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.

 

The Rise of Rectal Journalism

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I saw this, and as much as the title made me want to laugh (b/c of its truth), it really isn't all that funny. Actually, it's pathetic. And true. Its not really new, but it is one of the main reasons the public is turning away from the mainstream media. As I've said before, those who control the MSM refuse to understand or acknowledge, the public's truthmeter is much stronger than they realize, thanks to the internet.



The Rise Of
Rectal Journalism


David Sirota
Working For Change
1-12-6

A lot has already been written about Joe Klein's latest column - a true foray into fantasy. The man is the epitomy of a journalist who is so self-absorbed, so obsessed with himself, or so lazy that he quite literally thinks he can just make things up. But sadly, Klein epitomzes a new brand of journalism sweeping the nation. It's what I call Rectal Journalism because its based on reporters and pundits simply pulling stuff right out of their asses and peddling it as fact, when in fact it is anything but.
www.rense.com...




posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Im laughing so hard in this computer chair here at the desk.

Its not really funny ..it is actually a serious topic line. Very Serious.

It's just that the article you postes is so dead on target and so long overdue.

It is much better than most of what I have posted here in regards to the media.

For a long time now I have had little respect for what passes for the media in this country ..both left and right. Rectal Journalism is so befitting and right on target...its in the X ring so to speak ... the Ten ring on a firearms target at the gun range. Bullseye!!!!

Thanks for this post ...East Coast Kid. I saved it in my bookmarks section and will send it to my sister and brother in law..across country..they too will enjoy it.

Thanks again,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Rectal Journalism is so befitting and right on target...its in the X ring so to speak ... the Ten ring on a firearms target at the gun range. Bullseye!!!!

Thanks for this post ...East Coast Kid. I saved it in my bookmarks section and will send it to my sister and brother in law..across country..they too will enjoy it.

Thanks again,
Orangetom


Hey, glad you appreciated it.


Spread it far and wide, friend. Why not send it to your local newspapers, too! You know how they always say they love to hear from their readers..



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I think it's sad. Most journalists who may act as political correspondences in the newspaper act all smug, and act like their opinions are so "right" all the time. They don't even think or questions things in congress as much as people at the bottom of the "food chain" do. They just try to push "conservitative" or "liberal" on you all the time, so you'll "agree" with them. Which is pretty rare for me.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Their problem is they live such an isolated existence. In their ivory towers and within their little elitist cliques. They talk to each other, breathing the same toxic air. They're not out there in the real world having to earn a living by the sweat of their brow, either. So, they're detached. And often they say what the administration wants them to say, in order to keep that precious access. Those in the media in the run-up to the Iraq War who were the closest to power, got it the most wrong.

Big surprise.


One of the few people in the mainstream media I truly admire is Maureen Dowd (New York Times). She cuts straight to it, all the time, irregardless of who's in power.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Examples of Rectal Journalism

1. Marla Mapes and Dan Rather. Frustrated that nothing was "sticking" to Bush, they throw out some forged documents.

2. 12 alive 1 dead! Ooops, sorry it was the other way around.

3. Executed murderer may be innocent proven by DNA evidence! Oh wait, the results are in, yep he was guilty. Shhhhh. Don't report that, that would upset the anti-execution crowd.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Yeah, it's just so wrong. And amoral, and it's just stupid, we should feel sorry for them, when they're no better than Bill O' Reily(nothing against anyone who watches him), but 2 years ago, today, last January, if look on Maddox X's site from Yahoo in the search engine. I watched him say on TV, he supports censored journalism, and that the American Public doesn't know any better. I honestly think, he's more disconnected than Tara Reid, Anna Nicole Smith, or even Barbara Strisand or Woody Allen. I know there are others out there, but he's the poster boy for it, and the person they're all trying to copy to make that money.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
ECK, that is right on the money.
I am very optimistic because I know of some reporters out there who are trying to be different, are trying to be real reporters. My hat is off to those folks, and I hope they grow in numbers.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
How about one of you bringing me up to speed here...Who is Tara Reid..and for what are they noted. I hesitate to ask since they were placed in the line up of such undistingiushed company.

IN agreement with Thomas Crown's post.. I do know that there are a number of independent reporters who show up at news stations and newspapers to sell thier stories. Also alot of reporters have been killed in the haste to get a scoop. While I feel for their familys...it is the price one pays for moving up this food chain. It can be cut throat on both ends.
I dont put much stock in the media..left or right. Independent reporters I would probably give credit. No matter how many stories these independents sell the editors of the media to which they sell determine what gets out in the news or does not.
It is still up to us to inform ourselves. I have known this for along time before home computers...the days of shortwave listening taught me what a heavy paper curtain America has over it. I still listen to short wave ..but get alot of my news and information from the web today.

Thanks Alot,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I have to agree with the article, very good topic. Major Media sources have almost admitted that they have lost to the internet and hardly take their jobs all that seriously. If you watch the news, especially a channel that has multiple news programs a day, you'll hear the repetition of today's buzz word until it loses all it's meaning. If you're trying to follow a story it's fairly easy to predict what kind of coverage it will recieve over the next few days, important stories are generally buried beneath "warnings" such as an H5N1 story or new "information" on al-qeada.

