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.

 

ATS: Peter Jennings Reads An ATS Post on The Daily Show

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Well it appears from those that have seen this program, Jenning's took a dive... I guess it could be expected. (Just wanted to protect his prurty(pretty) face.... Sad! I will expect he will venture to this site, if he has not done so already. Bad Form Mr. Jenning's, Your Opinion has allot to be desired, I'm done listening to you!
Add him to " The Born Again Idiot Pool "




posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra

Originally posted by RANT
AboveTopSecret.com wasn't mentioned. If Jennings story was on the up and up (meaning he wasn't covering for being a lurker himself) his son just copied the text and sent him the post via e-mail.


Ahhh... that explains how I missed it. Heh, in a way, it makes the whole thing that much cooler. An under-the-table nod. Sweet. Of course, now I'm dying of curiosity as to which member is Peter Jenning's son, assuming he's even a member, and didn't just find it in a Google cache.


Originally posted by xenofab
I also saw him on ABC's Good Morning America Wednesday am. On that show he appeared quite nervous, like he was waiting for the interviewer to call him some sort of freak. He appeared much more relaxed on the Daily Show.


It may be due to Rather-Gate. Even though Peter Jennings is affiliated with ABC, and not CBS, the fact that CBS, who are notorious for refusing to admit when it was wrong in the past, silencing Dan Rather from here on out, usually means a media-wide shakedown is soon to come. Combine that with the fact that Jennings is about to report on a rather controversial subject, and I would expect that in his shoes, I'd be nervous too. You know he had to be up all night, triple-checking all his facts.




posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   

No matter how you look at this, this is a score not only for ATS, but for those thinkers who search for "Truth" as well. A dent may have been made, but the more we keep poking and don't give up, the bigger it will become.


I choose to look at it in a slightly different way. At no point during the interview was "abovetopsecret.com" or "Dr. Love" credited as the source. In fact, while Dr. Love's post was in fact a POST, Jennings claimed that the source was a blog. Yes, I realize that this is a subtle distinction.

While I agree that this is very much an "internal score" for those of us who are already familiar with ATS, the rest of the world remains ignorant of the true source. I'd rate this as an "external score" if ATS were at least mentioned on the daily show. As Seth76 noted in the other Daily Show thread, there is a question about the copyright privileges:


From the Terms And Conditions Of Use
18.) By posting on this message board, you relinquish all exclusive copyright privileges to the material you post and you grant me non-exclusive rights to publish your posts in digital form, hard copy, book, magazine or other publishing medium in perpetuity. I and the staff of AboveTopSecret.com have the authority to decide to display your postings or not, at our discretion.

I assume that ATS owns the copy write and will be contacting Comedy Central.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Does this mean that Jennings should have gotten permission from Simon before reading this on-air?

I will also point out that Jennings never denied Dr. Love's hypotheses.

I don't think we will see 'official disclosure' until the level of military technology advances another few levels.

MK



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jessemole
Bad Form Mr. Jenning's, Your Opinion has allot to be desired, I'm done listening to you! Add him to " The Born Again Idiot Pool "


Why? Because he, as a credible journalist in the face of a media shakedown is maintaining a healthy skepticism when reading a post that suggests a deal between him and this alleged "Shadow Government" regarding JFKs assassins and a disclosure on Aliens? Is that why you feel his opinion "has allot(sic) to be desired"? Does this make him a "Born Again Idiot"?

If so, you have a lot to learn about the real world. Peter Jennings does not have the luxury of liable, speculation based off heresay, and throwing out conspiracy theories as if they were fact. He is a journalist, and regardless of his personal opinions, has to play ball to remain in the public light, working for an accredited news agency.

Additionally, consider John Stewart, who is well known for his dislike of the current administration, felt this post to be a bit out there as well. Even I, a member of ATS, and (hopefully) as open-minded as is reasonable, would be leery of such a thing.

Lastly, what should he have said? "Why, yes, as a matter of fact, the Shadow Government and I did strike a deal! I'm a bloody puppet!!! The full story at eleven." The biggest insult to a journalist would be suggesting that they took a bribe to report what someone else told them to. Even excluding the content of the post, Jennings had every right in the world to scoff at it and humiliate the source for suggesting he struck a deal and compromised the journalistic code of ethics. Instead he merely made light of it in a very professional manner.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Let me offer my two cents here. As far as I'm concerned, the JFK special almost totally destroyed Peter Jennings' credibility with me. Now, based on what happens during tonight's UFO special, that could help restore it, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

I ask you this, If you were Peter Jennings and you read this conspiracy theory, as well as many others I'm sure, and you knew that it was pretty much on the money (just for argument sake), what better way of discrediting it than to go on a comedy/news show and read it to the public. Everyone laughs and everyone giggles and that's the end of it. It's called reverse psychology and it works damn well on the herd.

