ATSNN: Just Another Propaganda Tool?

originally posted by soficrow
So IMO - talking about what we're doing is part of the whole thing. Fundamental to democracy - and the success of democracy.

I have no idea what you are talking about now... What democracy? ATS is not a democracy, ATSNN is not a democracy...

Maybe it's just too late at night for me but you lost me there...

Springer...

The tone of this thread got ugly fast.




I obviously don't know all of the personalities on this thread well, or any of the possible histories in play between the posters...and given the tone, THERE MUST BE HISTORY...


(*sticks toe in the pool of piranhas*)




In the now immortalized words of...(*tongue firmly planted in cheek*)... Rodney King



Can't we all just get along? (...Couldn't help myself. I recognize the poor taste, but hey! it's late...)


soficrow:

The title of your thread is a far cry from the point you finally land on. This is what I expect has everyone's ire. Maybe the thread should have been titled differently.

Valhall:

In my view there is NOTHING ambiguous about the vehemence of your replies. Is the sledge hammer really necessary?

Springer, you say:

Originally posted by Springer
...there is NO "editorial policy" at ATSNN, it's MEMBER DRIVEN...

and then you say:

Originally posted by Springer
What democracy? ATS is not a democracy, ATSNN is not a democracy...

Huh? I'm still chuckling about that....

So far, the most valid thing mentioned in the last few posts of this thread has been...

Originally posted by Springer
Maybe it's just too late at night for me...

I'll toast to that!




Goodnight all! Maybe everyone will feel a wee bit better in the morning...






[edit on 10-10-2005 by loam]

Originally posted by loam

The tone of this thread got ugly fast.

I haven't read the entire thread... I suppose I should (I've been focused on site technology issues lately). However the title, ATSNN: Just Another Propaganda Tool? was poorly chosen and likely to cause a knee-jerk reaction as another drama-inspired attack on ATS.

I'm not griping. Just trying to initate a civil, reflective discussion.

Then perhaps a better choice of thread title may have inspired such a discussion.


When ATSNN was first launched, it was intended as the current events news portal for a very large conspiracy theory community. As such, the intent was that we have a primary focus on analysis of major media news as it relates to ATS topics.

With nearly two years of growth and evolution under it's belt, ATSNN has gone through many phases, some good and some bad. The current phase that allows the decisions of what is news and what is not to be in the hands of ATS members is (I believe) a very good phase.

Some tweaks of the member-driven system have taken place, and more are coming. However, we seem to have lost the focus of what we are to the point where nearly any news is considered for posting in an effort to harvest the points of upgrade.

We should find the appropriate balance of member-driven inspiration and ATS-specific topical focus. But initiating a thread with a title that reads like a drama episode is not the way to inspire any change. And I used the word inspire on purpose, because change will likely not be mandated, it must occur through the inspiration of our members.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
However the title, ATSNN: Just Another Propaganda Tool? was poorly chosen and likely to cause a knee-jerk reaction as another drama-inspired attack on ATS.

Mea culpa. I apologise. My only defense is that I try to write "catchy" titles, and just don't expect to inspire vitriol. I have been an ATS member for about a year, and after the introductory hazing, it hasn't happened often. (or else maybe I just don't see it. )

Anyway - yea - I'd change the title if I could.

SkepticOverlord

When ATSNN was first launched, it was intended as the current events news portal for a very large conspiracy theory community. As such, the intent was that we have a primary focus on analysis of major media news as it relates to ATS topics.

With nearly two years of growth and evolution under it's belt, ATSNN has gone through many phases, some good and some bad. The current phase that allows the decisions of what is news and what is not to be in the hands of ATS members is (I believe) a very good phase.

Some tweaks of the member-driven system have taken place, and more are coming. However, we seem to have lost the focus of what we are to the point where nearly any news is considered for posting in an effort to harvest the points of upgrade.

You guys do a marvellous job. ATS ROCKS!

And so does ATSNN. I just jumped the gun the wrong way.

SO: "the intent was that we have a primary focus on analysis of major media news as it relates to ATS topics."

We should find the appropriate balance of member-driven inspiration and ATS-specific topical focus.

But initiating a thread with a title that reads like a drama episode is not the way to inspire any change.

[Hangs head, tear drops slowly into the cup of despair]

I am so sorry.

And I used the word inspire on purpose, because change will likely not be mandated, it must occur through the inspiration of our members.

OMG

Do you mean...

The ATS elections are IMPORTANT?



I did this stuff for the nation - but hey - looks like they might apply here at ATS too.


Constitution Day 2005: Dissolving Democracy

Dissolving Democracy: What Is Democracy?





.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by soficrow]

I honestly feel that some may have misunderstood what Sofi is trying to said with her thread.

And many has seen her post as offensive and an attack personally.

I do not see it that way, I got her point and even if the titler was a littler bit offensive to some, at least if got the attention of members, and the administration equally.

She is not offending anybody just expressing her feelings constructive criticism is actualy good for the health of ATS.

Well this was the outcome of my involvement in this thread...



For some of you, you know what I mean... (just kidding) ...but at least I've managed to keep my pearly white smile...

In any event, I agree that ATS rocks! I like it that SO and others continue to contemplate these issues and seek to improve the site.

marg6043

I agree that soficrow's point was missed (and as she now agrees) due mostly because of that unfortunate title.

I look forward to seeing what develops for ASTNN.

