It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I don't understand why more Americans aren't outraged at the MSM.

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 06:38 PM
First of all, I am one of the ATS members here who isn't afraid of the MSM. I used to listen to theorists like Alex Jones and listen to him talk about these people. I enjoy watching the MSM so I know what the neocon fascists are doing. Anyways, allow me to present my case to you and why I think more Americans should be outraged. Let me start off by explaining to the foreign viewers how bad the media here in America is. I'm sure you're watching the health-care debate. That's not the bias that I'm going to be filling you in on.

People will go on talking about the media being biased towards the left here in America. People will also talk about the media being biased towards the right here (fox news). They're all wrong. They say that CNN is liberally biased as well... and that ABC is Democratically biased. MSNBC is supposedly liberally biased. They're wrong there too.

CNN is more of a fascist news organization. MSNBC is more filled with neoconservative types against Iran, and, they're more federalist types. MSNBC is filled with Democrats who favor a strong central government. They usually don't air liberal views as they don't usually air comments critical of the federal reserve.

ABC is just a sensationalized news program... where it's just presenting stories after stories. These stories don't add up to anything... if you watch an ABC evening news program you'll see nothing but touchy and mushy and emotional stories designed to pull at your emotions. They're mainly for entertainment.

Fox news is more neoconservative as I've said. I've been watching fox news for a while and I always see fox commentators argue in favor of force. They claim to be for smaller government and yet they go right around and say they want to use more brute force in Afghanistan (CNN does this as well), or, that they want to use the state to alter the economy (via tax cuts). They also talk positive about Iraq. These are points of views that are advocated from the news networks. Outfoxed is actually a good documentary that I advise you to watch. It's actually quite reliable. And it displays their bias.

CNBC is typically Democratically biased. That is they are heavily biased towards the Democrats. They favor bigger government, and, they advocate these views on its programs.

Alright... let me start providing you with examples. I've talked enough. Now it's time for me to start showing you the proof.

Example 1- CNN is a fascist neoconservative news group... and it tries to confuse viewers by presenting them no real news.

1 Hour of CNN Yields Less Than 5 Minutes of News

After months of observation, TVNL has discovered that after 6 minutes into any news broadcast on these networks, no more news is reported for the hour. What viewers get instead is biased speculation, in depth tabloid stories (a la the Star or the National Inquirer), stories of local or regional interest, and a great deal of infomercial content.

To illustrate this point, TVNL taped and analyzed a one hour CNN news program aired on September 5th, 2003 at 7:00 PM EST, during the prime time evening news hour.

I've been watching CNN at the gym, and when I watch them, they cover a story and talk about a spin over and over. Yet they don't cover more things. They take a really long time covering one thing.

As for CNN's neoconservative agenda, let me show you a few articles with quite a bias slant against Iran to prove my point as this is what I've been seeing on TV all the time anyhow:

Take a look at what this one CNN news anchor said in regards to Iran, sure it's not representative of all CNN news anchor, but it does reveal their slant

KING: All right. We know -- and correct me if I'm wrong, please -- that you were skeptical about that, in fact, opposed to that. You didn't think that was the way to go. Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has said publicly many times how skeptical he is about the military options here. I just want you to help an American out there who says, we can't trust Ahmadinejad, this has been going on for years. We don't think sanctions will work. Why don't we do something about it? Explain to that person out there, whether they work in the United States Congress or whether it's just an average American, when you look at the contingencies that you have available to you and the president has available to him, are there any good military options when it comes to these deep underground facilities?

GATES: Well, without getting into any specifics, I would just say we obviously don't take any options off the table.

If you look in the transcript you'll see other things with bias towards wanting a military action against Iran.

This article doesn't just talk about the Iranian test missiles. It also covers other biased remarks. I think that I've proved my point with CNN.

As for their bias towards the President: that can probably be seen here- while on its face it doesn't look too biased... it certainly does seem biased if you look between the lines. That being said, CNN has Lou Dobbs but other than that... yeah.

ABC. Let me talk about ABC for a minute. This is supposedly another Democratic news group. ABC is certainly biased towards the government. I'll probably be able to find a few links that shows its bias and sensationalism.

Okay, these articles should have shown you the bias. Note in the Afghanistan article they never say they're not against more troops. They just say that perhaps they could do it with Afghanistan troops as well. They're still arguing for the war. As for the other two articles- they show the sensationalism that gets displayed on ABC often.

Let me now present my case for MSNBC. MSNBC is a neoconservative Democrat news group.

This one article may look moderate- but at the end of the article they accuse Iran of not having a peaceful nuclear weapons facility.

Now, I'm not providing this article as a value-judgment on the legislation. It's just that this article shows that MSNBC is attributing positive language to various parts of legislation that are being pronounced.

See, MSNBC is statist. They're NOT liberal. At least in the traditional sense of the word. MSNBC advocates for more of a centralized economy... and this is why people say that it's statist or a socialist news group. MSNBC is completely partisan... and while you can't find stuff on their websites they always seem to have a pro-Democrat view on their channel.