I'm certainly not tooting my own horn here because the theory is out there, but based on how Mr. Jennings twisted the accepted facts, to the general public and not the Warren Commision I mean, in order to put a ridiculous new face on the Kennedy assassination, anything is possible.

Peace


[edit on 24-2-2005 by Dr Love]



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Let me offer my two cents here. As far as I'm concerned, the JFK special almost totally destroyed Peter Jennings' credibility with me. Now, based on what happens during tonight's UFO special, that could help restore it, but I'm not going to hold my breath.


So the credibility you give to journalists is based entirely on whether or not their story agrees with yours?

That sounds a lot like the alleged conspiracy that the government controls the media, except it's applied on a consumer level, where the audiences opinion determines credibility. Sounds like either way, the journalists are screwed.

It'd be a nice world if we could base journalistic credibility off their interviews, fact-finding, and ability to remain professional even under the most extreme of circumstances.

So what happens if Jennings gives a spectacular presentation, with many interviews from great sources, remains professional the entire time, presents it in an unbiased fashion, and the findings are counter to what you believe?

Does it mean that they suck at their profession, or does it just mean that someone disagreed with you, after doing their own research?

[edit on 2/24/2005 by thelibra]



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
GREAT THREAD!!!

if peter jennings was a member on this site, wouldn't he get "mad points"






posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
So the credibility you give to journalists is based entirely on whether or not their story agrees with yours?


Well, I do have a right to my opinion. The credibility I give to journalists is not based entirely on whether or not their story agrees with mine, but in this case though, it does. Did you see the JFK special? If so, what did you think?

My book on Peter Jennings is not completely closed yet. Like I said, let me see what happens tonight. If it's garbage, in my opinion, then the gloves will come off tomorrow.

Peace



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
thelibra, After Dr Love's opinion, I have to agree, without having to make more insight into it.... sorry, if you don't stand for what your profession depicts, dispite the rule's that prove otherwise, Why be there?
He had his chance for 15 minutes of fame.... the rest is fluff!
O -yes, here is a topic I can deal with... (Jennings thinking now) What firm ground can I stand on after this... Take a bow my friend, and good luck!
Next New's story please... please...... Until he hears from his son.... Hey Dad!, did you here about what they said on ATS after your program? I think you might want to....... Never mind Son.... never mind!
But Dad, Someone is asking's to look up the Bull's A$$, to verify the quaility of the Beef... I guess it's not here! (son's thought)

[edit on 24-2-2005 by jessemole]



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love

Well, I do have a right to my opinion. The credibility I give to journalists is not based entirely on whether or not their story agrees with mine, but in this case though, it does. Did you see the JFK special? If so, what did you think?

My book on Peter Jennings is not completely closed yet. Like I said, let me see what happens tonight. If it's garbage, in my opinion, then the gloves will come off tomorrow.

Peace


are you a published author???

what do you write about???

conspiracies???





posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL

are you a published author???

what do you write about???

conspiracies???



No.

Nothing since I'm not a writer.

I think there's a conspiracy regarding just about everything I see that has to do with the government and the media, but I keep it to myself for the most part, so as not to seem totally deranged.


You're not Peter Jennings' son are you?

How about a government agent?



Peace



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Maybe Skeptic Overlord is Peter Jennings' son. He does live in Manhattan, you know, and he is a skeptic .


[edit on 05/2/24 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
In response to:


Originally posted by jessemole
thelibra, After Dr Love's opinion, I have to agree, without having to make more insight into it.... sorry, if you don't stand for what your profession depicts, dispite the rule's that prove otherwise, Why be there?


and


Originally posted by Dr Love
Well, I do have a right to my opinion. The credibility I give to journalists is not based entirely on whether or not their story agrees with mine, but in this case though, it does.


You both certainly do have a right to your opinions, and far be it from me to say that your opinion is any less valid that that of others. However, the reverse is also true. It is not -more- valid either, because opinions are not facts, and are not able to be proven or disproven. So saying that you don't like Peter Jennings is a perfectly valid opinion.

However, decrying his credibility so closely pushes the bounds of "opinion" vs. "libel" that I take issue with it.

