It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Journalism: The Most Trusted Scam In America

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
i found this amazing video on journalism today and i found it both shocking and funny at the same time seeing Chris Matthews quoting Saul Alinsky a noted Marxist as a source of wisdom and comfort in these trying times and the MSM tries to say they aren't biased at all, here is the video for all to watch and post your insights and comments would love to get others impressions on this.. also keep in mind Alinsky write rules for radicals which is basically a rulebook for Marxist communists to overthrow and control the media to convert to Marxism www.youtube.com...




posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
This is a good piece. However, we must realize that the sword cuts both ways. Let us not talk about the cover ups of death squads in South America that killed thousands in defense of freedom against communism.

I found it truly ironic that they tried to cast Fox news as the last bastion of unbiased journalism. All major media serves the agenda of an elite few. It is a better way of controlling the masses than bullets and guns. You convince people that subjects are beyond their comprehension. Then you frame the acceptable ideals by having supposedly intelligent people with masters degrees and PHDs tell them waht to think.

I did the argument a great dis-service. Read "Manufacturing Consent."



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Dr. Hunter Thomson, Jornalist, said it best many decades ago, and its only gotten worse:




"Why bother with newspapers, if this is all they offer? Agnew was right. The press is a gang of cruel f*****s. Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for f***-offs and misfits – a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy p**ss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and m*****bate like a chimp in a zoo-cage."



[edit on 1/19/10 by silent thunder]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   
The media needs to be changed. So major in journalism/communications, get an MA, go to work and put your input into the greater whole.

This constant crybaby, whining about how ******up the MSN is, is getting boring. If you don't like the status quo, change it with education, hard work and ambition. Encourage like minded individuals to do the same. but please just stfu with all the complaining.

I just burrowed money to buy the equipment, studio and personnel to start my own production company. You can do the same if you aren't afraid of getting your hands dirty and a little hard work. But its more fun to sit at your computer and complain and play with your wii wii huh?

Ever heard of freelance journalism? How hard can it be? With the www. it's a whole new ball game and changes are coming fast. Print and even cable is about to tank. It's coming faster than you think.

Anyone with a laptop, a broadband connection, a mic, a camcorder capable of 1080HD and a handfull of SCHC cards, is now a media person, with access to all sorts of outlets, from vlogs to youtube etc.

It's a brave new world with practically instant communication anywhere. No Rules, No Limits, No excuses.




[edit on 19-1-2010 by whaaa]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
He, as always has some good points. Bill Whittle loses all credibility with me when he makes such statements as "losing the war in vietnam condemned to death millions of freedom-loving vietnamese" while conveniently forgetting the horrors we inflicted on the same people (see operation Phoenix, agent orange or My Lai). For such an intelligent man he sure has a patriotic myopia that ruins his commentary.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
It was all pretty good until it left me with the impression that FOX news is a good thing for America. Sure it keeps the blue team in check but it supports the red team... who are a marauding band of criminals... not our rulers and not our authorities.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


i am confused to as what your argument truly is? that communism is good because it too has suffered losses and are you going to be one of those people who bad mouths fox news which alot of reputable polls and watchdog groups have deemed them more fair and balanced then oh say msnbc or the clinton news network,also papers like the NYT has been covering up socialist and extreme left positions for decades, at least people like O'Reilly has democrats on his show to share opposing views when is the last time you saw olbermann have a conservative on his show and engage in meaningful debate much less verbally abuse them.. point is there are still some truthworthy news outlets out there its exposing the MSM for the BS they have been spouting and start enforcing a better standard for them to uphold to



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by zeroeffect
 


Let me clarify things for you. The mass media is corrupt with bias on both sides. The whole left or right bias argument is a bad game of three card monty that the public has agreed to play.

In the 80's the MSM overlooked the fact that tens of thousands of innocent South Americans were killed by "Freedom" fighters. The main stream media repeatedly turned its head when George Bush and friends lied about WMDs. The bias always tilts to fit those in power. The msm is a tool to keep people in line so that the gov't doesn't have to resort to bullets and beatings.

