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.

 

Reuters Busted with Disinfo over Wikileaks

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
If you want to know how news organizations play facts to make a story that support their specific agenda look no further than here.

In the first story written July 25, 2010 is in regard to a top military...well just read it yourself the title is: Top U.S. officer warns Afghan war will get worse


(Reuters) - More NATO troops will die in Afghanistan as violence mounts over the summer, but Washington's goal of turning the tide against the insurgency by year's end is within reach, the top U.S. military officer said on Sunday.

The remarks by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, on a visit to the country, came as the Taliban said they were holding captive one of two U.S. servicemen who strayed into insurgent territory, and that the other had been killed.

It also comes less than a week since a major international conference in Kabul agreed that the Afghan government should aim to take responsibility for security in all parts of the country by 2014.

Mullen, who called the troops' disappearance an "unusual circumstance," said there would be more violent incidents to come, but the U.S. military was doing everything possible to find the missing men, who were both from the Navy.


Now they follow the original story on the heals of the wikileaks leaking the documents. Take a look at the story now using the top military officials words. Well just read it:
U.S. says Afghan war will get worse


KABUL (Reuters) - More NATO troops will die fighting in Afghanistan this summer, a top U.S. military officer said, as a new report emerged implicating Pakistan for actively collaborating with the insurgency while accepting U.S. aid.

The New York Times, citing documents leaked by the group Wikileaks, said representatives from Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence met directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize militant networks fighting U.S. soldiers.

The agency was also involved in plots to assassinate Afghan leader, the Times said, adding the Wikileaks report was based on 91,000 documents collected from across the U.S. military in the country.

The White House condemned the leak, saying it could threaten national security and endanger the lives of Americans. Pakistan said leaking of unprocessed reports from the battlefield was irresponsible.

Violence in Afghanistan is at its highest of the 9-year-old war as thousands of extra U.S. troops, dispatched by President Barack Obama in December, step up their campaign to drive insurgents out of their traditional heartland in the south.

U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he expected fighting to intensify over the next few months, but Washington's goal of turning the tide against the insurgency by year's end was within reach.


Look at how they twist the facts for their own agenda. This is a great example of how MSM distort truth.


[edit on 26-7-2010 by ExPostFacto]




posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Wow not even a reply?! Are we all becoming desensitized to blatant lies and misinformation?



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Certainly not de-sensitized..

I've came to the point to where I read such things and my only response is "hm, figures".. This is why I read absolutely NOTHING from MSM



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


I looked at this thread last night and again today, and I'm still not sure what the smoking gun is.

The second Reuters article (in the form you quoted) is poorly written and confusing, but I don't see the disinformation involved. It has since been rewritten at least twice (it had already changed when I looked at the thread last night and has changed again today), and is easier to follow now.

Maybe it would help if you said in your own words what you found objectionable?



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


The first paragraph of the second story, links a previous statement by a US official and ties it in with the Wikileaks release. I hope you see how twisting in additional unrelated facts to a story, that is not related to the new information can be taken. I thought it was fairly obvious how they were intending to use information to support another position that was not related to the first.

And wow they really did edit their second story. Maybe some editor realized it was bogus reporting.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by ExPostFacto]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


I do agree that news organizations often use "context" to spin stories.

I think I wasn't particularly offended by this case because I read it not as Reuters trying to blame the Wikileaks release for the possibility of the situation in Afghanistan being a mess, but rather as giving evidence that the situation in Afghanistan may have gotten worse since December (which is when the Wikileaks evidence ends).

It did help that by the time I read it they had rewritten the article. That first version was really a piece of crap



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Wow not even a reply?! Are we all becoming desensitized to blatant lies and misinformation?


YES!

But also seems to be a very slow day on ATS.

Here is the question. How do we get real journalism again? How do we turn off the McNews and corporate mouthpieces reporting news that supports their advertisers, and how do we support the news folks that are getting to the bottom of things and reporting facts and figures?



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Break up the corporate conglomerates controlling media. I have some ideas for a solution but my opinion wouldn't matter much. I see college news stations doing a much better job reporting actual news than corporations. They usually give fair debate over the issues. Because they do not have "experts" to tell them everything they rely on common sense approaches to dissecting news stories.




top topics



 
5

log in

join