John Doe on the street could say he hates me, all day long. But if he were to call me illiterate, it would push the bounds of lies, unless it were as a metaphorical comparison to, say, Shakespeare. Compared to Shakespeare, I'd readily admit to such a thing myself. But simply stated on it's own, that I were illiterate, would be considered libel, especially in light of the fact that I one day wish to be an author.

Likewise, stating that Peter Jennings lacks credibility, with nothing other than a difference of opinion to back it up, is libel. Peter Jennings may not be the be-all-end-all of reporters in the world, but he has repeatedly, throughout the years, shown enough credibility to be kept on the air for...however many decades he's been on now. He is very well respected in the industry, and even a conspiracist like John Stewart considers him a fine character. Credibility is not something one just declares, it is given by one's peers and equals in their field.

You two, on the other hand, are unknowns, admittedly see conspiracies in nearly everything, and your main method of communicating these ideas is on a largely anonymous forum, for other conspiracy theorists. Unless you happen to be reporters yourselves, with years of journalistic experience, you really don't have any qualifications to judge the credibility of any reporter. Much less one as well respected as Jennings. You can say you don't like him, that you think he came to the wrong conclusions, and even that you think he looks constipated... but as far as credibility goes, you simply don't have a leg to stand on (barring the case of you being reporters for reputable institutions, that is).


Originally posted by Dr Love
Did you see the JFK special? If so, what did you think?


Honestly, no, I didn't. To tell the truth, I just didn't care enough. Even if JFK wasn't really dead, but was put into hiding, or whatever other theories have come up, he's not president anymore, is probably dead by now, and any issues surrounding his death have long since become moot points. I rank people's obsession with JFK's assassination up there with the people who go re-enact Civil War battles. Waaaaay too much time on their hands. Personally, I think there was a conspiracy. I can only imagine how deep it ran. But my concerns are a lot more focused on the present and the future, rather than something that happened 50 years ago. It's the same reason I really don't care about Area 51.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
...[S]aying that you don't like Peter Jennings is a perfectly valid opinion.

However, decrying his credibility so closely pushes the bounds of "opinion" vs. "libel" that I take issue with it.



This is what Dr. Love actually said and it is a far cry from libel. You need to get a grip, libra.


Originally posted by Dr Love
Let me offer my two cents here. As far as I'm concerned, the JFK special almost totally destroyed Peter Jennings' credibility with me.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
No.

Nothing since I'm not a writer.

I think there's a conspiracy regarding just about everything I see that has to do with the government and the media, but I keep it to myself for the most part, so as not to seem totally deranged.


You're not Peter Jennings' son are you?

How about a government agent?



Peace


nope to none of your questions


congratz to you...

i thought you said you wrote a peter jennings book on this thread???





posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
A few seconds of TV coverage for an intelligent poster from this community is great.


But it is less significant than having regular quality posters with established credentials posting quality material in this community itself.

Why are people so absorbed in the drug that is TV, as if it is some higher form of communication?



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
"There is no such thing as bad publicity, except your own obituary."

The significance of the Jennings quote from ATS is that it is publicity. I doubt that it is better publicity than Google, which is how I got here to begin with, but some astute listeners might be compelled to find out more about ATS and therein lies the benefit. Oh! And it's free.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   
There is no one here that has not offered a great deal of insight and valid points. Right now, Who has the Balls to make it known as some of us realize already.. Sorry, There is no valid position Jennings will take to cement this Issue with a answer.
However, I'd like to point out, Our local new's Cast, made mention on this up coming program, 3 out of 4, were in agreement, there is more out there that can't be explained.... A least they were honest! Except for the sport Jock... He can't see past the point's that create's his paycheck.... Duh!
gimme the ball. I don't see nothin but the Ball!
There is three very important pieces of equipment you need here in this game... the Helment,Shoulder pads(sp) and Cup..... But not the type of cup you would want to drink tea out of!
I will come back with more of a opinion after I see this show within 45 minutes from now... Later!



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I've uploaded a 5MB copy of the Peter Jennings, Daily Show interview at yousendit.

The link is only temporary and will go dead after a few downloads so get it while you can (send me a U2U if it goes dead and you still need a copy):

s29.yousendit.com...

Here's the streaming version from Comedy Central if you don't need an offline copy:
2005-02-23 Peter Jennings on UFO's (Daily Show).wmv



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Thanks to AceofBase for posting the interview.

As Jennings did not cite either ATS or DrLove, I don't see how this will impact the ATS community, at all. Certainly, DrLove can take personal satisfaction for having gotten Jennings' attention, but without a citation, it really falls flat.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join