Your News source: Spins, Slants or STRAIGHT OUT LIES!!!

reply to post by SLAYER69


You are absolutely correct in the media slant but I think most of it is just marketing but it is a persuasive creeping cancer which is akin to exaggeration and it just gets bigger and bigger....




it drove me crazy watching and listening to some reporters who failed to ask even basic probing questions outside of the normal, who, what, where, when, how and why. I guess that I why I left in 2005 to start a small business working on foreclosed home since I could see the writing on the wall. Several of my fellow reporters thought I was crazy until the 2008 market/real estate crash. I was not some young kid with no experience and that made a difference too.

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


Well then there you go.

I honestly think this is probably true for the vast majority of the people....



Because many on all sides of any particular debate/topic would have their house of cards come crashing down on their perceived view of the world

reply to post by PowerfulPropaganda


Just out of curiosity if you feel that way why did you bother joining ATS in the first place?

To view the advertisements?

Originally posted by PowerfulPropaganda

Originally posted by Dreine
Journalistic integrity? Did you read the OP showcasing a number of blatantly false or altered case of 'journalism'?

Since when does citing a few gaffes mean that journalism is dead and kookville is now its replacement? I`ll put my money on proper journalism any day before putting it on a thread about gaddafi still being alive and well although the illuminati-reptilians wanted to kill him.

I'm curious... WHY are you here, hanging out in "Kookville"?

Did you miss the last bus out?

The News don't lie!

PressTV is a truthsayer!
RT is a truthsayer!

Fox News lies!

Cnn is a truthsayer!

I do have to agree with the op every news source has a bias, just as everything written by each of us have a bias we are the sum total of all our experiences that has molded,shaped our views.

They all lie however some more than others which is state sponsored and some who value the dollar over the content.

People don't want truth because the truth is never what they want to hear which is why news is catered now.

Ok well that is "true" for the most part other people just have to have a villian.

The media is like listening to a couple who are getting a divorce.....

FOX/CNN

Husband vs Wife

I always say, "There is always two sides to the story, and you can find the TRUTH somewhere in the middle...

S&F Very good OP!

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Just out of curiosity if you feel that way why did you bother joining ATS in the first place?

To view the advertisements?

Nothing but the best advertising on ATS !



(plug for the baby/opinion ad that pops out at ya)

You are right of course. No reason to actually be on this site,if your not either looking for the truth,or dishing some truth out. This thread,prime example..................

Of course they do, everywhere you go things get sexed up, or down accordingly. The press are the worst. Mind you ATS has a fair share of the home made dodgy headline, versus the content too. It has its fair share of political laying on of hands as well where there is an agenda. Overall, there is good content here, and often immediate, and local. So do we really need the telly?

reply to post by smurfy


To be brutally honest I hardly ever turn the damned TV on these days.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Yes I agree, the news source you should trust the least is the one you visit the most. Just to keep on your toes, you never know but it's worth being vigilant.

I would wager that half the stuff I thought was true, probably isn't. That goes without saying though.
Whoever controls the press/media would be in a position to control our minds, so to speak.

I was thinking it's sort of like, politics is a giant global chess board. And everyone is a piece, but the trick is to get them to act on the board in your favor, even as a ruse or decoy. Think about the word "propaganda" itself.

Etymonline

propaganda 1718, from Mod.L. propaganda, short for Congregatio de Propaganda Fide "congregation for propagating the faith," committee of cardinals established 1622 by Gregory XV to supervise foreign missions, prop. abl. fem. gerundive of L. propagare (see propagation). Modern political sense dates from World War I, not originally pejorative.

Hmm, it's from propagation.

propagation mid-15c., from O.Fr. propagacion (13c.), from L. propagationem (nom. propagatio) "a propagation, extension," noun of action from propagare "multiply plants by layers, breed," from propago (gen. propaginis) "that which propagates, offspring," from pro- "forth" (see pro-) + *pag-, root of pangere "to fasten" (see pact).

Pro- and pact.

pro- prefix meaning "before, forward, in favor of, in place of," from L. pro "on behalf of, in place of, before, for," also in some cases from cognate Gk. pro "before, in front of," both from PIE *pro-, extended form of root *por- "forward, through" (cf. Skt. para "beyond," pra- "before, forward, forth;" Gk. paros "before," para- "from beside, against, beyond;" Goth. faura "before," O.E. fore "before, for, on account of," fram "forward, from"). Pro and con is attested from c.1400, short for pro and contra "for and against" (L. pro et contra).

pact (n.) early 15c., from O.Fr. pacte "agreement, treaty, compact," from L. pactum "contract, covenant," from neut. pp. of pacisci "to covenant, to agree, make a treaty," from PIE root *pag- "fix, join together, unite, make firm" (cf. Skt. pasa- "cord, rope," Avestan pas- "to fetter," Gk. pegnynai "to fix, make firm, fast or solid," L. pangere "to fix, to fasten," Rus. pazu "joint," O.E. fegan "to join," fon "to catch seize").

