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.

 

Anderson Cooper Attacked by Mob in Egypt

page: 16
35
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


I can't speak for everyone, but I think that is exactly what is was/is: cynical sarcasm. I know it is for me. Anderson Cooper is kind of the Martha Stewart of television "journalism". Frankly, these people have the privilege and leisure and they should just stay in their own world, imo. I think the posts were kind of a Hunter S Thompson vibe that bloomed out of our contempt and indignation.

2 things
1. Journalism headed straight downhill with the Clinton-Lewinsky garbage. That was the beginning of the end for me because they were almost all turning into harpies and gibbons (those screaming monkeys). The last remants of true journalism died with Dan Rather and Peter Jennings, imo. I will never forget the look on Jennings face as he said the words he clearly had to say on the morning of Sept 11th and the tears of both men when they discussed it later. It was as if they were talking about someone who had died. And they were. We cancelled our cable and turned off our tv after that.
I *don't* have any respect for the people "reporting" our news. I don't really believe that, generally, there is any altruism- or honesty there. Anywhere. I don't think they deserve to 'eat poop and die' or anything, but I don't really feel sorry for them if things get rough for them, either. I don't feel bad laughing at them, I'm not going to lie.

2. It hit me (and maybe should have sooner) reading the Fox news post. I wonder if the agenda is to nip any sympathy people might feel for the Arab PEOPLE in the bud. They are the official scapegoats, the Great Satan. A "Muslim extremist", a "jihadi" down to every man, woman, and child. Or so our government would have us believe. So *much* of our government's agenda is based on "the terrorists" (TM) They are the alibi for everything that is happening that's destroying our freedom. (uh, *who's* getting searched at airports?)
This is our second opportunity to see who these people really are- first, the Persians, and now the Egyptians. They aren't "radical" and "inherently violent". They aren't their governments- any more than we are (American or Brit or whoever) and they are Just. Like. Us. I'm having tacos for dinner and they're having kebabs, but underneath our cultural identities, we're the same. We love our families, we listen to music, we want that great new [outfit] we saw today, and *we want to be FREE and happy! We want to live a decent life, literally and figuratively.

That's really bad for the governments' agenda if we know that- ours or theirs. I hope people will think about that when they watch our "journalists being attacked". Who benefits? It isn't the Eygptians (or Iranians or what ever "Muslim" it happens to be) and it sure isn't us. Who are our "journalists" serving? Again, it isn't us.
And we all know it.
edit on 3-2-2011 by DogsDogsDogs because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DogsDogsDogs
 


Well gosh darn, Dogs....that's about one of the single best posts I've ever read on ATS! Kudos, my friend, it feels damn good to know that they're still people out there like you who get it.

Props again!

edit on 3-2-2011 by OnTheFelt because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Cobra.EXE
 





there is NO freedom of speech on the mainstream news, everything is filtered and everything is screened before even coming onto the air.


Just like in the The Yugoslav Wars, the media was pretty much one sided and thus didn't bother on broadcasting, how the other faction (serbs, romas) were feeling or were impacted by the war.



In a war zone a journalist or reporter needs to see all the factions no matter who they are, however that wasn't the case in Yugoslav Wars.


Washington had already prevented journalists and reporters from even broadcasting a family of serbs civilians in sarajevo during the war and letting them hear there side of the war viewpoint.


Do you honestly think or believe the media has changed?
edit on 3-2-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


mubarak and the police are upset of the coverage...especially aljazeeras live cam.....they know propaganda..they are pros at it....when they see networks supporting the protestors...they will be suppressed.


ask yourself.... WHY IS THERE A MARCH 4 MONTHS BEFORE HE LEAVES....NOT FOR A CHANGE OF LEADERSHIP...WHICH IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT...BUT REFORM CHANGE...THE WEST DONT WANT HIM TO GO, LEAVING THESE STRONG LAWS IN PLACE FOR THE NEXT LEADER.

now mubarak nows this...HE HAS DONE A NATIONALISTC CALL ON EGYPTIANS AND CALLED THE PROTESTORS FOREIGNERS.....GAME...SET....MATCH

edit on 3-2-2011 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


I hope they don't play that game.

Mubarak may not realize it, but he may be walking himself right into a trap.

Like Saddam before, he has outlived his usefulness and is no longer necessary. He can either step down and let a new democratic government form or he can have thousands of people massacred and end up losing the Suez.

Like Saddam, I don't think he has any idea of how many different factions there are in our government, each pushing their own agendas. He turns into a bloody tyrant, he will quickly find out and probably be relieved of his responsibilities over the canal.

There are people in NATO who genuinely care about the People of Egypt, but there are also people who care about Realpolitik.

I only hope in the end the people can benefit from whatever action is taken.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


Fox just made me confused (big shocker). I was listening to that reporter with broad shoulders and perhaps a Napoleon complex (who held an automatic that one time when he was reporting from Israel...why a reporter would be holding a gun in or out of the shot is beyond me if you're gonna bother to call it journalism).

At any rate, I was listening to him talk to the smallish, petty man who has a show from 9 to 10pm every night. He was discussing the reporters getting attacked as though it was some sign of how Egypt is turning into a dark period (because of those bad protesters, of course!).

Yet, I had understood that Anderson Cooper, per his coverage of the incident that happened to him, was punched by pro-Mubarak rioters (i.e., rent-a-thugs).

