It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 1

log in


posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:50 AM
I am outraged and disgusted at the media, both on tv and online. We need a definite change from all this collusion that is happening in our world. The government has a huge handle on the media and the media publishes anything the government tells it to without a proper investigation!

The thing that hurts most to watch is the wars and how they are treated language wise. Here we have in one corner Libya a country that is similar to all our allied Arab nations in murders, torture, and a dictator regime and in the other corner we have Yemen who is in the exact same position as Libya.

I found when reading about Libya's war the media only uses words such as rebels to label the fighters. They use words like tyranny, oppression, and power hungry to describe Qaddafi. Meanwhile they use words like Islamist extremists to describe the Yemeni protestors and label them negatively for doing the same thing as the Libyans are doing!

Example # 1:

On Tuesday, there were three main flashpoints in the troubled country with street fighting in the capital; government troops gunning down protesters in Taiz and a battle with al Qaeda and Islamic militants in the coastal city of Zinjibar.

out of their strongholds and advance toward Tripoli, where Gaddafi appears to be firmly entrenched.

Rebels control the east of Libya around the city of Benghazi, Libya's third-biggest city Misrata, and a mountain range stretching from the town of Zintan, 150 km (95 miles) south of Tripoli, toward the border with Tunisia.

Notice the language they use, no Al Qaeda or Islamic militants in Libya but there are some in Yemen which makes it alright for the government to side step these media attacks.

We are doing something very wrong and hypocritical here. How can we say we are all for bringing democracy to one nation but refuse to bring it to another with the same conditions? For this sole reason I am lead to believe that the media is in collusion with our government and our government controls the flow of information.

We need to somehow take this out of the government's hands and put it back into the private industry. Soon we will have the media turning on us and labeling us something ridiculous in order to make the government officials happy. We are at a crucial moment in our lives and we need to decide what news outlet is on our side and which is not!

PS. both those articles were from Yahoo news.

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:58 AM
reply to post by Equinox99

No worries.....Yemen is on NATO's hit list because they have oil and it will be depleted by 2017 but not sure about their natural gas fields......

and here's a map of Sudan's oil fields:

and here's Yemen's oil fields:

The media will change all that wording as soon as the NATO crew arrive in those two countries.

edit on 31-5-2011 by bluemirage5 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 12:03 PM
I agree that different media outlets put their own spin on each story to suit their own political interests. It is also quite possible that some media outlets are swayed by governments (I believe this has been proven in the past at least). But I don't think putting the media into 'private' hands is a solution (technically they currently are private).

We live in an age where every person (with internet access) can reach the entire planet in an instant. If we really want the truth about what happens (such as the middle east) - we all need to ensure we post accurate information ourselves and bypass the entire media corporations to begin with. We don't need to wait for any corporation to spread the news when we are now capable of doing it ourselves. If we 'the people' can't post accurate information then the only thing we are hurting is ourselves.

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 12:12 PM
reply to post by Equinox99

The covert western objectives in Libya are clear.

There are currently no objectives in Yemen, so there can be no benefit from rebellion there, nor from regime change.

That is the distinctions between the two, and no news media outlet will report it this way.... IF or when there is a clear objective in Yemen, the rebels there will be portrayed as freedom fighters, and get the backing of the US military and NATO.

Same in Syria and other places.... Until there are CIA boots on the ground it will remain this way.

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 12:31 PM
reply to post by Fractured.Facade

And that's the thing that bugs me most. If it is one thing I can't stand it is hypocrites parading to not be what they are. The age of information was supposed to be great because you have every piece of information right under your hands. But it is turning out to be a tragedy due to the overflow of information.

This is a blatant move to hinder our ability to tell from fact or fiction. You flood the internet with faked articles and information to keep people from finding real useful information.

This is called information overload which I guess is better than no information at all!

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 12:36 PM
reply to post by Fractured.Facade

Sorry to jump in on your parade but Yemen and Sudan are on NATO's list of "things" to do

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by bluemirage5

Not even on the radar yet, given the current list of priorities.

The Yemenis are on their own.

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:50 PM
reply to post by bluemirage5

All you have to do is look to the media to see who is on NATO's to do list. Once the media starts saying the protesters are linked to Al Qaeda and they are militants or Muslim extremists it means they are siding with the government. When they call the protesters rebels or freedom fighters it means we are against the government.

In Yemen's case the US had been supporting their leader in the past and just recently stepped away from dealing with that country. Remember Egypt's Mubarak? The US backed him up until they realized that this guy could really get toppled so they decided to side with the civilians.