So really it's like you can only believe the media based on "faith", therefore it's religious because you are "trusting" them when you may actually be deceived.

When you believe in it, and take action on their behalf, you are agreeing to uphold a type of covenant aligned with whatever agenda you may not be aware of.

And you are totally right, this applies to all media outlets, and hell probably even things like publishing companies and regional papers, etc.

It's usually not very clear what is the truth.

However, it is clear that anyone can tell the truth a few times, then lie right after that.
And people can tell you something that isn't true, but that they honestly thought was true.

Discretion and discernment are key to deconstructing claims and uncovering their authenticity and veracity.

Sure, no one wants to do it all the time. That's fine, but we should probably try harder to question what we are told through the media, or by the person next door, because it is certain that we fall prey to false information or misrepresentations all too often.

I'm almost embarrased to admit, ATS is my primary news source. Sometimes I'll watch CNN at lunch. It seems like any story of any significance on CNN was posted days earlier on ATS.

Nice thing about news on ATS, if someone posts something newsworthy, it gets the fact-check from hell.

reply to post by sonnny1


They are more reliable than CNN who pushed the WMDs lie that you bought. State owned does not mean less credible.

NIST is a state owned agency, they are the ones who push the official 911 story. Do you not believe them since they are state owned?

You have to sift through the stories and propaganda and pull out the truth.

A lot of news outlets put a slant on news stories, but what I think is worse is that a lot of important stories don't get aired at all.

It is often very sickening to see just how under reported, un-reported many important issues are in America. Certainly all are full of bias friend, and a person must keep this in mind but it does not hurt a thing to see all sides that are presented for viewing.

We are after all, adults! If you choose to remain blinded, and do not use the resources at your disposal to find news which has not been reported that is your business, but it is your choice alone! Seek truth deny ignorance etc...

You ever hear about the largest protests in world history? Not in America you didnt! I could go on and on, but there is little point.

Ignore this post folks! I really feel like this post seeks to promote ignorance. Seek your news from all available sources folks! Faux, RT all of em you can find! ALL OF EM!

These are a few things picked from rt just now that I think deserve a look.
Violent arrests reported in NYC Quebec solidarity march
rt.com...
Panetta admits that US is at war in Pakistan
rt.com...
Under the Logan Act any person who holds public office in America commits a felony by attending Bilderberg meeting.
rt.com...

Also, how exactly is this post front page worthy? It seems bashing rt or my least favorite news source presstv is worthy of front page attention, but bashing CNN, Faux News or other MSM outlets is not, go figure!

I think the real issue is that everyone has a fundamental in-built bias. It might be cultural, institutional or based on some personal prejudice, but ultimately everyone has a bias built into them somewhere.

I came to the conclusion that the only way to come close to the truth is to read a variety of views on a given story and work on the basis the truth lies somewhere in the middle of them all.

The 'truth' is always just a point of view, objectivity isn't possible because anybody that cares enough (or is paid) to present an opinion will generally form a subjective view then present it to you as fact.

There's no such thing as a lie, slant or a spin, they're just different versions of the truth, the skill lies in finding fact inside opinions and it's nearly impossible to do so.

It's a cliche but I've experienced it repeatedly - have a meeting with 10 people and everyone will walk away with a subtle (or extremely) different understanding of what happened, and everyone will be convinced they're correct.

We're all biased observers and I don't think that'll change anytime soon.

reply to post by neo96


I have no bias lol

Originally posted by satron
A lot of news outlets put a slant on news stories, but what I think is worse is that a lot of important stories don't get aired at all.

That's institutional bias at work! I spent a very brief period (two weeks!) working for a local BBC radio station and I saw it happen - I presented stories aplenty for us to cover but there's a chain of command and 'no' means 'no.' My dreams of newsnight and pre-formed (biased as a result of films and media?) fantasy view of being a hard hitting journalist were quickly squashed.

I've attacked this issue before with a video I created...

The video clip in your OP is contained within this video...

This is no surprise, none at all.