I'm so confused. Lindsey Lohan shoplifting with lift my spirits and make brain easier to think about complex things.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


I'm afraid that game began yesterday. Even before they were able to get all the cameras out of commission, there is footage of a police vehicle running through a crowd of people, swerving to crush as many as they could, and a fire engine running over a demonstrator as well. I believe the man was dead looking at the footage. Also, the night before they were sniping anti-government protesters in the square, there would be a few bursts of fire at a time, and a bit later an ambulance would pull up and cart a body off...I'm sure the casualties are much higher than the Egyptian government is reporting.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Anderson is not totally gay, he is just on the down low



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by OnTheFelt
 


Thank you for the kind words, OnTheFelt. :blush: I didn't think it was *that* good.
but I meant every word.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 


For what it's worth, anything you see or hear on television "news" or the radio is pretty much always skewed/ slanted and has a definite agenda. No wonder you're confused. There are so many international sources on the internet, you can usually glean what's really going on by looking at several sources and piecing it together. It's kinda fun after a while.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chevalerous

Originally posted by freedish
reply to post by anon72
 



It was the Pro-Mubarak crowd (with plainclothes police & security forces) who were attacking Anderson Cooper and the CNN crew

Please get the facts right!

Peace!
edit on 2-2-2011 by Chevalerous because: (no reason given)



AND the camera crew....



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Well, glad I was wrong about today. I see the angle Mubarak is taking now though, apparently they arrested a couple fall guys in the interior ministry, and will probably blame them for inciting the violence, in the hopes Mubarak will be seen as cracking down on the cracking down. He wants to say "see, I'm not a bad guy".



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


I thought this thread was about Anderson Cooper. Can we get back to gay bashing please!


edit on 4-2-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Was that a pun?

Are you calling AC gay also and that he got bashed?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Dude, you obviously have no clue about my position regarding gay rights. You're hounding the wrong guy. It's all a matter of record here on ATS, and I have come to the defense of the rights of all people to love whomever they wish, and receive the same rights as straights, in thread after thread. Nowhere on this thread did I mention AC's sexuality, except once to express my feeling that it's ridiculous to even discuss it. For a journalist, you seem to have a real problem getting the true scoop, even when it's right in front of your face. As for the post you seem to think is off topic, again, read up a bit and you'll see that I like others thought the reason they were attacking Anderson and other journalists, was so they can stop the cameras and really crack down on the demonstrators. That didn't happen, probably not because that wasn't what they wanted to do, but because they knew everybody was expecting it.
edit on 4-2-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


Sorry, it I didn't mean to point to you explicitly...

It was just a sarcastic reference to the overall tone the thread took on with the overt hate expressed to AC and bringing in his sexuality to bolster and rationalize their arguments.




edit on 4-2-2011 by whaaa because: rtyjm76rtu



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DogsDogsDogs
reply to post by 27jd
 


I can't speak for everyone, but I think that is exactly what is was/is: cynical sarcasm. I know it is for me. Anderson Cooper is kind of the Martha Stewart of television "journalism". Frankly, these people have the privilege and leisure and they should just stay in their own world, imo.



And should uneducated white trash stay in their world? Or be free to express themselves and perhaps make a better life and tell how it is to be poor.

I never saw myself to be in the position of defending the elite and I find it very uncomfortable....

However "journalist" weather you agree with them or not, rich or poor, corporatist or rag drivers.... The First Amendment applies to everyone or it applies to no one.

As much as I detest Rush and Beck; I in no way want their views to be censored or for them to "stay in their own world"...which must be pretty lavish as they both have more money than GOD just like AC.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Understood. But to point to me at all, explicitly or non, when making a sarcastic statement about those who are bashing AC, or gay people isn't accurate at all. I entered the thread defending AC, and expressing how stupid it was to bring his sexuality into it. I had no part in that tone at all. But, it's cool. You probably just didn't read my previous comments and assumed.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 




no sir i dont believe the media has changed a bit. its just there seems to be a select few out there roaming these message boards trying to push the idea that people like AC & wolf blitzer are still providing you with solid truthful news. when its engineered by complete lies and its so bias to the point to where its sugar-coated disneyland news.

i mean enough is enough, how can these guys still be even in business? we have oprah talking about how shes glad o.j simpson got away with murder, we have police beating up old ladies left and right, we even have people like david gergen being political analysts on national television who was caught running around naked in the forests of bohemian grove i mean when do i get a break from all this? enough is enough people im sorry.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cobra.EXE
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


anybody who contributes to mass confusion in our society deserves to be punished much less stripped of their ability


So in plain english, if you feel the news they have provided is politically biased, they should have their lives taken. I'd assumed that's what you meant by stripping "their ability" to do so. You are advocating they be silenced by any means possible. I don't see how your carefully worded comment is going to hide your support for this idea.


to continue brainwashing our country


How has he brainwashed the country again? In all honesty I've seen Cooper do more fact checking than most other journalist on the news. Oh wait, maybe by brainwashing you mean he has not reported on your personal concerns right? I was not under the impression that true journalism required your personal preference.


there is NO freedom of speech on the mainstream news,


How can you argue this when you yourself support the idea that he have his life taken because you do not like the way he reports? Hypocritical, no?



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join