So now that ATS has sponsored/advertised for an anti-war, pro-liberal movie...

Frankly, I don't care. Really.

If ATS wants to align itself politically with the left, that's their bussiness. Literallly. And they can count on the conservatives on ATS walking away from the site. Their loss.

It's another ad to me...a pointless, useless ad. Do I care about a minor conflict, involving foreign countries half a world away, that ended about a decade before I was born in a bloody stalemate? No. No I don't. For that matter, do I care about Dave Rabbit? Absolutely not. And ATS has pimped his broadcasts so hard they actually made an entire forum for him.

Here's how advertising works: You don't like the ad, then ignore it. Don't click on it, and ATS won't get revenue. They'll have to replace it sometime, so all you need to do is wait till they take it down and hope it's less of a personal axe to grind.

DE

Is this kind of thing going to come up every time we take on new advertising or create a promotion?

Sheesh, can't people just be greatful we are trying to take on new stuff that we hope people would find appealing. Maybe not everyone, but a fair amount at least.

I can understand people getting upset at the Mosquito/Smileys/Brad Pitt ads, but is it really going to come to the point of "Why has ATS done this", "Why has ATS chosen this", "Why does ATS not endorse this, but that"....

Absolutely every thing we (Three Amigos) do, is picked at it for not being neutral enough or swaying to one side.

Perhaps instead of moaning, realise we try to be as balanced as possible. As a former mod, I thought you would have had more sense than this considering you spent time behind the scenes.

FOR EXAMPLE:



[edit on 30-8-2006 by SimonGray]

i don't see the problem. i do not recall ATS linking itself to a right or left wing view.

ATS has always expressed it as a non-partisan site, showing both views on the arguement.

its not like ATS is demanding members to purchase the movie and go marching through the streets, carrying red flags singing songs of the soviet union now, is it?

Originally posted by SimonGray
Perhaps instead of moaning, realise we try to be as balanced as possible.

And just what exactly is balanced about endorsing a blatantly left wing, anti-war, anti-soldier, etc film? Please, forgive my confusion on this matter.

As a former mod, I thought you would have had more sense than this considering you spent time behind the scenes.

Just because I am a former mod and enjoyed helping ATS out doesn't mean that I agree with everything that goes on here. Besides, I thought here at ATS we encouraged opinions that were "against the grain."

Well whether This thread is right or wrong the advertiser will be buzzing,This thread alone has generated 900 views alone.

That's not including the ads the thread is about.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by forestlady
To those that claim "bias" --- How do you know it's biased? Have you seen the whole film yet? You've judged it before even seeing it.

Well, a trailer for a film is generally made to set the tone and provide some information on the film. The trailers are neck deep in bias. So, judging by the fact that trailers tell about the film, and the trailers are heavily laiden with bias, one can conclude that therefore the film must aslo be heavily biased.

BTW, Truthout and Counterpunch are considered excellent journalism.

By whom? Those who agree with the news and the style in which they report it? Here's how surprising that is to me...

They report the TRUTH. But obviously the Truth doesn't fit into your conservative views so you're saying it's biased.

Source

truth
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.

Source

bias
1. an oblique or diagonal line of direction, esp. across a woven fabric.
2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
3. Statistics. a systematic as opposed to a random distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure.

Click the links for further definitions of the two.

There is nothing wrong with presenting the truth. For example, saying "The sky is blue" is presenting a truth. Now, if I were to say "The sky is blue because God deemed it so" is presenting a truth with bias. That is what those sites do.

Finally, some of the truth comes out and you want to not see it on film, does that even make sense. It's about time we heard from the other side, ya know the one that's not the govt but the actual people who were there?

I never said that I don't want it on film. In fact, I don't believe anyone has. Again, I only want to see the truth without the bias. Do you find it entirely plausible that everyone from that era had these views? Or is it more plausible that the creator of the film only put in commentaries from people who held his views?

EDIT: Oops on the quoting.

[edit on 8/30/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]

First of all, you don't need to insult my intelligence by posting definitions of Truth and Bias. Secondly, dude, you weren't there when the Vietnam War happened. FYI, the ONLY reason the war ended was because of the fragging to the officers who were gung ho for the war. Most of the soldiers, after they got there, realized this was not a war we should have been involved in. I've never met one soldier who came back and didn't wish they hadn't gone and I come from a military family so I've known alot of Viet Vets. There was so much fragging done by the enlisted guys that they had to end the war, because soldiers were going AWOL and refusing to follow orders such as burning down an entire village of innocent civilians. They COULDN'T continue the war they didn't have enough support from the soldiers. That is what this film is about. How the heck do you know it's biased, you didn't live through the Vietnam War. Maybe if you had a little more of an open mind, you might actually learn something from the ones who were there.

Secondly, yes, most people were against the war by the time it was ending. The truth was suppressed at the time, everyone knew that. Now the truth comes out. A trailaer is only a small part of a film, you can't take 12 minutes of it and judge whether it was good, biased or truthful.
But I'm telling you, I was there, I lived through it, and so far you've told me nothing about the film that isn't true. I think the bias lies with you, dude, and you obviously know nothing about the Vietnam War and don't care to listen to anyone who actually knows what they're talking about. Ya know, it really doesn't make you sound very smart or open-minded.
Truthout and Counterpunch are not "liberal bias" media. They tell the truth but too many people don't want to acknowledge the truth so they call it bias.

