Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If all the media coverage about recent shootings is about pushing gun control...

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
If all the media coverage about recent shootings is about pushing gun control, why is Fox News reporting so heavily on all of them???

I see people on here all the time saying that the media is just "overhyping" the recent shootings like Sandy Hook or any other recent shooting. They claim it is just the liberal media "gun grabbers" that are pushing for gun control and they are over reporting every shooting.

So I have a very simple question...why is Fox News spending so much time reporting and talking about all these shootings? Is the ultra conservative pro-Republican news outlet also pushing for gun control?

Just something that I found amusing, and would love to hear from the pro-gun crowd here as to why Fox News is pushing these Gun Control stories.
edit on 31-1-2013 by xedocodex because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Great question, simple answer. Because they are no different, except for the fact that they try and hide what they are really doing. At least the other media outlets are blatant about their agenda, FOX is dangerous because it is the wolf in sheep's clothing.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
For the media? I don't think Gun Control even drives this anymore. "If it bleeds, it leads" and if multiple bodies are bleeding, it leads in oversize script blazing headlines. Eventually, reporting the daily shootings that have been happening for decades now will stop driving ratings and they'll start dropping back down as people stop eating this crap up like candy.

Then we'll see them hunt and poke until they find ANOTHER headliner to report to death. Maybe it will be traffic accidents...or smoking again ...or just sugary drinks. It's not like they're above running the same things twice if people are willing to support it with their remote controls and newspaper buying. Sad....



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
It's cuz after Glenn Beck left, they went soft! Semper Fi! Hoo-RAH!



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
The gun debate has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with the never-ending drive by tptb to divide and conquer the people of this country/world to keep us focused on one another instead of "them."

Faux News is no different than MSNBC or CNN. It's all political hype full of talking points and rhetoric designed to keep you looking over here instead of over there.

Ever wonder why different news shows that air live at the same time use the exact same "buzz words" as if they were all written by the same person?


edit on 31-1-2013 by Garkiniss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 





The gun debate has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with the never-ending drive by tptb to divide and conquer the people of this country/world to keep us focused on one another instead of "them."


If you believe that they are trying to divide......then you MUST believe that its a lot easier for TPTB to dominate over a populace who cannot fight back.........so yes disarming them IS a priority



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Endure
Great question, simple answer. Because they are no different, except for the fact that they try and hide what they are really doing. At least the other media outlets are blatant about their agenda, FOX is dangerous because it is the wolf in sheep's clothing.


So you are saying that Fox News is secretly a liberal organization???

That's a new one.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


So then you don't believe that the media is covering these stories because they are working with Obama to try to push Gun Control???

Or is it just Fox News that isn't doing that?



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


No, not liberal, but same principle. They want control for conservatives the same way liberals want control. Either way, they are all the same entities, vying for control of us.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
As it is said that TPTB control the mainstream media, it's logical to assume that they would push their singular agenda from all sides, not just one news organization.
The two major political parties are supposedly just fronts anyway, designed to keep us in divided turmoil.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Do you really think the whole 'libral/conservative' 'left/right' paradigm is REAL?????

There is no such thing, it's just a tool to divide demographs and easily manipualte voters/votes. Behind the scenes there is ONE agenda, and in this case both sides are being used against the right to own firearms. Normally the 'controlled resistance' is created through the 'left/right' paradigm but in this particular issue the 'crazy home-terrorist, alex jones types' are being that controlled resistance.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 



Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

If you believe that they are trying to divide......then you MUST believe that its a lot easier for TPTB to dominate over a populace who cannot fight back.........so yes disarming them IS a priority


Why disarm them when you can trick them into killing each other?

This war tactic has been used for centuries.


edit on 31-1-2013 by Garkiniss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


If you believe FoxNews is any different than CNN . . . you have fallen for it anyway, so why bother? Just live in your left/right us/them cocooon and sip your latte.

All news organinzations conform to gov agenda, if they don't, they are black mailed with access through press credentials.

Fox (repubs) just take a 180deg approach to all social issues . . . illusion of choice. Notice how until Fox really went conservative (and maybe you are too young to remember), the other networks always appeared impartial. The commentators were "journalists" and they would have one pundit from each side? Now, the others don't hide their feelings. In the 60-80's ther was always the claim to "liberal media", due to the progressive ideology being prevalent in the print/tv media industry, but they at least kept the appearance of impartiality . . . until FoxNews came along. Has long as there is a balance, as to not turn all people off . . . it's working.

