Shut to non members?

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, like my dad says...

I could tear up a steel ball with a rubber mallet.

*

*

I think I know what's wrong with Springer's back.

Originally posted by RANT
I think I know what's wrong with Springer's back.

Bruuuuuuuummm...tish

Sanc'.

The Tip Of The Iceberg

Val's report (which is definitely excellent) represents the power of ATS as a news source.

In the future, I anticipate ATSNN in particular* gaining greater visibility as the emphasis shifts from it being a news portal to a source of news in itself.

Being a news source means, among other things, attracting a lot of attention as other news portals pick up and cite the original source.

These cites can result in vast amounts of “incidental traffic” as Internet users track down the original story, then browse around the rest of the website to evaluate the credibility of the source.

Depending on the visitor, this may “sell” ATS or discredit it.

I have zero complaints regarding the current presentation of ATS, which is clean and professional -- if perhaps a bit overwhelming due to the sheer volume of ATS' content, which is a good problem to have.

In light of the likely increase in “non-conspiracy” traffic being drawn to ATS, however, it may make sense to emphasize, re-emphasize and, if necessary, over-emphasize the relative editorial neutrality of ATS itself.

Actually, I don't think this can be overdone, because it is easy for readers to forget. A good example is Rense.com, which goes out of its way to portray itself as simply passing along information without bias, but is perceived nonetheless as the source of the articles it carries and thus gets branded as “lunatic fringe”.

In fact, in the case of Rense.com, despite their numerous disclaimers, I still had to have this distinction pointed out to me by a fellow ATSer, as an example of the effect I'm referring to.

I don't think this requires any policy changes for ATS. Indeed, my concern is not that ATS must change, but rather that it would be good to further refine the “cold” presentation of the site to reinforce the message that although ATS encourages a wide range of viewpoints, it doesn't necessarily endorse them.

In other words, I am suggesting that efforts to better portray the nature of ATS doesn't involve “re-branding”, but actually involves clarifying what ATS is about. That can be a tricky piece of marketing, but I think it's a worthwhile effort.

Cynics can charge that seeking wider acceptable of ATS amounts to “selling out”, and I used to have similar notions.

Over time, however, I have come to appreciate that this is not the case, but rather that appealing to a wider Internet audience serves the very important purpose of exposing more people to alternative viewpoints and information that would otherwise be unavailable to them.

And that's what Denying Ignorance is all about.






* I know Val's FEMA Detainment Camp article went into the topically-relevant Katrina Aftermath forum, but it just as easily could have qualified as an ATSNN Special Report. With over 125,000 views already, I'm sure it would be a popular ATSNN feature.

The article is incredible, I have tried to defend some of the initial decisions but I have not kept up to date with it, too many commitments!
However, regardless of any opinion, the whole article accompanied by many detailed photographs is something that the majority of people will just never get from the media and is a prime example of the capabilities of the modern medium of the Internet and the ability to get first hand accounts with video/audio/photos of situations as they develop.

The wide spectrum of people on this site with varied geographical locations, vocations and inherently the ability to report from the inside is one of the things that sets this place apart from the rest. It's not just another propoganda outlet but a source of first hand information.
The construct of ATS, including it's sometimes seemingly harsh rules, encourages an enviroment that enables people to gain respect and trust and means that information can often be deemed much more likely as reliable purely based on it's source.

People here tend to be more open to various interpretations and possibilities, though some people who are probably relatively new and enthusiastic tend to be so jazzed up on the new insights they have found, they fail to grasp the ability to see through the black and white of the situation and into the varuious shades of gray. I form this opinion mainly on memories of my own experiences as I grew into the murky depths of conspiracy theories myself.
This is the main reason I tend to get out of hand and over excited on some accounts, though the crucial thing that I must never forget, and neither must anyone else, is that everyone has their own opinion. But we must never forget either the ability to look at things from all angles.

But enough of that, it's fantastic that even with the new servers ATS is almost buckling under the strain! Well kind of anyway, sorry about the bills you guys up top!

Originally posted by Majic
In light of the likely increase in “non-conspiracy” traffic being drawn to ATS, however, it may make sense to emphasize, re-emphasize and, if necessary, over-emphasize the relative editorial neutrality of ATS itself.

Actually, I don't think this can be overdone, because it is easy for readers to forget. A good example is Rense.com, which goes out of its way to portray itself as simply passing along information without bias, but is perceived nonetheless as the source of the articles it carries and thus gets branded as “lunatic fringe”.

In other words, I am suggesting that efforts to better portray the nature of ATS doesn't involve “re-branding”, but actually involves clarifying what ATS is about. That can be a tricky piece of marketing, but I think it's a worthwhile effort.

Cynics can charge that seeking wider acceptable of ATS amounts to “selling out”, and I used to have similar notions.

Over time, however, I have come to appreciate that this is not the case, but rather that appealing to a wider Internet audience serves the very important purpose of exposing more people to alternative viewpoints and information that would otherwise be unavailable to them.

And that's what Denying Ignorance is all about.

I think you are dead-on here. The truth of the matter is how many of us even share our participation on this site with friends, family and coworkers? What you are saying is a very real issue worth considering.

This is an outstanding message board, with amazing participants. I feel to some degree that it is too easy to have an initial impression of this site that may cause many to discount the credibility of what you find here.

Then again, maybe that's ok too....