I think the corporate heads know that most people turn to multiple sources for their news stories, many of which are websites such as this. In the past it was important that people trusted their news casters, and there were only a few. Journalists understood that they had a responsibility to convey the truth to their viewers, readers, and listeners, but that was a different time. Journalists of the past never had to worry about publicity, "breaking through the clutter" as it's known in the corporate world. If they dont come up with somthing big they'll be lost amidst blogs, newsletters, 24- hour news channels, news radio, newspapers and often times their fellow journalists.

It's inevitable that journalists begin making up stories, it's a fairly common practice. All the small town stories shown on O'Reilly are basicaly created by him, he "finds" them, he puts his spin on it, he controls the show and you won't see the story on a different program. They justify all this with copious amounts of ignorance, mixed with well with the belief they'll get away with it. They believe themselves above us, they don't see themselves as bound by the same rules and laws as the rest of us. Why should they, afterall we turn to them for the news right? (sarcasm)

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't trust the news except to tell me what the current agenda is, even the weather is wrong. The best thing to do is scan multiple sources and follow a story you're interested in on a board such as this.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
My comment on Tara Reid, and all the other "out of touch" celebrities, is the point, that some reporters these days like Bill O' Reily, and others on whatever media, do seem to be in their own world, and maybe even more out of it then celebrities. BTW, Tara Reid is an actress from the movies "Clueless" and "Josie and The Pussycats". She was friends with Paris Hilton a year or two ago. My point is, she is more in touch with the public, than the reporters. I was just using her and the other celebrities, as examples.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
ECK, that is right on the money.
I am very optimistic because I know of some reporters out there who are trying to be different, are trying to be real reporters. My hat is off to those folks, and I hope they grow in numbers.


Hey Thomas Crowne. Glad to hear from you.


Yes, there are some out there who are truly inspired and unbought. May they live long and prosper. And may their newspapers not be sold and bought by a consortium of thugs.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbfan1
My comment on Tara Reid, and all the other "out of touch" celebrities, is the point, that some reporters these days like Bill O' Reily, and others on whatever media, do seem to be in their own world, and maybe even more out of it then celebrities.


Oreilly is a man with a show that is about HIS OPINION on news stories. This has been known since the day he started his show. But dont ever accuse oreilly of lying, unless you can substanciate the claim by a REAL factual link, for that would be lying on your part. I have never seen oreilly lie to his audience, try to spin a story to a certain agenda, with baseless facts. He presents a news story, which he cites all the facts, then he usually has guests who either agree or disagree on his position of the story. Lots of people, DEMS, disagree with his OPINION, becuase they conflict with their agenda. Its that simple.

Also, Oreilly is not a Bush Bot like Hannity, he rips bush all the time. Personally, I like Savage, because he rips everybody who is not doing good for this country.

Hannity, I hate, because, even though I am a republican, Hannity never calls bush on anything, which is wrong. Nobody is perfect. Thats why Hannity has colmes. Hannity is 100% Bush, and Colmes is 100% Clinton, its just a back and forth baby fight.

On the other hand, what he meant by censored journalism is just what this thread is about. He does not want journalists to be able to spread FALSE NEWS. Maybe if he said jounalism oversight, it would have been more clear.

Hope this helps, later

Train



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Sorry for the mix up. It tends to happen every now and then. But he wasn't that clear on it. But mix ups happens, that's all.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't trust the news except to tell me what the current agenda is, even the weather is wrong. The best thing to do is scan multiple sources and follow a story you're interested in on a board such as this.


I read the paper every morning to know what the storyline is, as you said. I get my news and analysis from the internet, mainly, and books.

Luckilly, I am privvy to a multitude of sources daily for info on all that is going on. There is so much the mainstream demures from. For various reasons.

I edit our paper's weather page.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Oreilly is a man with a show that is about HIS OPINION on news stories. This has been known since the day he started his show. But dont ever accuse oreilly of lying, unless you can substanciate the claim by a REAL factual link, for that would be lying on your part. I have never seen oreilly lie to his audience, try to spin a story to a certain agenda, with baseless facts. He presents a news story, which he cites all the facts, then he usually has guests who either agree or disagree on his position of the story. Lots of people, DEMS, disagree with his OPINION, becuase they conflict with their agenda. Its that simple.


Exactly. His show is based on OPINION. That makes a huge difference. I started listening to O'Reilly's show around '98. It was good for a while b/c it didn't sound anything like all the other tv news shows. Then around 2000, he started really getting on my nerves - and I stopped watching his show altogether. The man doesn't know his A from a hole in the ground when it comes to foreign policy and the military.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
ECK you always got the best thread names I have seen so far, I am laughing at this one.

I have to read the tittle two times just to make sure I got it right.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
ECK you always got the best thread names I have seen so far, I am laughing at this one.

I have to read the tittle two times just to make sure I got it right.


It's great to know, Marg.


I actually did not come up with that title. I borrowed it from a much brighter mind.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Well if any place would know about rectal journalism, it would be Rense.com



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Well if any place would know about rectal journalism, it would be Rense.com


What exactly is your criticism of RENSE?

There are hokey articles and there are brilliant articles. The key is being able to spot the difference.

I consider RENSE to be spot-on, being that the US State department has put them on their ridiculous list of anti-US government websites.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join