Read Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent." Then wake up and realize that no - absolutely not even one- main stream media outlet is interested in being unbiased. Fox, ABC, MSNBC, all of them slant the news to fit the official view of an elite few.

Do some use slant to advance a personal agenda. I would bet money on it. However, I would be willing to bet that more slant is caused by advertisers and the desire for "access" than any one reporter's personal views.

How many people suffer daily because all news agencies fail to report on the effects of IMF and World Bank loans? How many died because the msm refused to report that the US has supplied the resources for Colombia to dump Agent Orange on? These are failures that served the "American interest." Yet they hide a huge loss of life, liberty, health,a nd property.

I am not a "blame america first" type of guy. I just realize that the bias is used to serve an agenda much bigger than Republican vs Democrat or even Democracy vs Communism.

The MSM keeps the majority in line for the few. The argument of bias helps keep many that are "too smart" in another line. Either way it serves to keep the majority arguing about which version of the official story is more right. It hides the fact that most of the time it is nearly a complete fabrication.

Does that clear things up at all?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Seriously friend no offense but throwing Noam Chomsky at me so my ever closing eyes might open isn't an argument at all as far as i see is Chomsky is a pseudo intellectual not is no better philosophically then Saul Alinsky and try to stay on topic...



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeroeffect
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Seriously friend no offense but throwing Noam Chomsky at me so my ever closing eyes might open isn't an argument at all as far as i see is Chomsky is a pseudo intellectual not is no better philosophically then Saul Alinsky and try to stay on topic...


Really? The man that has been called the most important linguist of the last century is a pseudo intellectual? A man who's work has shaped linguistics, psychology,a nd computer programming is a pseudo intellectual? Then tell me what it takes to be an intellectual.

I don't agree with everything Chomsky says. However, Manufacturing Consent is hard to refute.

Would you argue the premise;




Editorial distortion is aggravated by the news media’s dependence upon private and governmental news sources. If a given newspaper, television station, magazine, et cetera, incurs governmental disfavor, it usually is subtly excluded from access to information (news); resultantly, its competitors receive biased, preferential access. Consequently, the excluded news medium loses readers, viewers, and subscribers, hence its market-place business-leadership when it loses advertisers — the primary income sources. To minimize such financial danger, news media businesses editorially distort their reportage to favor government and corporate policies in order to maintain revenues and increase profits.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Wait so the Noam Chomsky whose professional listings include nothing in MSM but i should take his criticisms at face value without researching them myself because you told me he is smarter then me? That Noam Chomsky?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeroeffect
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Wait so the Noam Chomsky whose professional listings include nothing in MSM but i should take his criticisms at face value without researching them myself because you told me he is smarter then me? That Noam Chomsky?


Actually I never said he was smarter than you. I said that he was not a pseudo intellectual. I asked you what your definition of an intellectual is. I then asked if you would refute the premise of Manufacturing Consent.

MY first post was more direct than I had intended. I should have made it more general. You said you didn't understand the post. So I tried to clarify. Your response was to attack Chomsky as a "pseudo intellectual." When I ask for your definition of an intellectual, and ask you to refute the premise of a criticism, you act as if I attacked you. Then you admit you have not reviewed Chomsky's criticism.

Now I have two questions. How do you so completely miss the point on every post? The second is why do continue to argue off point instead of addressing anything in a post directly?

As far as Chomsky having no MSM credits...

The Guardian, The BBC, Boston Review, The Independent, and the L.A Times have all ran articles from Noam Chomsky in the last decade. He also had 12 articles published in The New York Review of Books between 1967 and 1975. The Washington Post has asked him, on multiple occasions, to discuss his views and debate their readers in an open forum.

Do some research, stick to things you know, or stick to the actual points being discussed. When you commit multiple argumenitive fallacies debate or discussion becomes pointless.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join