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.

 

Does the media censor the news at the command of private interests?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Does the media censor the news at the command of private interests? Can one of thier sponsors or a secret society member that has moles in thier network manipulate thats over the airwaves?




posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Probably not so much. However they manipulate their 'news' according to the network owners wishes. Those more than often are very biased.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   


The news is compiled and supplied to the "actors" known as
journalists.
It's 99 percent prop.
You'll get SOME truth on local networks, but they are limited to what they can talk about as well.
Corporate will let you know what's acceptable.
Corporate is your government as well and ALL the alphabet agencies.
I've been in it since the first gulf, it's controlled top to bottom.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
A good point of interest is wikileaks.

Real journalists who do the legwork, who are unable to publish reports due to National Security or a legal issues in the case of private companies, are able to get their information out in the public eye without recourse because they post scoops anonymously.

The mainstream media, because of legal issues and personal interest, cannot or will not publish actual newsworthy events.

We need to use these tools like wikileaks and other online sources to get real stories out. ATS is a great site for these type of scoops.

They are actively trying to stifle free press and actively trying to stifle online activities because they cannot control the content.

Open your eyes and use not-so-mainstream sources in your search for truth. Fox, NBC, BBC, or any other 'news' agency is not in the business of rattling their own cage.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
But of course. Here is a link to a Fox News story about Monsanto and Posilac, their rBGH that creates cancerous milk and the story behind why the investigation and the reporters were canned.

m.youtube.com...

[edit on 8-5-2010 by TheRoadLessTraveled]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   
You might like this. site wtfcnn.com...



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
of course



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
It’s not so much information control that’s apparent, but rather "Agenda Setting". There are always so many things to talk about in this world, and only so much time to talk about them. Ignorance is the most powerful form of desception, and a lack of attention can sometimes one of the best forms of PR.
Not talking about one bad thing, whilst talking about another, is the usual way to protect the shareholders other investment interests, or rig the political process for wider aims.

Signs we are definitely not free
A truly free competitive media would have…
1. Made a blockbuster movie about how 9/11 was a false flag attack. For most commercial products, (but especially film where there is much about) all bad publicity is good publicity. The film would have made hundreds of millions both in US and Arab world.
2. At least one mainstream paper would have informed us about how Russia was not aggressor in the 2008 Georgian-Ossetia conflict. And how nearly all Ossetians would rather be Russian than Georgian as the Georgians are highly hostile-racist towards them.
3. The Iraq war, and no wmds ect

Usually, the only time the media uses the best of journalistic skill-talent its to interrogate-slander those least capable of defending themselves. I.e. low-level criminals, celebrities, and other non-issues.

When powerful interests aren’t protected it’s usually because it serves our own prominent interests (e.g. poisonous Chinese toys) or simply can’t be (e.g. BP oil disaster, although the mainstream media did a “excellent” job of keeping the public badly informed about the scale, for at least the first two weeks). I.E. instead of making money by lawfully talking up the leakage, they sucked up to government-bp interests by always accepting their ridiculously low estimates.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join