Most recent trends journal:

“I would not refer to him as a dictator,” declared US
Vice President Joe Biden in the course of a PBS interview.
And asked if Mubarak should resign, Biden replied unequivocally
(for a change), “No, I think the time has come
for President Mubarak to begin to move in the direction
that – to be more responsive to some of the needs of the
people out there.”

This isn't about spreading democracy, it is about control. Qadafi needed to go but it should have been the people who removed him from power not NATO. It should have been like Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, or Yemen.

Helping one country and not helping another is hypocritical!

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:23 PM
I remember learning at school about making informative texts and oral exams and the most important thing was to never put any opinion...well the MSM didn't go to the same school. Subjective news depending on where you get your information and who is paying for the information to be sent.

Bad guys are always rebels and good guys the resistance.

This fight for democracy is one of the worst bs I have ever seen, oh yeah, like we have a real democracy.
Our democracy is just a cover up to make us think we have a choice but we really don't, the real powers always stay there and no one can kick them out.

They try to make Libya look bad, but all they want is to be sovereign from the rest of the world economy in terms of oil...seriously, this is just getting to be stubbornness from the USA/UN since they invested so much in oil.

Let them have their fun, it's not like oil is nowhere else or that we can't use anything else for power.

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Equinox99
This isn't about spreading democracy, it is about control. Qadafi needed to go but it should have been the people who removed him from power not NATO. It should have been like Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, or Yemen.

Maybe most of the Libyans don't really want him to go away.

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:38 PM
reply to post by Equinox99

...No matter how many times they've lied in the past, U.S. officials are credible in the present. When they vaguely cite evidence that the bombed pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum was making ingredients for nerve gas, that should be good enough for us.

...When the mass media in some foreign countries serve as megaphones for the rhetoric of their government, the result is ludicrous propaganda. When the mass media in our country serve as megaphones for the rhetoric of the U.S. government, the result is responsible journalism.

...Repression and atrocities "can indeed be defended," Orwell added, "but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."

Link---> Orwellian Logic 101 -- A Few Simple Lessons ~ By Norman Solomon

Norman Solomon also has a book titled "Unreliable Sources"... exactly referring to this thread and well worth reading and having in ones private library.

This article by George Orwell ( Eric Blair ) is a must.... Link ---> Politics and the English Language ( 1946 ) ~ George Orwell

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:07 AM
reply to post by Serafine

I will be sure to read the book.

Many fail to realize that many mainstream media get their news sources from the horses mouth.

That is like me going to war with my neighbor and only I get a say on what goes on in the news papers. What many people also fail to realize, and I am not against Israel or Jews, but they do control the media. And Jews aren't going to write bad stuff about themselves or their allies.

So we are in a situation where we NEED to make a change or this will be our future.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:10 AM
reply to post by User8911

Well that isn't our call to make. I said he needed to go but that is my opinion and I am in the West. The only opinion that should matter is the peoples. IF they wanted him to go you would see an all out war and than the military turning against Qaddafi.

But that isn't what we are seeing. We are seeing a small group of militants trying to overthrow the majority. We are seeing the exact same thing happening in Yemen but since we are allies their militants are Muslim Taliban extremists which are apparently much more "dangerous".

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:22 AM
reply to post by Equinox99

Soon we will have the media turning on us and labeling us something ridiculous in order to make the government officials happy.

Too late they been doing this for a while now. Didn't you notice how the Tea Party people are racist or 'bitter clingers'?
The 'left' folks are always described in NICE terms the 'right' in BAD. Not that I buy either right or left these days but its clear how the media wants people to lean.

edit on 22-6-2011 by Chett because: fix tags

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:13 AM
reply to post by Equinox99

It is the great circus, that would be funny if NATO is now helping el Quaida thinking helping insurgents ... NATO has no guarantees, but this is not the problem, i'v read an article on Gaddafi who wanted to unite the Arab country and charge oil in gold dinar, this article Said It Was first Saddam Hussein idea ... i think NATO is playing a poker game they spend money on this war becasue they are sure that this money will come back to them, it's an investment.
I personally do not see why you are angry, that's the law of the jungle, the media will not put it the lowest rate, if people are dying is the price to pay, the most important is to have the lowest rate of killing of NATO ... the elite are like that, unjust, merciless, amoral, lying, manipulative, disbelief ... I can not found positive points because I think we exceeded the limits of indecency... and i will keep say it this is our fault because we do not do what we should do to stop this, so no need to be angry...

top topics


log in