ATS a "crackpot American website"

they're just upset that we wouldn't even dignify their interview requests with a response.

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
(1) Does this article give a fair reflection of ATS?

In some regards, yes. In the short time that I've been here (less than a week) I've found that the vast majority of posts are ill informed, logically fallacious and baseless. Many posters will take a subject with limited information and jump to extreme conclusions without even considering the more simple and rational answer. Does this mean 'crackpot'? I think it does.

The term 'conspiracy theory', in my opinion, should be one that exemplifies scientific theory over everyday theories. In science, a theory is only sound if it takes existing evidence, explains its happenings, and produces testable predictions. I've found little to none of that here.

(2) If not, can ATS improve how it is perceived by main stream reporters?

If a mainstream reporter were to go to the most recent topics, he would see

"New York Nuke on Feb 9, 2009"
"First Contact With Another Being"
"Thought Voices - Potentially Losing My Mind"
etc.

And, although I'm sure there are those in the threads who would point out the practical, social and logical flaws in the original posts, those 'debunkers' would be flamed, right off the board. They'd hear that they are 'closed minded' and 'attacking the OP'. Any mainstream reporter would certainly look at that and see the overall demographic as irrational.

How would ATS change that? Due to its very nature, I don't think it can. It prides itself on being the largest conspiracy site on the web, and has made a business of it. That means that without alienating its base (the crackpots) it can't change policy. Changing policy would result in a smaller bottom line, which is obviously not an option.

The question, therefore should be Does ATS want to change its perception by mainstream reporters? And the answer to that would be no. Since it makes its money by attracting the crackpots, and the crackpots certainly do almost the exact opposite of what the mainstream is looking for, then ATS should embrace this perception.

That's not exactly true.

I wonder why this got into a news paper???

I agree with InfraRedMan.

There is some truth to that article. Not that the paper who characterized us that way has any room to talk, pot calling the kettle black and all that. However there are more than a few obvious hoaxes that are perpetrated here. I just dont know what I would suggest doing about that. If ATS cracked down too heavily on them, it would spoil some of the freedom to discuss conspiracy theories in general. After all, MOST conspiracy theories are light on evidence and heavy on speculation.

And the owners of the site are business people as well as conspiracy buffs. It has not escaped my notice, and I am sure not theirs either, that these hoaxes are often busy little threads. Quite popular both with those who wish to believe them, and with those who wish to debunk them. The Mods do try to shut down the provably hoaxed threads, eventually, but there are only so many mods.

I think those of us who know and love ATS are used to ignoring the worst of the rubbish, (unless we are bored out of our minds and want to go troll hunting) and sorting through to find the pearls among the rubbish. In my opinion, thats no different from what one has to do with the MSM. On ATS however, even the rubbish has higher entertainment value.



Edit to add;

In answer to one of your questions, I dont think there is anything ATS can do to improve its standing in the MSM. Nor should it try to. It has a niche. In business, when you try to be everything to everyone you often fail. What you do when there is a well developed market for something (such as news) you find a niche that is underserved. Which is exactly what ATS has done. They are never going to sing our praises because ATS is in competition with them for the minds and time, (and advertising dollars) of the masses. Of course they are going to talk smack about us.

My foster mother used to say, "Dont worry when people are talking about you, even if they are saying mean things. Worry when people STOP talking about you."

Its kind of like the Paris Hilton theory of attention getting. Even bad press can make you famous and rich.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

Crakeur is most likely correct. Back in December we were getting requests from The Daily Mail for me to do an interview about Robbie's interest and involvement here.

Knowing what the Daily Mail is (a rag) and reviewing the ludicrous lies and falsehoods they had published about Rob prior to these requests we simply ignored them.

I find it amusing that anyone would consider "The Daily Mail" as "Mainstream", I guess by virtue of the sheer number of readers of they attract (that's a sad commentary in and of itself) they could be considered "Main" something, but as far as giving a whit about their opinion of what our membership writes here, on ATS, well that just seems pointless and counterproductive. A bit like caring what nudist thinks about new seasons clothing.

For us to take anything these rags write seriously, much less give it any weight, would be taking a monumental step back wards IMHO. The vast majority of what is printed in rags like "The Daily Mail" is pure bollocks or worse. Their editorial staff appears to thrive on, and seek out, the most ridiculous, made up bits of fluff their writers can spew.

It seems great emphasis is placed the more specious, the more outrageous and fantastic stories (truth be damned) and these are second only to stories that beat up/malign or otherwise disparage someone who has risen to the top of their respective game, whether wholly made up by the reporter or sprinkled with just enough bits of half truth to make it readable.

In that light, I take the inane comments of this lack luster story as huge compliment or the sour grapes of someone who was ignored for bad behavior and telling tales out of school.



Springer...



