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.
Originally posted by mudbeed
Not that I agree with Clinton, but I can respectfully say that he was one of the better presidents in our modern times, blow job aside.
I personally think that News Organizations should not be Partisan, Biased or allowed to knowingly lie to their viewers. Opinion articles have their place, but when Fox News (for example) lies to their viewers not only are they doing a disservice to their viewers, but they are also assisting in the skewing of elections.
I think our freedoms are very important and I don't think that there should be an establishment, etc...but I think ALL news organizations have gone too far with their lack of facts, straight up lies and skewing their audience towards a left or right ideal.
I think as soon as you adopt a "News" moniker then you should be held to a certain level of integrity.
Rupert Murdoch went to court to prove that News does not equal fact. I wish there were laws in place that say otherwise.
Originally posted by jonnywhite
Freedom of speech is harder and harder to justify because it's so easy for what we say to spread across the world. What we say is a lot more powerful these days. 200 years ago what we said mostly stayed put because of primitive technology. But nowadays it has the potential to circle the world. See the difference? That's why it can be dangerous if it's not moderated.
They don't want to tell lies or make bad good. This is about people being more responsible.
People who don't want moderation are the kind of people who don't want to be responsible.edit on 19-5-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by RicoMarston
as soon as you put those laws in place, no one will have the backbone to stand up and make bold statements. how can you differentiate between the people who make honest mistakes and report incorrect information and the people that do it deliberately? you can't.
the unfortunate truth is that it's up to the People to decide which news services they want to use, and usually it's based off of who tells them what they want to hear rather than who tells them the Truth. but as soon as you ask the government to tell us who we can trust and who we can't, then they will tell us to trust the pro-government news and condemn anyone that portrays the government in a less-than-favorable light.
people just need to be more vigilant, use multiple news sources to get different views on the same issue and call BS on your news-source of choice or move on to a better one when they mess around with the Truth. but asking the government for help only opens the door for more direct government manipulation of media.
Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by mudbeed
From what the video says this applies to the whole internet, not just news outlets, and this is censorship no matter how you slice it. So, it's bad.
As far as the skewing of elections? I am 100% convinced that any candidate making it that far up the ladder is so entrenched in the corrupt government system that it doesn't matter the face, the name, or the party of the candidate, they will still be just a figure head and a horse in the race for whatever group who's really running things. There is no, "for the people by the people". That's a fairy tale. So, I really doubt elections are getting skewed...
Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by mudbeed
From what the video says this applies to the whole internet, not just news outlets, and this is censorship no matter how you slice it. So, it's bad.
As far as the skewing of elections? I am 100% convinced that any candidate making it that far up the ladder is so entrenched in the corrupt government system that it doesn't matter the face, the name, or the party of the candidate, they will still be just a figure head and a horse in the race for whatever group who's really running things. There is no, "for the people by the people". That's a fairy tale. So, I really doubt elections are getting skewed...
Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by Roguesheep
That book is so profound... I read it when I was a teenager and have never looked at the world in the same light since.
edit on 19-5-2011 by binkbonk because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Roguesheep
Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by Roguesheep
That book is so profound... I read it when I was a teenager and have never looked at the world in the same light since.
edit on 19-5-2011 by binkbonk because: (no reason given)
I've just finished reading it 2 days ago and I had keep reminding myself that it was written in 1948.
Their are so many things in the book that are happening today.
If this book is a prediction for the future then I fear for us all.
Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by mudbeed
I not only believe it, but I also believe I am 100% right. It does not matter who becomes president, the only agenda that gets served is that of the politicians and the corporations and special interest groups that can afford the lobbyists.
Your idea of censoring the news... Who would regulate that? Doesn't matter the answer, they would do a bad job. It's a bad idea.
...And keep giving a crap, so that maybe, (though unlikely) we can fix it.edit on 19-5-2011 by binkbonk because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by mudbeed
I not only believe it, but I also believe I am 100% right. It does not matter who becomes president, the only agenda that gets served is that of the politicians and the corporations and special interest groups that can afford the lobbyists.
Your idea of censoring the news... Who would regulate that? Doesn't matter the answer, they would do a bad job. It's a bad idea.
...And keep giving a crap, so that maybe, (though unlikely) we can fix it.edit on 19-5-2011 by binkbonk because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jonnywhite
Freedom of speech is harder and harder to justify
Originally posted by jonnywhite
because it's so easy for what we say to spread across the world. What we say is a lot more powerful these days. 200 years ago what we said mostly stayed put because of primitive technology. But nowadays it has the potential to circle the world. See the difference?
Originally posted by jonnywhite
That's why it can be dangerous if it's not moderated.
They don't want to tell lies or make bad good. This is about people being more responsible.
People who don't want moderation are the kind of people who don't want to be responsible.
Originally posted by jonnywhite
edit on 19-5-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ManchurianDisclosure
I think that the concern for information spreading on the internet has to do with a great threat spreading that democratic government wouldn't dare speak about out of fear of the panic, outcry, and anamosity it would create or allow to be created by the possibilities of misperceptions that can arise. Democracy is dealing with a crisis that has only been getting worst and worst. History is full of violations of treaties, deceit, and relentless drive for power of European monarchies. While some might have thought the European Monarchies have put aside their blood lust for power and authority in exchange for settlements, peace making treaties, and their survival, history has soon they always keep scheming for more and more power. Their libraries and archives of deceite, subversion, manipulation, and studies of the advantages in not having any ethnics or morals against those who do, dont go unoccupied. A quick look at the history of Monarchs' signing concessions only to violate them immediately or even many years laters is consistant with whats facing democracies.
In their push to create a Christian World Order with their capital in Jerusalem, they have taken whatever steps to necessary to reinstate the unity between church and state, with a preference for the most ruthless, savage, and ethics free approach. In this enormas Project of the Monarchs', under the leadership of the leader of the British church, to restore their dark-age glory, is a massive propaganda operation they have been funding.
Their massive propaganda operations are flooding the internet and society with distrust, suspicion, fear, hostility, anamosity, and antagonism with the democratic governments. From my experience I can tell you they hire PhD. professions, even professors, to write believable and convincing conspiracy theories to incite fear, hatred, anger, dissatisfaction, and other negative reactions to the democracies. I have met these PhD.s in political science, economics, psychology, and political-psychology who were assigned to me to indoctrinate me in custom-made conspiracy theories for the purposes of psychological conditioning, ego building and megalomania. These are people who create whatever lies and delusionment for the purposes of creating a persons destiny. These are writers who know which ideas, emphasis or which facts, in which particular ways information can be presented that will determine all the preferences that control a persons. Like implanting a virus into a person that takes over and runs their life and influences many of the important choices a person makes in their life.
The misinformation being propagated on the internet is to a massive extent a coordinated propaganda operation against Democracy
Though I oppose this darkage revolution with my life, I admit that I think they will have momentary success that will mean many catastrophic disasters. I also think that like history has shown that if you consider theoretically their victory for a World Order it will only decay into churches constantly at war with each other fighting each other.