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.

 

Misconceptions About the MSM

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by davespanners

Originally posted by ClintK

Originally posted by davespanners
The MSM is made up of individual news organizations, how are we supposed to comment on one without commenting on the other. That's like asking us to comment on a forest without talking about trees.

I don't see how that's the case at all. Faulty logic. There are ten green people in town. Joe is one of them. Joe committed murder. Therefor ALL green people commit murder? That seems to be what you're saying.


Quite the opposite in your original post you said:

The agenda of just about ANY news organization is MONEY. Print, internet, broadcast -- it doesn't matter, it's always about money. Ratings, circulation, number of hits on a web site. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!




Whaaattt??? How you get that I'll never know. Absolutely illogical deduction. Just because media organizations share ONE thing in common doesn't mean they share everything in common. That's preposterous.

You need better deductive reasoning. Fox news has a conservative bias. That doesn't mean all news organizations have a conservative bias. News organizations are businesses. They are not non-profit organizations. All businesses are there to make money. Hate to burst your bubble, but news is no exception.



edit on 10-9-2010 by ClintK because: (no reason given)




edit on 10-9-2010 by ClintK because: punctuation, spelling




posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"I said before, I'm talking about the MSM and conspiracies to manipulate the public. NOT an individual new organization."

Only a couple of posts in and you're already splitting hairs and backpedaling. It is interesting to get some insight into what kind of people these disreputable treasonous media outlets like to hire. Not surprising in the least.


You have an obvious problem with comprehension and/or reasoning. The idea that I'm "backpeddling" is your self-serving delusion. My origional post was about the MSM and how there is no conspiracy. This thread is about the MSM and how there is no conspiracy.

Just because somebody can find some instance of an individual news organization killing a story means nothing.

NOTHING!!

It would only mean something if ALL news organizations killed the same story. THEN we would have an MSM conspiracy.

It is troubling to me that some of you STILL cannot comprehend the difference between the mainstream media as a whole and an individual news organization.

If you actually HAVE EVIDENCE that all the major news organizations acted in lock-step to kill a story or present it a certain way, please present it now. I've never heard of such a thing, but if you think you know better, I'd love to hear what you've got.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Again

I am not the one make vast sweeping statements about all news organizations being the same, you are.

I repeat
You said


The agenda of just about ANY news organization is MONEY. Print, internet, broadcast -- it doesn't matter, it's always about money. Ratings, circulation, number of hits on a web site. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!


You said it's ALWAYS ALL ABOUT MONEY

I then pointed out that the head of one particular news organization is well known to have a particular political bias and not only that but he donates some of the precious money to those politicians which means that he makes less profit, he also runs stories in direct opposition to the popular view at the expense of his news papers circulation to promote a political ideology.

Replacing one over dramatic over simplified view of the MSM i.e. it's controlled by the government, with another equally simplified view i.e. it's all about profit is hardly helpful.

So far from you we have had
Appeal to authority (I'm a journalist so I must be right) in your first post followed by a blatant straw man argument in the next and now you move on to personal attack about my supposed faulty logic.

Anything else to add to this list of fallacious debate techniques?




edit on 10-9-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)




edit on 10-9-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
What about this video of Rupert Murdoch saying that by disclosing certain facts (and by implication not disclosing others) he can mold the political agenda in a limited way, and that he "tried" through his news organizations to mold public opinion in favor of the Iraq war. Is he lying?




edit on 10-9-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
"Exactly how were the media supposed to investigate it?"

I don't know, you tell me, you're the professional journalist.

"How could they get classified intelligence info from the government"

Maybe by using their anonymous sources. Oh I forgot, the media doesn't do that anymore; they just sit on their fat asses behind some desk and report everything that they get from the Government word for word as indisputable fact.

"Yes, it has been investigated. I remember distinctly less than a year ago, Jesse Ventura did an entire program on it a cable network -- I think it was discovery."

You consider The Guvernah doing some BS propaganda filled one hour TV show on 9/11 as an in depth investigation into 9/11? Interesting observation.