Why do you have such a need to not believe the truth of the war?





[Mod edit: fixed BBcode for quote]

[edit on 8/30/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Just because I am a former mod and enjoyed helping ATS out doesn't mean that I agree with everything that goes on here. Besides, I thought here at ATS we encouraged opinions that were "against the grain."

and

So now that ATS has sponsored/advertised for an anti-war, pro-liberal movie...

Will they do the same with a movie showing the other side? After all, Deny Bias, right?

My comments as to you being a former mod was directed at the first thing you said... Within a short period of time with a new advertisement, you immediately assumed we were being "one-sided". So seeing as the Fart Button ad has started to crop up again, should we rush out to find an advertiser endorsing Belch Button ads?

if i recall, ATS is defined as alternative discussion and this film/documentry is providing an alternative discussion. i just think its hilarious that its automaticaly described as "anti-solider" and "left wing" if thats the case, than ATS must be "anti-semetic" for allowing threads which are against Israel, plus satanists for allowing threads that question Jesus, God, etc.

plus, lets not forget members giving out links that lead to a download of Eminem "mosh"...so, ATS is left wing, China loving, Stalin hugging, American burning, Jesus hating, Jew bashing discussion then?

Who the hell cares what ATS, the people who are kind enough to give us a place to come and talk about that what interests us, a place to come and share information and ideas advertises? It's not rammed down our throats. If you don't want to look, find something else, there is plenty out there. I feel that it is none of our goddamn business what the owners of this site decide to advertise/endorse, and I am grateful that such a site can be maintained by advertising, as it doesn't hurt my pocket. It's also quite refreshing to have an independent product being advertised, a product that will no doubt appeal to a proportion of the membership, as opposed to the usual crap. I say: "good job, well done".

[edit on 30/8/06 by Implosion]

Originally posted by kuhl
Well whether This thread is right or wrong the advertiser will be buzzing,This thread alone has generated 900 views alone.

That's not including the ads the thread is about.

And now 49 responses ....Ask for more money S.O.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Why this movie should not be touted on ats without proper pro war, pro conservative balance?

Exactly.

Screw that!

I say ATS should pick a 3rd world country, raise money to lobby the US to invade it (would help if it's a country already on our military's to-do list anyway), and then go bomb the, or free the hell out of them. Especially the civilians, that have absolutely no interest in global politics and simply want to take care of their families. Those are my favorite targets, because they don't even try to fight back (not that they would have a chance to anyway!). That would definitely throw the balance in favor of pro-war, pro-conservative agendas.

The movie in question documents the unwillingness of our GIs to fight in a war in which killed millions, and continues to kill to this day from the explosives we planted, even in other countries in the region. Our "reason" for going there could not have justified the death of ONE human being. That it was used to justify so many, and people still defend that war... Where are you, Jesus? Mayan prophecy? Any end to this world, please.

There is bias, and then there is disgusting. The "Communist threat" was ridiculous (try post-war reality for a source) and the Vietnam War is not something any compassionate human being would ever try to justify. Words. People died. We invaded a country. We encouraged civil conflict, whereas the majority of that country wanted to be communist (and SO WHAT?). We freaked it up, and then we left. How would you explain your country's actions to a rural family of dead Vietnamese?

Originally posted by forestlady
First of all, you don't need to insult my intelligence by posting definitions of Truth and Bias.

I'm sorry, as I did not mean to insult your intelligence. I was including the definitions solely to differentiate between the two, especially since there seems to be some confusion amongst this thread. It just so happened that I decided to include the definitions for posterity in a post in which was also a reply to you.

FYI, the ONLY reason the war ended was because of the fragging to the officers who were gung ho for the war.

Really? And that is the unbiased truth?

They tell the truth but too many people don't want to acknowledge the truth so they call it bias.

Maybe they can't handle the truth in the defintion of the word bias?

Why do you have such a need to not believe the truth of the war?

I didn't realise I've been speaking in code... As I've said repeatedly, I'm not denying that this actually happened. My problem lies in the bias of the presentation of this truth.

Originally posted by SimonGray
My comments as to you being a former mod was directed at the first thing you said... Within a short period of time with a new advertisement, you immediately assumed we were being "one-sided". So seeing as the Fart Button ad has started to crop up again, should we rush out to find an advertiser endorsing Belch Button ads?

Wow. That does nothing to address my question. So, again, just what exactly is balanced about endorsing a blatantly left wing, anti-war, anti-soldier, etc film?

~~

when i 1st looked at the thread (posted by AboveTopSecret)

I just considered the thread with a DVD being made available as just an obvious and deliberate Product Placement,
just like they do in the movies.

imho, the product placement was not in support of anti-war activity,
or even for the sale of the DVD itself....the product placement in the ATS forum was mostly for the reference to Dave Rabbits' efforts & ongoing linkages in the efforts to educate the public about the Vietnam era passions.

the thread was most likely created to help promote that First Termer Forum,
rather than Sales or preceived Propaganda agendas of the DVD itself.

