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"
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.