CNN's HOAX on America - Real CNN Footage from 1991 "Gulf War", page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 72 times

reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 02:33 PM by mmiichael

CNN is in the business of getting eyeballs. No law says they have to be reliable or even factual. And no one forces anyone to watch television.

Now we have fake Youtube videos which are taken as Gospel. Anyone want to do an exposes of those. Would take you years.

People who are too lazy to read what actual on the scene reporters, investigative writers have said, checked sources on, provided citations for - get exactly what they deserve.

M

reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 03:08 PM by CharlesMartel

Originally posted by twitchy
That's crazy stuff man...
I thought you might kick out of an old thread of mine on here, Sadaam's Teeth, Etc.
Case law after case law prooves beyond any doubt that the media has no legal obligation to be neither truthful or factual, anything you see on that boob tube has been brought to you by someone with a vested interest in manipulating your opinions. ALL MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS CRAP, evert last thirty second slot of it.

You really shouldn't say "MAINSTREAM MEDIA".

You should say "ALLEGED MAINSTREAM MEDIA".

or

"SO-CALLED MAINSTREAM MEDIA".

or

"SELF-PROCLAIMED MAINSTREAM MEDIA".

Don't give them any more respect than they earn/deserve.

reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 04:00 PM by logican

reply to post by DaWhiz

I was being sarcastic DaWhiz, please read my previous postings on this topic. And your right people do make this so easy hence why I was being sarcastic, as to say it's done inside a studio as it uses artificial lighting is of course ludicrous. But that's why I have stopped taking this seriously now and besides as all you get is insulted if you use intelligence, common sense, logic or reason so you just have to laugh.

reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 04:21 PM by secretnasaman

Have we ruled out any chance that this is a fake CNN clip? It seems way too in your face!...especially the lazy bums that are supposed to be a crew?...maybe an internal CNN "Christmas party" video?

reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 06:46 PM by logican

reply to post by DaWhiz

Oh dear, lol, more of the same, ok, here goes.

"OK your powers of observation have been canceled due to no working knowledge of a hot set". My diploma is in tv production, my degree is in media technology and I spent many years working in such environments but like the rest of your arguement it lacks substance.

"That was suppose to be sky outside of a window" Um, is it?

"Go to 4mins zero point 2 seconds (4:02) and what do you see?" I see some people on down time with a key source of light e.g. call time 5am, drinking coffee, checking equipment etc pre broadcast but please tell me what you see as it would help because if you are going to claim it's a set it would greatly help if you gave reasons why beyond the 'it is because I say so' arguement.

"The entire darn set that's what" Like I said give reasons, be specific.

"Since when has any hotel done such tacky decorations?" You are not serious, are you?

"Shrubs and then a window frame for them INSIDE THE HOTEL?" Who said it's inside? Oh wait, you did! I'd say it was outside.

"This person is the lazy debunker who has never been in a darn studio let alone has a clue what a set is. Since I have built many of them I can see these discrepancies - I ought to or I wouldn't get paid what I do to make sets that don't have these unnatural discrepancies" Well, as I said the first part is wrong, but seriously, by all means present your evidence and then we can have a serious debate.

"You know, it would really help if you stick to your strengths instead of making it easy to debunk you" Since you have already told me I've never been in a studio can you tell me what my strengths are as you seem to know so much about me!

You know the real question is why are you so hostile?

reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 06:54 PM by logican

reply to post by secretnasaman

There was a tradition here in the UK at Christmas when the BBC would produce a tape of out-takes for internal circulation. So a good question to pose. I'd probably lean on the broadcast stuff being legit but the other stuff no idea. Regardless it raises the issue of there always being alternatives and that's the stuff that a true investigator does not discount.

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^