In most of these articles you can see that CNBC shows some kind of interventionist slant. CNBC seems to be following a swine flu/economic recovery/statist agenda of some sort. They're progressive leaning... but they're more statists with regards to economic intervention and they clearly express that with their bias.

Fox news, the last and final one seems to be more biased to take advantage of ignorant consumers than the others. They seem more neoconservatively biased than the rest, and, more obviously Republican biased. They're not particularly too conservative... but you get my drift.

Some news headlines to prove my point:

I think you can see the bias.

So why aren't more people outraged over this neoconservative fascist agenda in the MSM? Am I the only one that's kind of outraged about this? I really don't know... I really can't be the only one here. I can't be the only one that's mad and upset about this fascist MSM. There has to be more people upset... I mean are they all just pacified by the TV is that why they aren't upset?

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Frankidealist35]

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 06:41 PM
So is this going to be a monthly thing for you?

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 06:45 PM
I think Americans actually enjoy the division. They've grown accustomed to the whole left vs right thing and they'd be lost without it. They don't want it gone, each side would rather have the other to collectively moan and complain about. Americans love drama, just look at the garbage that gets ratings there; reality shows, sitcoms, etc.

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 06:49 PM
reply to post by Frankidealist35

You used the term "neoconservative" 7 times in your little rant. I'm not sure what you mean by that term.

What is your definition of a "neoconservative?"

That might help me understand your post a little better.

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 06:51 PM
Can't stand what those news stations spit out, but how long can you stay mad? Everyday? It's exhausting and so you just learn to live with it and hopefully are smart enough to decipher what real and what's not.

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 06:53 PM
reply to post by RRconservative

A neoconservative in my mind is someone who advocates for the use of military force or actions to try to keep other countries in check. These other allegedly liberal news stations are said to have expressed disdain for the war in Iraq... yet the hypocrisy here is that for some reason it's okay for them to advocate for the use of a military option against Iran. That is neoconservatism in its finest.

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 07:05 PM
reply to post by Frankidealist35

To be honest, its really where you stand on the matter. Most people are outraged because MSNBC is too far left... most folks are outraged that fox news is too far right. People get outraged for them own reasons, about thinks they may not like to hear. And in all honesty in defense of the "main stream media" they are private entities, they are no obligated to be honest... and as conservatives here rally on about "freedom", well its their "freedom" as privately own news broadcasters to be bias.

Yes Fox news is a propaganda mouth piece, yes rush limbaugh is a rightwing propaganda mouth piece, yes to some people in thinking MSNBC is too far left, but theres guys are privately owned and are by all rights allowed to present what they choose..... to anybody who expects the news to be honest 100% of the time because they are too lazy to do their own research get off your backsides and stop complaining. Truth often requires more effort than merely relying on the media all the time.


posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 07:11 PM
Those Americans for the most part have been so brainwashed by either right or left extremist MSM that they have become mindless drones who simply soak up everything they are exposed to, and then attempt to regurgitate it onto others.

You can find hundreds of them posting here on ATS at just about any time of the day!

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 07:15 PM
reply to post by Frankidealist35

Maybe this thread will help you out on your confusion.

Irving Kristol, 89, a forceful essayist, editor and university professor who became the leading architect of neoconservatism, which he called a political and intellectual movement for disaffected ex-liberals, like himself, who had been "mugged by reality," died Friday at Capital Hospice in Arlington County.

Being a neoconservative requires one to be a liberal first. It has nothing to do with the advocating of military force.

When you think "neocon" think former liberal "mugged by reality." Then you will have mastered the proper use of the phrase.

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 07:46 PM
I wish we had a news station that just gave the facts only and not try and throw their take on it. Most of our news channels are nothing more than personal opinions. Reminds me of the phrase about opinions are like a-holes everybody has one.

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:02 PM
please leave Ajones out of this.

a brave patriot

the rest are ####ed in the head and bought off.

decide for yourself, then turn retard box off

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:05 PM
reply to post by huntergatherer

I still listen to Alex Jones. I know he's not bought out. I had some doubts about him in the past from his shows but I think he's a genuine article. I am not a detractor. I still enjoy listening to him. I just meant that I used to listen to him all the time so he could be my filter of reality (to separate the true news from fiction). Now I am more of my own filter for reality and I'm coming to my own conclusions about things like he does.

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:09 PM
reply to post by RRconservative

Glenn Beck would definantly be a neo-con.

I'd have to work on the definition.

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:09 PM
reply to post by RRconservative

Thanks for the link. That really explains a lot. I know you're a stead-fast conservative and I've read a lot of your posts. But I strongly urge you to watch left wing news sources and you'll see what I see. These people have forgotten about their liberal anti-war stance and have become neoconservatives. They're no longer having any second thoughts about war. Now they just advocate for military conflict whenever it serves their interest. It's sad what has happened to the liberals.

new topics


log in