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.

 

Is there a conspiracy against news and info found on the internet ?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Is there a conspiracy against the internet?

In my experience, ATS is the biggest of many sites, that's considered a bad place to get news about current events.

I learn literally 100's of new things every day reading threads on sites like ATS. But any time I pass on info or news that I find on the internet, I get laughed at by friends or family.

One example is suspicions about what happened on 9/11. Nobody I know takes these suspicions seriously. They never question, and will never take their news from anywhere but newspapers or television. A lot of the theories or viewpoints can't be heard on TV, without so much spin that it becomes massively diluted.

No matter what the news source or info source is on the internet, it will get me laughed straight out of the living room. I could relay info about animals in Africa, that I read about at NationalGeographic.com but it will always get laughed at. Like the internet is the poorman's television.

In my opinion, the internet is extremely more reliable, when it comes to news, than televison is. Television has to cater to the ratings system. It is also a very good way to get a huge number of people to believe whatever you want them to believe.

How many times have you heard, "...it has to be true, because I watched it on TV."? or when someone wants to discredit you by your source they say, "...where'd you hear that, on the internet?".

What do think about my theory? Do you get the same reaction as I do when you say you read something on the internet?




posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   
I agree with you mate. I find the same problem when ever I relay an opinion I read on the internet or offer an alternative conclusion to what is in the MSM.

I think the problem is due to the fact that the internet is basically a new kid on the block in the news stakes. As well as that some of the people commenting on a issue don't have the credentials that would put their reports on the same page as a anything on the front page, no matter how correct or valid their account on the topic is. Internet is also a mere drop in the ocean compared to how many households TVs and print hit.

IMO the internet (as Condi Rice would put it) is going through its birth pangs and it will be a lot longer before it is considered a reliable source for info and only then some websites will be considered reliable.

Think how much news stations spend on marketing to tell you they are the first, best, most trustworthy, etc when it comes to news.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by a simple guy
I agree with you mate. I find the same problem when ever I relay an opinion I read on the internet or offer an alternative conclusion to what is in the MSM.

I think the problem is due to the fact that the internet is basically a new kid on the block in the news stakes. As well as that some of the people commenting on a issue don't have the credentials that would put their reports on the same page as a anything on the front page, no matter how correct or valid their account on the topic is. Internet is also a mere drop in the ocean compared to how many households TVs and print hit.

IMO the internet (as Condi Rice would put it) is going through its birth pangs and it will be a lot longer before it is considered a reliable source for info and only then some websites will be considered reliable.

Think how much news stations spend on marketing to tell you they are the first, best, most trustworthy, etc when it comes to news.


Thank you for replying.


I guess I see what you're saying. The internet won't be as popular and reliable until every household has a central computer and the can flip through the internet, with a remote, like they do with a television.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
I reckon that the MSM is concerned about the growing influence of the internet as it's not regulated, and possibly hard to control the the messages coming out of it. They are quick at times to label people with "the conspiracy theorist" when you have a different take on a event.

Why is someone considered a conspiracy nut when at the same time they will have people like Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin on throwing out any far-flung idea to justify their point.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 04:28 AM
link   
yeah.. the herded sheep mentality.. how do you control thousands of sheeps? why does it seems that when some sheeps goes into any direction, the others would instinctively follow from behind? and what happens when a couple of sheeps decided to go astray? that is where the dog part came in.. scare 'em back into the herd.. or in our case, aah! the symptoms of some mental disorder or something.. or perhaps 'you nuts! do u expect to believe everything from the internet? its not regulated damn it! anything can be said.. get a real life'


we can only live on thru our own chosen path.. coz knowledge is everywhere, and the only questions that need to be answered is where would it takes us to? i think..



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Its funny that here in Portugal people accept better what they read on the Internet, but I do not know why.

Maybe it has something to do with the Portuguese governments publicity about new ways to interact with the government, or the fact that most influential people who usually make their comments on news papers, radio and TV have they own web-logs and that is publicly known.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   
... and it may be that ATS is just as complicit in this.

Ask them.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I would not say that the internet is better or more reliable than much of what is on television.

What you get on the internet is a huge library of opinion. The internet has the same problem that the television has..people or networks out here who try to mold your opinion for you according to their system of beliefs. In otherwords the buyer beware.

The advantage of the web which is not on television is the feature of networking.
It can be interactive. Something missing from television. The TV often, if you are not aware, makes your opinions for you. Same with AM/FM radio. THey will do your thinking for you. This can happen on the internet too but you can voice your opinion and back it up with facts of which you know or are privy.

Its up to you to weed out all the wildlife. This means knowlege. The other advantage is all this information at your fingertips. As I said a virtual library. However ..the buyer beware. School yourself to spot the wildlife. There is alot of junk out here as well as good useful information.

So what if all these people laugh at you. People have been laughing at me for years and years riding my moped to work. I own a truck and two cars...but ride my moped. At close to $3.00 per gallon they arent laughing now. I was ahead on this curve. Im used to people laughing at me..I dont worryabout it. Learn..dont be ignorant. Deny Ignorance is the motto here.

Good hunting.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I would not say that the internet is better or more reliable than much of what is on television.

What you get on the internet is a huge library of opinion. The internet has the same problem that the television has..people or networks out here who try to mold your opinion for you according to their system of beliefs. In otherwords the buyer beware.

I couldn't disagree more. What you are failing to mention is that the news media on T.V is both controlled and monitored by the FCC. The FCC is a government agency.Therefore, the mainstream news media is not going to report anything that might jeopardize the status quo.The internet has no such obligations. So the internet does not have "the same problem that television has".



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
I disagree with you on the internet.

When you see a piece of equipment that says on the back of it on the little labels..FCC type accepted...this means that certain things about it are government regulated...standardized. They are not necessarily regulating its production to benifit you or me...especially digital equipment.

I know from people in the telephone industry that the phone companys have certain connections with the Government agencys....they are built in the systems. This means that your computers hooked up to your phone lines are subject to the same kind of monitoring as your telephone...easy access for certain groups. This means what you do on your computer is monitored. If it can be monitored it can be controlled. No quantum leap here folks. Same with Cable or DSL..only faster than phone lines...much faster.

The Big advantage is large scale access and interaction...between users. This means far more flexability than the one way programming of television and radio. Unless of course you are using two way radio..and computers can be hooked up to radios....no land line..tie ups.

Obviously the web is monitored and controlled...It is not as free as many are wont to think...blinders here...public education at work. IF this were not so ...the buisness in England with the latest potential hijackers would have turned out differently.

YOu keep thinking what you want ...

It it any doubt that the best and most serious hackers/geeks work for private corporations or government agencys where they get access to the latest toys and concepts.

Two reasons for this ...they dont want the competition and they can use them/misuse them if properly diciplined.

Thanks,
Orangetom



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join