounds accidentally. That's fine by me, get this nonsense done with and bring on the utopia.


[edit on 21-2-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Wyrdeone says,


I think the internet news clearly suffers from overzealous reporters, and the pseudo-anonymity is no doubt at fault.
This is the #1 reason to not believe everything you read on the internet. CREDIBILLITY! The pseudo-anonymity does seduce users into thinking there is no accountabillity....this leads to a total lack of any kind of credibillity or objectivity, which are SUPPOSED to be journalistic mainstays.
I cant see the internet overcomming this gap for me with this issue in my lifetime.

Wyrde continues,


The internet stands to revolutionize journalism, because it allows independent, guerilla reporters to avoid capture and censure while still dumping their reports to a large audience, almost instantly.
This wouldnt be a good thing. That is also an illusion. Just because more people can now spew off and be "heard" doesnt mean all that babble will be "newsworthy" or even able to rise above the din of similar tales. As to "guerilla reporters"...what is their access to the story, what verification have/can they do to support the story, How can we take their "anonymous" words for this?

Journalism requires a track record of success and objectivity. It also requires $$$ and some form of reccognition or validity in order to gain access to information not generally available to gq public. while the internet can be done cheaper in many ways than traditional mass media....how can any one or a few people hope to garner their resources in a way to get them some of the precurser things ive mentioned to truely be knows as a serious source for tangible info?

Yes eventually some will rise out of the sea of "info" floating on the net....they will become "known" entities with some credibillity, but yet as soon as they do, they become subject to similar forces as the mainstream media does.

The world NEEDS the big mainstream news groups right now, and its good that they are seeing their credibillities sorley questioned....the fragmentation of the collective consciousness continues with the internet...not more unity. At certain points, people will have to have a few known places for info that have widespread credibillity. Those in power DO set the standards, yet they cant afford to ignore needing to remain credible in order to gain the legitimacy and access being mainstream offers.

The big newsgroups dont take their news from the internet.
YES stories off the internet do make the news but thats only because the info was of such widespread apeal that it became news/celebrity...most of the news, while it comes thru the internet, travels on owned "wires" and recognized sources with decades of doing this.

Most of the blog news is mearly regurgitations of stuff from one place to the other, often with no direct support or attribution...and as always, the more the story is passed along from one person to the other, the more the story changes. With the internet being soo open to the idea of feeling hidden and loose accountabillity...the storys are only MORE prone to suffering distortion due to BIAS. At least in the mainstream, there is a general standard that is being applied and one with billions of $$$ driving it....the stakes require more accountabillity than the avg blog will achieve.

The internet is another TOOL that the mainstreamers will use...The main streamers would be LAX in use of their established clout in not holding internet "source material" severely accountable at all times, in order to continue to keep their place as the more legitimate media.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Maybe we should ask why we watch news. Is it to get info or to reafirm what we want to know and understand? Many media outlets are doing the second for use. They pick the subjects and they write the storys. The interent isn't any different. I for one see the world with bais. I don't have the info to see the whole picture. Nor do I have the resources to support the views I now hold. I have to guess. I hope using logic and reason I can sort out the news from spin. My own framework of the world stops me from a true picture. The media understands this all to well. They feed on misinfo. I'm sure we all would like to think we have a good grasp on things but thats just not possable. The internet may just make things worse. Info overload is a problem too. The sysytem or method you use to pick out info could and is biased thus leading to a failed understanding. If you want to fell good about your little world you'll seek out news sources that are playing your music. But it mite be you can't ever come to the true and having faith in your own brain power, not bill orillie, will save the day.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 03:01 AM
link   
welcome to the global village.
what say we start lynching all the arseholes?
or at least, we should tar and feather them.
you know the ones....
the ones who live on the backs of others, as opposed to those who work side by side.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by billybob]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

WyrdeOne - you do turn a phrase. Especially liked that bit about "wanton jackassery."


.


humm....and i wonder why you chose to respond quoting my response to him..... Is this the way you try to get back at me?.....
Grow up soficrow....



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Also, what makes you want to put words in my mouth? I never said every news outlet was corrupt, I never said everyone who disagrees with me is a disinfo agent. I never said there is no bias on the internet. Are you even reading my posts or are you mad about something? What are you, 13 or 14, just about to enter high school? I appreciate the fact that you can operate the keyboard, but do you have anything to say other than
?


Well, i did jump to conclusion because that's what normally some people around these boards say, so my apologies if i misunderstood what you were trying to say. BTW, i am not 13-14, I am more than twice that age....