"I'm not saying I believe the official story. There are a LOT of unanswered questions. There is a LOT, frankly, that makes me suspicious. But that doesn't mean there's a media conspiracy. It simply doesn't equate to that."

If that is the case, then why is the media sweeping these unanswered questions under the rug, instead of asking them? Maybe because they were complicit in 9/11? You see, if I wanted somebody to stay quiet and not investigate my despicable plot, I would include them in the planning and make them a co-conspirator. That would guarantee me that they remain quiet and not reveal the plan, because doing so would incriminate not only me, but them as well. It's an old trick - individuals who lack scruples have been doing it since the beginning of time.

"Some of these things have been investigated thoroughly. You think immigration reform doesn't get an avalanche of coverage? Geez. I'm actually getting sick of the issue."

Just because a story gets an avalanche of coverage from a bunch of spin doctors does not mean the story is being properly investigated and/or reported. Someone like you should know the difference between the two.

"AIDS was investigated thoroughly in the 1980s."

The real source of AIDS was thoroughly investigated? By whom? Two decades later people are still dying from the disease, yet you no longer hear a peep from the media on it. I got an idea, let's spend our time following Paris Hilton and Britney Spears around. Maybe that will make people think that AIDS and all the other man made crap out there doesn't exist anymore.

"And how can you "investigate" the Patriot Act?"

Here is a couple of questions for the sell out politicians your buddies at the media can start with. What was the real reason for passing the Patriot Act in such a lightning quick manner? How can you vote to pass a bill that you haven't even read?

"You have an obvious problem with comprehension and/or reasoning. The idea that I'm "backpeddling" is your self-serving delusion."

Insult noted. Is this how they teach you to deal with the public in journalism school? Looks like money well spent. Also, you have an interesting way of spelling backpedaling, even after I spelled it correctly for you. I was under the impression that a journalist worth his salt always proofreads his material. Since today's journalists do nothing more than spoon feed an ignorant and illiterate general public, why bother right?

"Just because somebody can find some instance of an individual news organization killing a story means nothing."

The above is coming from the same person who previously said:

"There is no conspiracy to "hide the truth." During the entire time I was a reporter I was never asked to significantly change the content of a story...But I was never asked to lie. I was never told to bury a story and just forget about it. Ever."

"It would only mean something if ALL news organizations killed the same story. THEN we would have an MSM conspiracy."

Yeah, I see all these other media outlets running out there to cover the Monsanto story which was buried. Oh, I forgot they're too busy running after the Hiltons and the Spears of the world. Now that's real news!

"It is troubling to me that some of you STILL cannot comprehend the difference between the mainstream media as a whole and an individual news organization."

What I do comprehend is that the entire mainstream media is made up of six or seven very large corporations which collude to feed people trash, manipulate them and keep them in the dark. What I do comprehend is that these corporations are owned and operated by elitests whose agenda is to serve and cater to their elitest buddies at the expense of the general public. What I also comprehend is what Abraham Lincoln said: 'You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.'

"If you actually HAVE EVIDENCE that all the major news organizations acted in lock-step to kill a story or present it a certain way, please present it now."

This isn't how it works, since the people who run the media aren't that stupid to expose themselves in such a manner. Instead, they all choose to ignore and not cover stories which are counterproductive to their selfish slimy interests. Or, if they have to cover a story because it's already out there, they slant it to fit their insidious agendas.

Enough of this frivolous stuff. Now please go do something important for the public like tracking down Lady GaGa. We're all dying to know what she's up to.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Sigh...

Please explain to me how something that happens at one (1) news organization means there is conspiracy among the entire mainstream media.

I'm waiting.

BTW, it's obvious that some of you were never taught to read for comprehension. It's like you utterly don't understand what I'm saying; don't understand the topic.

I'm waiting.

Yes. I said the media are all about money. I also said just because one news organization does something, that doesn't mean they all do. Which is common sense. But evidently not to some people. I get this response that I'm contradicting myself by saying that. How so?

I'm waiting.

