Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The coming attack on ATS by MSM

page: 5
58
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I do not want to derail this thread any further since I have respect for the OP and the point of the thread. I feel this topic needs to be explored free of debates about the article that started it. However, I still feel that any support of it without acknowledging there are no facts and the news is now just saying what is on their mind, is less than ignorance denying. I also do not like using other threads to advertise my own so I will not post a link but I opened a thread more about the article and it's lack of facts. If yoda, or anyone else happen to find any, feel free to bring them over there and shut me up finally. I know you want to.




posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Mainstream media is losing control. They are starting to see alternative information sources as a competitor, simple as that.

And when they lose influence and users these flame attacks are bound to happen. It's all about the money. They are after all just like any other corporate business. This fact alone can make them rotten through and through especially in tough economic times like these.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by Raabjorn]



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Yoda411
 


I rebuked my statement surrounding factual evidence being brought forth in this article.


I am guessing you mean some word for "took back?" I do not see where you either rescinded or "rebuked" your statements. Could you show me a link or something?



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Moving on to the next post:

Exhibit #4:

Originally posted by Yoda411
So then let me state something else.

The MSM does fact-checking.

You can quote me on that one.


And:

Originally posted by Yoda411
Just for the record the ABC article included interviews with two accredited psychologists.


And:

Originally posted by Yoda411
So called experts may be a dime a dozen but Psychologists require at the very minimum a PhD. So what are your credentials to question them?

People absolutely have the right to believe what they want. With that said, do you believe there is no line between reality and delusion?

Under the authority of psychiatry, some individuals hold beliefs which are [in fact] delusional and promoted by some on ATS.


Okay, I will quote you. I agree – the MSM is very careful about covering their rear ends with the legal department by doing their fact checking.

And it is true that this piece does not directly state that the opinions given are anything but just that – opinions.

But it presents itself as a news article, supposedly unbiased, and yet fails to even mention the most prominent and well-known writer in the field, who has been cited in the last year in the NYTimes, Washington Post, and International Herald Tribune, and whose take on the issue is far less sensationalized than that of the two “experts” she decides to cite.

Fact checking does not mean even-handed, unbiased reporting.

And two psychologists is not that impressive, especially considering that there is no indication that either one has research or clinical experience in this particular area. One is a university professor and not-for-profit spokesman, and I don’t remember offhand what the other one does.

I can find several M.D.s who will swear up and down that the best cure for cancer is “Vitamin B17.” However you personally feel about that claim, it is not widely shared among doctors.

A Ph.D. does not make you a genius – trust me on this, I was dangerously close to getting one myself


Exhibit#5:

Originally posted by Yoda411
Is that the reason you would disagree with this article? Merely because you are afraid of the repercussions of it being correct? That is what I gather from many whom read it and disagreed. Either the fear of repercussions, or the misconception that they were called mentally ill.


I don’t of course speak for interestedalways but I will answer this question as I see it.

It doesn’t matter whether the article is correct as far as it goes.

It is biased, sensationalized, and designed from the title down to discredit not only Icke and Reptilians, but all conspiracy sites online. Personally, I am less afraid than let’s say wary – I think it is significant that this issue is finding its way into the mainstream media, and I think the way the MSM is spinning it is a matter for some concern.

Time for another break.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Okay, I think I may be caught up now. Most of the rest of it is just continuing to squabble over whether or not mental illness can be made worse by David Icke.

I would note that the two instances of "facts" that you were able to cite for angel of lightangelo both go against the tenor of the rest of the article, and are almost the only passages that do so.

I confess that I'm baffled at how convinced you remain that this piece was not biased. Did nothing that was said yesterday in the other thread about propaganda and how it works get through to you?



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


The political or economic motivation behind writing this article is beyond my personal knowledge.

I cannot argue past my personal opinion which agrees that, "Mental Health Docs Are Left With Big Questions".

The biggest question of all (as we have pointed out in these two threads) is where do we draw the line between a mental delusion, and a healthy personal belief?

Edit: Specifically, where should psychologists draw the line?

[edit on 12/16/08 by Yoda411]



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Many people are taking some sort of medication for mental illness today...

These illnesses are called PTSD, ADD, ADHD, Bi-Polar Illness (which includes 3 levels), Paranoid Schizophrenia, Depression, Borderline Personality Disorder and more severe disorders...