[edit on 2-9-2009 by Springer]

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by neformore
It doesn't give a fair reflection of ATS at all - but then what do you expect of the British press?

I wouldn't have continued posting here for the past few years if I thought it was a fair reflection, but I posed two questions in my original post above and I don't think anyone has tackled the second one. The two questions were:

(1) Does this article give a fair reflection of ATS?

(2) If not, can ATS improve how it is perceived by main stream reporters?

All the best,

Isaac

1. No I find it amusing they only picked out what was in their mind the worst of the worst never touching on the very legitimate topics that are in here.

2. Nope see number 1.

The good thing about this site is you can have 5 different topics going that all converge into one big conspiracy whether it's accurate or not. If Authors and Movie Directors can take this stuff straight off the site and turn it into big bucks then the site must be doing something right. Worst case scenario giving millions of people entertainment of what if.

Ifr anything you can learn quite a bit maybe more than any one person should know but hey in the end knowledge is power and paper is paper.

reply to post by Springer


But hey, it's worth a couple bucks in your pocket nevertheless. Crackpots read 'the daily mail', and crackpots are just the people this site caters to. The more crackpots that see the site name, the more will come and add to the cacophony.

Signed,
Crackpot

Originally posted by Springer
Crakeur is most likely correct. Back in December we were getting requests from The Daily Mail for me to do an interview about Robbie's interest and involvement here.

Knowing what the Daily Mail is (a rag) and reviewing the ludicrous lies and falsehoods they had published about Rob prior to these requests we simply ignored them.

I find it amusing that anyone would consider "The Daily Mail" as "Mainstream", I guess by virtue of the sheer number of readers of they attract (that's a sad commentary in and of itself) they could be considered "Main" something, but as far as giving a whit about their opinion of what our membership writes here, on ATS, well that just seems pointless and counterproductive. A bit like caring what nudist thinks about new seasons clothing.

For us to take anything these rags write seriously, much less give it any weight, would be taking a monumental step back wards IMHO. The vast majority of what is printed in rags like "The Daily Mail" is pure bollocks or worse. Their editorial staff appears to thrive on, and seek out, the most ridiculous, made up bits of fluff their writers can spew.

It seems great emphasis is placed the more specious, the more outrageous and fantastic stories (truth be damned) and these are second only to stories that beat up/malign or otherwise disparage someone who has risen to the top of their respective game, whether wholly made up by the reporter or sprinkled with just enough bits of half truth to make it readable.

In that light, I take the inane comments of this lack luster story as huge compliment or the sour grapes of someone who was ignored for bad behavior and telling tales out of school.

Springer...



[edit on 2-9-2009 by Springer]

Hey maybe you should request to do an interview with them and some of their claims lol maybe a pod cast, of course they could turn the tables but it might be fun none the less.

I've been around the site a couple months. Overall think it's great and have learned to manoeuvre my way around avoiding cul-de-sacs.

I have an extensive journalistic background globally and am aware how rotten MSM can be anywhere.

A problem with ATS, and One I'm finding with trying to introduce a friend who is a lawyer, is that it really does look, feel, and smell like a crackpot lunatic fringe discussion forum on first glance. The subject jeadings alone give a bad impression.

I don't know the evolution of ATS other than linking to older threads. But someone alluded to an 'inmates taking over the asylum' phenomenon over the last while.

Hoaxers, racists, paranoid schizophrenics, fun seeking teenagers, true whackos, I guess are inevitable on an open forum. But when their contributions take up, say, 40-50% instead of, say again, a more manageable 10-20% of the air-time, it becomes a problem.

You just don't want to weave in an out of discussions to find someone contributing something of interest. all the time.

The solution - I don't know. A better filtration system of some sort I'd say is a start.

Don't mean this as anything negative. I'd love to refer more friends and colleagues to here, but it just doesn't give an impression of credibility to the uninitiated.


Mike F

Chances are Robbie is more than used to criticism, however I am often told I am a looney because of the things I am interested in. When the whole country is publicly conditioned into believing you're a looney (as in Robbie's case) it must be hard.
Since reading his posts and seeing all he has brought to us at ATS my views on the man have changed substantially, I guess my first views were conditioned anyway.
I just hope he can take the criticism and doesn't lose faith, he's in a good position to find some truths, already shown from what he's done on here.
It's another example of tabloids halting people thinking and expanding their minds before they have a chance to make up their own minds.
Keep it real COB, we know the truth.

reply to post by mmiichael


I think an easy and light handed solution would be doing away with the point system. A lot of the crazy topic headlines you mention are deliberate. The point scroungers have figured out that if you post on certain topics in a suitably crazy sounding or inflammatory way, you will gain points. If only because the more reasonable flock to your thread to flame you.