The goal here is to foster the us/them . . . gov creates outgroup and invigorates them through their allies in media . . . gov demonizes outgroup . . . ingroup doesn't care if bad things happen to outgroup. Basic human psychology and right out of SunTzu.
edit on 1/31/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 



Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

If you believe that they are trying to divide......then you MUST believe that its a lot easier for TPTB to dominate over a populace who cannot fight back.........so yes disarming them IS a priority


Why disarm them when you can trick them into killing each other?

This war tactic has been used for centuries.


edit on 31-1-2013 by Garkiniss because: (no reason given)


Simple because there will always be groups that are smart enough to see through the facade..........and that group that is armed and knows who the real enemy is , is dangerous........



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


Yes, but an armed populous is easier to fire upon than an unarmed one.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
The way I see Fox vs. the Other Networks on the shootings and gun control aspects is that the "liberal" media wants to stir the public to act against guns while the "conservative" media wants to stir the public to act against gun control. It's the same polarization tactics applied to their (the media's) differing "consumer base", same old same old call and response with a different set of target ears.

ganjoa



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


Yes, but an armed populous is easier to fire upon than an unarmed one.


??? what kind of rationale is that?

Its by no means easier, because you get shot back at.........they have the means to fight.....

an unarmed populace can do NOTHING , so of course they are easier targets.........what do they have to worry about? an unarmed revolt where they can just annihilate the opposition because they have no means of protection?

no offense but your logic evades me



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 

You can quote me on it..since I know you will.


I say ALL media hypes bad news for their own profits. I once did think of Fox news as being different. At one time I think it was. In the same way I think CNN started as being fairly balanced and honest as well. That was over 20 years ago too.

Now? Fox is as bad as any other and perhaps worse because they present themselves as different when they aren't one bit. No, I don't think the media is working with Obama on gun control. I think some individual reporters and editors favor gun control as a personal agenda but that still wouldn't carry these stories if they didn't bring home the bacon for ad revenue and ratings power in setting prices for it.

It's a sad state of affairs when the common events of the metro crime sheets become top national news as if it's anything new or different.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Its by no means easier, because you get shot back at.........they have the means to fight.....


Global rules of engagement. If our own military begins killing unarmed citizens, they're going to paint themselves in a bad light, which will only galvanize resistance on a global scale. It's ugly.
If the people (enemy) are armed, they instantly turn into "insurgents", "terrorists", "hostiles", making them easier to paint as monsters in the media, and easier for our own troops to target and eliminate, easier for foriegn countries to standby and do nothing. Todays troops, especially mechanized, fire on heat signatures, not "people." They're taught to dehumanize targets. It's easier to do if the enemy is armed.
You really think the neighbor's closet full of AK's and AR's are going to stop a rolling convoy popping targets behind 9 inches of plate steel, or a gunship armed with thermals and a couple of miniguns? They could easily take out an armed group.

There's not an army on Earth that can stop 300 million people, armed or not, but if you can turn those 300 million against one another; divide them by race, religion, or politics, and push them to the brink, those 300 million, if allowed to boil over, will cut their own numbers in half.

Oh course they could just nuke us, but what would that accomplish?

"We rule this country. All 2,959,064 radioactive square miles of it."



edit on 31-1-2013 by Garkiniss because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 





Global rules of engagement. If our own military begins killing unarmed citizens, they're going to paint themselves in a bad light, which will only galvanize resistance on a global scale. It's ugly.


You dont get it.........it doesnt MATTER if they paint themselves in a bad light.......because there wouldnt be anyone WHO COULD FIGHT BACK......

Seriously?

And you think the Gove cares how they are portrayed in the world stage? give me a break......do you watch the media at all? Half the world already hates us anyway.......you think it would make two craps to them? They would see it as the necessary fall of Rome.....


And as far as people with aks and other arms stopping a moving force.....let me just stop you there......

because I actually HAVE military combat experience......and I know what can stop what.........

I also know what a guerrilla force can do and how many vets out here in the US who know how to combat our own equipment.........

So yes an armed populace can defend itself........

Sorry man, but i have to say I do not agree with you one iota, you just simply dunno what youre talking about
edit on 1-2-2013 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join