So, when I hear that MSM considers "us" or, more correctly "conspriracy theorists" as mentally ill, I ask "what about all of the people on meds for various mental illnesses?" Many would never admit to being "conspiracy theorists," but they have a "diagnosed" illness...Is the fact that they are not "conspiracy theorists" a problem for the MSM? Of course not..."they" are mentally ill according to MSM...The MSM have exhausted their reports on all of the illnesses listed above, so they have to find something else to report on, which points to us...

When someone tells me that I am paranoid or a conspiracy theorist, and have no basis regarding my "delusions,' I remind them of the Philadelphia Eagle's VP's wife, who ran a man down, who was changing his tire, on Route 42 in NJ, while driving drunk in 2002, stopped to look back, called her husband, who told her to call her attorney, and the attorney said to leave the site of the accident and head home...Then a telephone lineman saw her SUV in her driveway, and had heard the report about the accident, and then called it in...They later found the SUV repaired at their dealership...Oh, she went to jail...But NEVER reported her "KILLING..."

Or, the PA congressman who ran down the homeless U.S. Marine back in 2004, while driving drunk, and kept going...He was subsequently identified and tried in court...Lost his seat and he NEVER reported his "KILLING..."

Both tried very hard to "hide" their actions, which, to me, are reprehensible...But, gee, losing your million dollar house, or status, is a bitch...

So, when you consider that these people, who had very little (in the big scheme of things) to lose...Do you not think that those with very MUCH to lose (like senior government officials or CEOs), aren't conspiring????

Or, perhaps, they are suffering from a mental illness...

Kind of like that governor up in Illinois now, who many "medical professionals" are calling a "sociopath?"...

So, how dare the MSM target us as having a mental illness? And, if we do have one, what drug company will come up with a pill for us to take so that we never question anything again??? LOL

Geez...



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Yoda411
 


And as I have pointed out repeatedly, I disagree – that issue is relatively unimportant.

Not to mention off topic from the stated purpose of this thread as defined by the OP.

BTW - we can have discussions that go beyond our personal knowledge into the territory of opinion. This is one such.

I gave several examples in the thread that was active over the last couple days that specifically show where the ABC article demonstrates bias and spin control. It is my opinion that these are deliberate attempts to associate conspiracy websites with paranoid schizophrenia. It is the opinion of several other posters (though not myself) that this signals the imminent end of free expression on the Internet.

You are welcome to the opinion that the ABC article is not a biased propaganda piece, but I would be interested in seeing some arguments about why you think that.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


I believe it is not a bias article because it draws no definite conclusions of whether or not Internet conspiracy websites significantly contribute to mental health issues. It actually defines very well both sides of the argument including the fact that there need be more research done on the subject, before definite conclusions can be drawn.

As for this article being a piece of propaganda I once again have to say that remains open for speculation. Is this thread propaganda against ABC News, and to promote Net Neutrality?

[edit on 12/16/08 by Yoda411]



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yoda411

Edit: Specifically, where should psychologists draw the line?

[edit on 12/16/08 by Yoda411]


That has already been established.

Are you a danger to yourself.
Are you a danger to others.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by Yoda411

Edit: Specifically, where should psychologists draw the line?

[edit on 12/16/08 by Yoda411]


That has already been established.

Are you a danger to yourself.
Are you a danger to others.



Is that an easy conclusion to come to?



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
On topic (I hope) -

I don't think that the MSM can ever become involved in possible censorship and survive it themselves.

Right now they are extremely worried about Pelosi's support of reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" and I believe their fear of this will cause them to be more, not less adamant in their opposition to any kind of censorship.

If the MSM were to argue in favor of censorship it would bite them in the you know what, right where they live. It would set a president that if something were to be considered out of the mainstream it could be censored when presented over any medium.

I think this was just a simple fluff piece to fill the days news slots. Had there been a big event they probably would have shelved it.

The recent election is what brought the MSM's attention our way due to the heavy involvement by the conspiracy crowd. It would be hard to go unnoticed between the 9/11 Truthers, the Bush haters, the Ron Paul activists and the Obama love fest (I'd better mention right now I'm not for or against Obama and I hope he is the real deal).

After people were drawn to the sites by the election related topics they of course started looking around and were likely shocked. I know the first time I can recall coming here I was a bit surprised by some of what I saw.

We have all gravitated towards our interests and learned to ignore or tollerate what we see as pure nonsense. New visitors would still be in shock in many cases, having had no idea many of these theories existed.

Imagine Joe Average stumbling over ATS while searching out articles on the elections? Reptilians, Niburu, the world ending in 2012, Atheist and dogma driven religious folks feuding and well you get the drift.