I understand what you mean about your lawyer friend. I really cringe when I have talked about a thread I have posted to on this site and someone asks "oh really? what site is that?" I know that if they come and see all the weirdness, that they may wonder about my sanity. There are some really thoughtful posters here, and some really good threads that contain some excellent insight and analysis. But, like you said, the first glance often times prevents anyone from digging further.

It takes time to learn to surf ATS without getting crazy all over your shoes.

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
Does this article give a fair reflection of ATS?

No. But as many have pointed out, the source is suspect and often comes across as taking enjoyment in casting aspersions in all kinds of directions.

If not, can ATS improve how it is perceived by main stream reporters?

As far as I know, four ATS topics have made the front-page of mainstream, high-volume, newspapers.

1 - The counterfeit Cisco routers story, broken to world-wide attention by ATS, and initially covered on the front-page of the New York Times, followed-up by many other papers and news sources.

2 - The discovery that the "Haitian UFO" videos were fake, by ATS members, was front page of the S.F. Examiner, and lead stories on several cable news broadcasts (MSNBC being one of them).

3 - The "stolen nuclear weapon" topic received modest but front-page mention in the L.A. Times, and sourced in dozens of other online news services.

4 - Our coverage, and photo, of the O'Hare UFO received several mentions in the Chicago Tribune, including at least one front-page article and was featured prominently in a cable special on UFOs.

There are dozens of other topics that have received less-prominent attention in a wide range of "mainstream" sources.


Generally, the "news" and "media" services consider all user-generated content websites to be of dubious quality, and look at the entire user-web with cautious suspicion. When you combine that core reticence with our topical-mix, I think it's an excellent testament to our members that we've receive the amount of high-profile attention that we enjoy... four front-page sources in two years for a user-generated site about conspiracies and UFOs is pretty damn good.

In response to the OP's q's :-

1. No deffinatley not a fair rep at all of ATS or any of its members for that matter

2. No i dont think ATS can, ive been reading ATS for quite sometime now on and off and ive hit topics that i thought the OP's were right on the nail with only to find that responders have legitamatley debunked the theory/proposition, ATS is providing a domain for which people can express their theory, opinion, POV et but done so in an intelligent manner as required by the board and it's rules/guidelines.

Finalizing on #2 there i think it's down to the individual to take the time to sift through which ever part of ATS are of interest and see how the site actually operates and governs it's self and from that try to provide an example where by which ATS is "little known" or peddling outrageous conspiracy theories as hard truth and fact and such and so on relevant to this particular "reporters" nonsicle ramblings.

Long live ATS!

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Meh, they're probably just upset you didn't invite them on the jet ski USO trip.

I think the author of that hit piece needs to hang around here for a few days and get educated.


reply to post by spacedoubt


That's perfect!

Ahh Robbie will brush it all off, he's a northerner (like me), though I think there are more flat caps and whippets round here than where he is right now. The British press is rubbish for stuff like this these days. In fact this thread should be titled "The rapid decline of the British press and entertainment".

The recent Celebrity Big Brother made me feel like pulling my own eyes out and the new "Paris Hiltons new best friend" has recently made consider various household objects in order to buy the farm.

I can't be arsed with watching people being famous because...they are famous. At least Bob can sing, write and entertain.

Keep coming on here Robbie, bollocks to the giffords in the press.

P.S. 'I've Been Expecting You' is still an ace album

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
If the negative perception were to be eliminated (or at least reduced), ATS and other UFO discussion forums could benefit from an influx of individuals that have avoided posting for such reasons (bringing with them various useful skills).

I don't think there is a problem. The website has gained in membership consistently and there are a lot of people a month (about a million) who show up to read. That number wasn't near as big five years ago.

So I think that we should continue what we are doing - it's working and something that need not be forced or rushed.

As for the article...they are more concerned with the day to day of celebrities...

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.

We discuss ideas...they talk about people.

'Nuff said.

*snuggles up for the evening with my American crackpot internet friends*

End of the day,anybody that counts,knows that all these rags print is a load of reactionary, lazy ass journo BS. And for some reason, the bulk of the country lap it up like a milk doped with diazipan. But then, they've only got themselves to blame if one day they turn around and there's a camera in their bathroom watching them take a shower.

Basicly,# them and the horse they rode in on. Actually,save the horsey, cos animals are innocent in all this. clippity clop

Newspapers from around the world can say anything they want about ATS and it wouldn't matter. I'm a member here and I love conspiracy, I love debating and discussing out of this world topics. The truth is what we're all looking for and if you don't sift through all of the information ( good & bad ) then we'll miss something and I don't want to miss it. I want everyones opinion and ideas to be a part of my search for the truth. The Daily Mail is ignorant for trying to make a story out of Robbie's personal life and I applaud the three amigo's for denying ignorants and keeping to their promise of confidentiality.

Basicly,# them and the horse they rode in on. Actually,save the horsey, cos animals are innocent in all this. clippity clop

lol, good man