Somebody brought up FOX news doing something. They reached the conclusion that this means there is a conspiracy in the MSM.

How so?

I'm waiting.




edit on 10-9-2010 by ClintK because: wording



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I have never argued that there is a conspiracy in the entire mainstream media.

The very first line of my first reply to you was


I would agree that there is no overriding secret group controlling every single organization, but there are a very few people in charge of most of the huge media groups in the world and it's not even a secret.


I was arguing with the bit of your post that said the only thing that media companies are interested in is MONEY MONEY MONEY, and I think I have proved that is wrong with a video of the head of one of the largest media groups in the entire world saying that he is interested in "Setting the agenda" of political debate

Sigh.....

Sigh....

ZZZZzzzzzzzzz

So do you admit that your original assertion that ALL the media is only about MONEY MONEY MONEY was wrong

I'm waiting...

Still waiting....

You can add not bothering to read the actual replies to your questions to your list of failed techniques now if you want



edit on 10-9-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by davespanners
I have never argued that there is a conspiracy in the entire mainstream media.

The very first line of my first reply to you was


I would agree that there is no overriding secret group controlling every single organization, but there are a very few people in charge of most of the huge media groups in the world and it's not even a secret.


I was arguing with the bit of your post that said the only thing that media companies are interested in is MONEY MONEY MONEY, and I think I have proved that is wrong with a video of the head of one of the largest media groups in the entire world saying that he is interested in "Setting the agenda" of political debate

Sigh.....

Sigh....

ZZZZzzzzzzzzz

So do you admit that your original assertion that ALL the media is only about MONEY MONEY MONEY was wrong

I'm waiting...

Still waiting....

You can add not bothering to read the actual replies to your questions to your list of failed techniques now if you want



edit on 10-9-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)



Uh, no, you haven't "proven" anything. If a media company has an agenda it's only because their target audience has an agenda. Duh.

I haven't bothered to reply to you because you haven't bothered to reply to me. You want to make this thread about something other than what it is.

I'm still waiting.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
www.aim.org...


Campaign workers for Senator
and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying
a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara. But Obama has his own controversial
socialist connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based
Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections
to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler.


Why wasn't his information investigated and reported by the MSM?

Why did Senator Obama campaign for known socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont?


en.wikipedia.org...


Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist,[1][2] and has praised European social democracy, but because he does not belong to a formal political party, he appears as an independent on the ballot. He is the first person elected to the U.S. Senate to identify as a socialist.[3]


Why wasn't it reported that Obama had been not only endorsed but actively sought out an endorsement by The New Party chicagodsa.org...

web.archive.org...

From the October 1996 Update of the DSA 'New Party':
"New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races...

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."


Perhaps you could make it a priority with your well connected friends to at least look into the facts and report that the President of The United States is a socialist? Maybe? That he probably really doesn't have the countries best interests in mind as he is bankrupting the us...

Why wasn't it newsworthy that Obama IS connected to Bill Ayers Of The Weather Underground? I for one am amazed that no one thinks it is a problem that Obama is of the same mind as domestic terrorists.
Or perhaps all "journalists" think like this...

en.wikipedia.org...


Statements by JournoList members and responses

On July 20, 2010, The Daily Caller (DC) published the dialog of the JournoList concerning Jeremiah Wright.[13] The contributors discussed killing the Wright story, as it was reflecting negatively on Barack Obama. In a separate discussion, about an ABC News-sponsored debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton, Michael Tomasky, a writer for The Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks – in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people".[13] James Taranto observed that one JournoList contributor, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent, stated "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them – Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares –- and call them racists".



edit on 14-9-2010 by ljtg123 because: spelling



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ljtg123
www.aim.org...


Campaign workers for Senator
and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying
a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara. But Obama has his own controversial
socialist connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based
Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections
to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler.


Why wasn't his information investigated and reported by the MSM?

Why did Senator Obama campaign for known socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont?


en.wikipedia.org...


Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist,[1][2] and has praised European social democracy, but because he does not belong to a formal political party, he appears as an independent on the ballot. He is the first person elected to the U.S. Senate to identify as a socialist.[3]


Why wasn't it reported that Obama had been not only endorsed but actively sought out an endorsement by The New Party chicagodsa.org...

web.archive.org...

From the October 1996 Update of the DSA 'New Party':
"New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races...

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."


Perhaps you could make it a priority with your well connected friends to at least look into the facts and report that the President of The United States is a socialist? Maybe? That he probably really doesn't have the countries best interests in mind as he is bankrupting the us...

Why wasn't it newsworthy that Obama IS connected to Bill Ayers Of The Weather Underground? I for one am amazed that no one thinks it is a problem that Obama is of the same mind as domestic terrorists.
Or perhaps all "journalists" think like this...

en.wikipedia.org...


Statements by JournoList members and responses

On July 20, 2010, The Daily Caller (DC) published the dialog of the JournoList concerning Jeremiah Wright.[13] The contributors discussed killing the Wright story, as it was reflecting negatively on Barack Obama. In a separate discussion, about an ABC News-sponsored debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton, Michael Tomasky, a writer for The Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks – in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people".[13] James Taranto observed that one JournoList contributor, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent, stated "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them – Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares –- and call them racists".



edit on 14-9-2010 by ljtg123 because: spelling



All that stuff WAS investigated.

Geez get with it. Obama's "connection" to the Weather Underground was to a former member, William Ayers, and consisted of a single visit to his home, serving with him on the 9 member board of the Woods Fund and two academic panels on improving education. Oh, and Ayers made a 200 dollar contribetion to his campaign.

Ayers, btw, has a Ph.D. in education and specializes in fixing public school systems. His work with the Weather Underground was 30 years ago.

All that stuff was out. And there were reporters from FOX and the Washington Times and several other conservative news organizations who spent many weeks trying to find out if there was more. It would have made their careers. But ultimately, they realized they were wasting their time. There was no more.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ClintK
All that stuff WAS investigated.

Geez get with it. Obama's "connection" to the Weather Underground was to a former member, William Ayers, and consisted of a single visit to his home, serving with him on the 9 member board of the Woods Fund and two academic panels on improving education. Oh, and Ayers made a 200 dollar contribetion to his campaign.

Ayers, btw, has a Ph.D. in education and specializes in fixing public school systems. His work with the Weather Underground was 30 years ago.

All that stuff was out. And there were reporters from FOX and the Washington Times and several other conservative news organizations who spent many weeks trying to find out if there was more. It would have made their careers. But ultimately, they realized they were wasting their time. There was no more.



www.noquarterusa.net...


But a review of just the publicly known highlights of the Ayers-Obama relationship suggests a twenty year pattern of connections between the two.
At the heart of this “Top Ten” list is the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers founded and Obama and Ayers co-chaired for five years, raising and spending at least $110 million in an effort to bolster a “radical” (Ayers’ word) reform program in the Chicago Public Schools from 1994 to 2001.


Looks to me like they had a cozy relationship. Ayers is a terrorist and a friend of the Obama's.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
i disagree, look up who owns these media outlets. there is a reason that everything you see on tv is mindless garbage and borderline propaganda at best, and that is to make us a whole lot dumber than we already are. which won't be easy, we are already pretty stupid for the most part.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ljtg123
 


Sorry, but I don't think that's evidence of a cozy relationship. It's like Glenn Beck's idiotic paranoia: drawing a series of very abstract relationships and then using some twisted logic to assert something can be concluded from it. It's funny, but it's outer space.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2weird2live2rare2die
i disagree, look up who owns these media outlets. there is a reason that everything you see on tv is mindless garbage and borderline propaganda at best, and that is to make us a whole lot dumber than we already are. which won't be easy, we are already pretty stupid for the most part.


Well, give me evidence. Suspicion and paranoia mean nothing. And that's all you have.

BTW, there is a lot that is mindless garbage on TV, but there is a lot that isn't. A lot of Americans are idiots and they watch idiotic stuff. The media goes where the money is, and in TV that's ratings.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join