I think what will happen is these boards will loose their shock value and appeal and those concerned about what we discuss will move on to other things. A few will stay, most likely the ones with an interest and the Media in general will move on to other Fluff to fill their headlines.

The Government is another story altogether I think. They will continue to push the envelope of how far they can control information. They will be guided by the public's reaction. The pendulum on this metronome will continue to swing from one side to the other as it did in the days of Joseph McCarthy. As happened then, when it swings to far the public outrage will send it back the other way.

I would be more worried about them attempting to control this by controlling the providers of these boards. If and when boards like ATS go on the market would be the time I'd worry. It is then they can get in through the back door like the sleazy little sneak thieves that they are.

I'm more than a little curious as to whether ATS ever receives any offers or attempts to gain control of their company. If so, by who? If they decide they want this to end a high enough price would likely suffice to do that.

[edit on 12/16/2008 by Blaine91555]

[edit on 12/16/2008 by Blaine91555]



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yoda411

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by Yoda411

Edit: Specifically, where should psychologists draw the line?

[edit on 12/16/08 by Yoda411]


That has already been established.

Are you a danger to yourself.
Are you a danger to others.



Is that an easy conclusion to come to?


Ask the medical board that decided on those criteria.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Yoda411
 


I really think maybe this is an "agree to disagree" issue.

I just can't wrap my head around the idea that you see no bias in that article.

Yes, if you read the article carefully and parse it logically you will discover that she at no point directly says that it's a fact that internet conspiracy sites lead to mental illness.

But how many ABCnews readers are going to be reading it carefully and arguing about it for four days until they can practically cite it chapter and verse?

Like advertising, like political spin, like rhetoric, it's not about what the literal meaning is, but what impression is given.

And I just can't see how it's not obvious that a trained journalist writing that article was well aware that the impression it gives is that web conspiracy sites are run by amoral, possibly insane, "emperors" who don't care that they're responsible for driving unknown masses of the mentally unstable into full-blown psychosis.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Would it not make more sense to discuss the topic of THIS Thread than continue an endless argument from another thread? Just saying.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Ive been saying on here for quite some time that a LOT of folks on here are CLINICALLY depressed or something. Its just sad to read some of the things on here. The true news is one thing, but there is definite sickness going on with some folks.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Max_TO
 


I think the best solution is suing them the soonest minute after the attack is released by the media. I happened to believe that ATS members have a far above average ability to know real vs. fantasy land.

I hope ATS dedicates a certain % of their budget to protect their freedom of speech.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by truthquest]



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
reply to post by Yoda411
 


I really think maybe this is an "agree to disagree" issue.

I just can't wrap my head around the idea that you see no bias in that article.


Indeed, we will ultimately have to agree to disagree.

I suppose the reason I see this as an unbiased article is because my point of view is from a legal perspective, something which you have notably mentioned in one of these few threads.

I will agree that some right wing conservatives may walk away from this article with the assumption that some conspiracy theorists are medically delusional. At the same time, the old school JFK crowd may read this and be as outraged as me or you.

I think ultimately it was not an attack against ATS, or other conspiracy theory websites. Ultimately this article was produced to get us all outraged, and that translates into website hits. Website hits therefor translate into advertising revenue.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


An interesting post, and a lot of good points (and definitely on topic, in my opinion).

I guess I see the media and the government more as partners than antagonists, although I imagine that that's really too simple a model.

I know that SkepticOverlord has mentioned attempts to buy out ATS that would have been very lucrative for the Three Amigos, but that would have left the boards open to possible control/censorship/bias.

As for this being a fluff piece – perhaps. But it is a fluff piece with skew. And I think it's the kind of piece that could be (even unconsciously) effective in determining public opinion.

Imagine your son/daughter/wife/husband/mother/father has recently started using the internet to look up information on, say, the Federal Reserve system, and has found his/her way into a site like ATS.

Having read this article, I think a person might be primed to see it, as a "conspiracy theory website", as a potential hazard to their loved one.



reply to post by Yoda411

That makes a big difference. I read the article as someone with a fair amount of experience in reading between lines, and came away with the view that it's biased.

You read from a law perspective, and from that perspective you're quite right, they never make a statement that can be challenged; they only offer opinions attributed to experts.



[edit on 12/16/08 by americandingbat]



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Yoda411
 

Ok, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you really had taken back your claim that this article was factual. I asked where it is, I cannot find it. I am starting to think you are a liar. I am going back to my pre-"fact" stance. Until you acknowledge that is not news because it has no facts, or you convince me how you twist reality to fit the word, there is nothing else you can really say.






top topics



 
58
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join