Then , maybe someone took it upon themself to create a fuss...(or received instruction).
so that a controversy would start -->to get more eyes & emotion into the mix....
as the thread was languishing in dismal clicks and responses and anticipated advertizing results.

A cloud of dust, A riot of noise,...................all heads turn, if only briefly

[edit on 30-8-2006 by St Udio]

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

I WOULD REALLY LIKE THIS THREAD TO BE ON THE TOPIC OF WHY ISN'T THE OPPOSING, PRO-WAR/CONSERVATIVE VIEW BEING SUPPORTED BY ATS. PLEASE ADHERE TO THAT. THANK YOU.

Since when is being pro-war a consevative stance? Since when is anti-war a liberal stance? Give me a break! We do NOT nee war, we have enough defence natural and manmade that the United States does NOT need to participate in war. Unless you like killing raping and maiming people for profit as an American value.

ATS IMHO doe not need to show a pro-war/murder side. All of the wars we have been in have been for profit, we have not needed to defend ourselves since before the cival war.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Our "reason" for going there could not have justified the death of ONE human being. That it was used to justify so many, and people still defend that war... Where are you, Jesus? Mayan prophecy? Any end to this world, please.

You have voted bsbray11 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

I voted you way above for being such a fine human being I agree with your statement "any end to this world please", not physicly but this inhuman attitude we have had for so long... I chose to be person that lives in the service of others instead of service to self. We need a LOT more people who are in service to others.

If a country launched ICBM's or was crossing the ocean to attack or were on our border, in other words someone attacking MY country, I would be at the local recruiter station joining to fight. Other than that there is never reason for war.

[edit on 30-8-2006 by LoneGunMan]

Cmdr
The film is about a particular movement, it behooves the filmmaker to interview people involved with that movement, and tell the story from that side of the fence (since it hasn't been told before)?

If I make a movie about bunny rabbits, I'm not going to include a bunch of gratuitous alligator footage to please my detractors and stave off accusations of bias. Let them tell their story, and let this fellow tell his story.

Then you go on to complain that the site isn't really free because we have to look at advertisements on the boards? Jesus man, I can't accurately convey to you how ridiculous that sounds to me.

I think you have unreasonable expectations, if you don't consider this site free.

And as far as allegations of political bias...

When the site owners start deleting threads that disagree with their personal politics, and start using their power to prune the discussions to advance a particular agenda, I'll join you in protest, chanting 'Bias!' - but that's not the case now, never has been, and if I'm a decent judge of character, it never will be.

Talking about bias...

The only way to defeat bias is to hold up a bunch of variously biased material for comparison and cross-reference. What do you think we're doing here anyway? I consider the film more information, and that's what I came to ATS for in the first place. Why did you come here, if not for information?

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Wow. That does nothing to address my question. So, again, just what exactly is balanced about endorsing a blatantly left wing, anti-war, anti-soldier, etc film?

And again...

Read SO's previous post in response to your previous raising of your quabble:

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Will they do the same with a movie showing the other side? After all, Deny Bias, right?

Certainly. But we have not been approached by any "other side" for an opportunity similar to that of the "Sir. No Sir!" DVD.

So as you can see, this advertising opportunity came along that we also felt is of importance considering our motto of Deny Ignorance. Should a similar opportunity come along that sheds alternative light, then I'm sure there could be a potential deal available if it would be advantageous to both parties.

Ya know, Commander, to this day I've never yet met anyone who in retrospect, supports the Vietnam War. This should tell you how unpopular that war was. This country was on the verge of a revolution because of it and I'm not exagerrating. We had the Weather Undeground, Abbie Hoffman, Tim Leary, etc. who were actively engaging in trying to change the system.

To give you another example: My father was an Admiral in the U.S. Navy. He was also probably the most right-wing conservative that's ever lived. But, even he said we never should have gone in there. He was all for getting out of that war. There were a number of conservatives who were against the war.

I would suggest that you keep an open mind and try to learn more about the Vietnam War before accusing anyone of bias. You obviously don't know very much about it. Can you explain to me how this film is anti-soldier? Sounds to me like it's finally showing what these brave soldiers did, after 35 years. It's real simple: Don't judge the film until you've seen it. It's a DOCUMENTARY for crying out loud, that means it's presenting the truth. I still dont understand why this is such a big deal for you and why you are so resistant to something that presents the truth. This movie doesn't seem bias to me so far in the least. If you think it's biased, could it be that the liberals were right about the war? Hmm...

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Again, I only want to see the truth without the bias.

Well, there's your problem right there.

Do you have archetectural plans for your cave or are you going to set up in a tract house cave?

One man's neutral is another man's bias.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Again, I only want to see the truth without the bias.

Well, there's your problem right there.

Do you have archetectural plans for your cave or are you going to set up in a tract house cave?

One man's neutral is another man's bias.

That's a bit harsh cmdrkeenkid is only putting his point across , why don't you get off your high horse?