[edit on 22-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   
I have basically quit watching the mainstream news, I Watch INN and BBC news and democracy now. I am struck by the fact that this administration has manipulated the news more than other administrations,not saying that the others did not do it, but lets face it if Clinton had had the chokehold on the media like Bush does we would never have heard of Monica Lewinski.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by goose I am struck by the fact that this administration has manipulated the news more than other administrations,not saying that the others did not do it, ...

I'd say that is NOT a fact.
The information age is still new. Really only the last two presidents have had the Internet. Bias in reporting news is not new.

I'd say that truth in media has been questionable for a long time, probably always. I know that in the 80s, I KNEW the truth of a local story. But what the papers printed locally was totally different.
We certainly can question the truth in the coverage of the VietNam war, the Kennedy assassination and many other circumstances in the last 50 years.
I'd venture to guess the government has used the presss to get THEIR point to the populace since before we had a government here.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I'd say that truth in media has been questionable for a long time, probably always.


always. only the media enviroments change. this is hinted at in marshall mcluhan's phrase, 'the medium is the message'. the importance of content is overuled by the communication technology being used. our own observations of truth change, depending on what medium we use to ingest. these are tactile, acoustic, visual, kinetic or proprioceptive biases, accordingly.
try reading the transcript of an interview. then, listen to the audio, or watch it on TV, and see how very different your perception is in each case.
everybody needs to 'get mcluhan'. 'the gutenburg galaxy' is a good place to start with relation to your statement here, dontt re-ad on me.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Originally posted by goose I am struck by the fact that this administration has manipulated the news more than other administrations,not saying that the others did not do it, ...

I'd say that is NOT a fact.
... Bias in reporting news is not new.

...I'd venture to guess the government has used the presss to get THEIR point to the populace since before we had a government here.




The BIG difference between the Bush administration and other governments is the use of "covert propaganda." ...The Government Accountability Office (GOA) has found this administration guilty of "covert propaganda" sveral times, and of misusing federal money for propaganda purposes in violation of the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits spending in excess of appropriations.



Bush Used Tax Dollars for Propaganda

"The Government Accountability Office reported on Thursday that mock videos produced by the Bush administration "constitute covert propaganda" and violate Federal law. The Bush administration violated the same law last May with Medicare "news" segments targetting the elderly. The Accountability Office also found that federal agencies under the Bush administration distributed editorials and newspaper articles written by government officials without identifying them, which also constitutes "covert propaganda" and violates Federal law."



Believe me, if the GOA had found Clinton guilt on even one count of propagada, they would have been all over him like army ants on honey.

So no, it's not more of the same. It's waayyy waaayy worse. And it's destroying our democracy. That's it's purpose.



.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

The BIG difference between the Bush administration and other governments is the use of "covert propaganda." ....


Many governments use forms of covert-propaganda soficrow, the US is not the only one. While i do not know everything about this case i know you tend to exagerate to try to drive into people a hatred towards the government of the US. There are countries that have more propaganda and worse than the US, if there was not, none of the countries in the world would be in any scandal.... So tell me, what developed country in the world has never been in some form of scandal?.... even recently....

Even the "liberal" government of Canada has been involved in scandals where there have been misappropiation of funds for propaganda....

There are countries that use worse forms of "covert-propaganda" you can count Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and Cuba as some of those countries. So your "hint" that the US is the only country that uses covert-propaganda is a lie.



[edit on 22-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by soficrow

The BIG difference between the Bush administration and other governments is the use of "covert propaganda." ....


Many governments use forms of covert-propaganda soficrow, the US is not the only one.



We are talking about the USA - and "covert propaganda" is illegal in the USA - so is spending in excess of appropriations, under the Antideficiency Act.

IMO - We have the right to expect any common American leader to respect our nation's laws.


Bush Used Tax Dollars for Propaganda

The Government Accountability Office reported on Thursday that mock videos produced by the Bush administration "constitute covert propaganda" and violate Federal law. The Bush administration violated the same law last May with Medicare "news" segments targetting the elderly. The Accountability Office also found that federal agencies under the Bush administration distributed editorials and newspaper articles written by government officials without identifying them, which also constitutes "covert propaganda" and violates Federal law.


...and more reports come in every week. Just follow the links maudib, or even, do your own search.

Bottom line: Bush does not respect the laws of the land.



.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
my 2 cents:

TV is too powerful a tool of manipulation/control for any govn't of any country to ignore - so of course it is used by them.

It seems the focus is now shifting towards the internet - so obviously this this must also now be controlled - we are in a 'golden age' of free information - enjoy it while it lasts.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join