EDIT: Ok, one last thing...I couldn't help but post this article here as it has both a python and a cat in it....

Python swallows cat in Florida backyard

What a coincidence....


[edit on 10-10-2005 by loam]

Thanks marg - as always, you are the greatest.

I really do believe talk is healthy. And that self-awareness is good. Like, if we don't ask ourselves who we are, and what we're doing here - then someone will come along and just tell us.

Hey loam - nice bones.

Originally posted by Springer
PLEASE tell me you were being a "smarty pants" here. I couldn't take the insult to my and worse yet, our Member's intelligence.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
However the title, ATSNN: Just Another Propaganda Tool? was poorly chosen and likely to cause a knee-jerk reaction as another drama-inspired attack on ATS.

Ok. Well there ya go, Sofi, and yes I know you have appologized for it, which is admirable. But maybe this will help explain my initial vitriol, for which I appologize also. I sat there thinking, "ya know, if I was an admin at this site and looked down and saw that title, and looked and saw who it came from, I'd be pretty upset after all the work that has gone into ATSNN. And from a member with Sofi's credentials no less, this just ain't right."

And since I surely wasn't about to approach this from the angle of what the admins would likely think of title, because that is just assumption, I was nevertheless still upset with the implications of the title in itself. In a suttle way it could be taken to mean that the administration itself is using ATSNN as a propaganda tool- and then worse, once you get into the post, as propaganda tool for mainstream media and politically partisan agendas.

But the bottom line is I intend to learn from this. Moral of the story: Be careful with thread titles, especially when it concerns the inner workings of the site, for which there is already ample consideration, forethought, and planning- not to mention the excellent technical work that SO and the others do.

But also, and with all due respect, the core issue here has not been clearly addressed yet IMO. Any chance we could get a clear idea from the administration whether or not ATSNN stories should or should not all have conspiracy angles? Or shall we just continue to publish major and more obscure news stories as usual, without regard to conspiracy angles? I think that will help us all to understand exactly what we need to be shooting for with ATSNN stories, and to keep in line with what the administration would like to see.

I mean let's really get down to business here. Please, dear admins, can you please provide us with say 3 to 5 examples each of:

1) what you consider to be suitable, appropriate, ATSNN stories and your reasons why?

2) what you consider to be non suitable, inappropriate ATSNN stories and again your reasons why?

I mean at this point I am still stuck in that "grey" area as to exactly what kind of stories are the most appropriate for ATSNN, and whether they need to contain conspiracy angles or not.

And if your answer is that:

A. It is a member-driven news portal, so the members decide what they want up there, without regard as to what we as the administration want to see up there. Then ok. At that point I would assume that we continue as we have been, with no changes, at least for now. And Sofi can just continue right along with all the conspiracy angle she wants in her stories, but needs to understand that others may not view ATSNN in the same "conspiracy" light that she is trying cast on ATSNN, and may still publish or submit stories that have no conspiracy angle.

B. Because ATS as a whole is a conspiracy site, each ATSNN story should contain some conspiracy angle. If it doesn't contain some kind of realistic conspiracy angle in your analysis, do not publish or submit it.

C. None of the above. Please explain.


I really am trying my best here to get to the bottom of this matter, because to me- it matters.

Thanks,
TA

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I mean let's really get down to business here. Please, dear admins, can you please provide us with say 3 to 5 examples each of:

1) what you consider to be suitable, appropriate, ATSNN stories and your reasons why?

2) what you consider to be non suitable, inappropriate ATSNN stories and again your reasons why?

Why? Im not an admin, but its the community here at ATS that decides what they want to see and what they do not. I have never seen a system so easy to use to do so. You click your reason, yes or no and await the results. You, me and the rest of the voting members have a direct say in most of the ATSNN content that makes it beyond submission status.

I remain perplexed as the purpose of this entire thread. News is news be it a discussion of a strange disk shaped object or a recent revelation about influenza vaccines. The stories on ATSNN represent not just a story but the unique take of the person submitting that story takes on it. The discussions that follow can be educating and enlightenting at the same time.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

I know you have appologized for it, which is admirable. But maybe this will help explain my initial vitriol, for which I appologize also.

Hey TA - no problem. We talked - cleared up the misunderstandings - and moved forward. Yeah us.

...That's what's supposed to happen. And it's part of what makes ATS great. People butt heads, then they discover they have things in common and hey, it was a misunderstanding anyway - they make friends - and then they get down to business.

(Re: ) ...propaganda tool for mainstream media and politically partisan agendas.

Meaning the media is used that way, so if we just regurgitate news stories without deconstruction, we're just supporting the latest campaign/agenda.

But the bottom line is I intend to learn from this. Moral of the story: Be careful with thread titles,

NO KIDDING. Gulp. Whew.

especially when it concerns the inner workings of the site, for which there is already ample consideration, forethought, and planning- not to mention the excellent technical work that SO and the others do.

...Hey - I'm a flag waving fan here - and I LIKE the voting system. It feels like a democracy.

I also think that part of being in a democracy means participating beyond voting - learning, thinking, and discussing. This thread was meant to look for out-front on-the-table 'self-assessment.'

I can accept it if no one else is interested - as long as the effort is rejected for what it is, not what it's not. ...And I definitely appreciate everyone's patience and efforts to get past initial misunderstandings.

...with all due respect, the core issue here has not been clearly addressed yet IMO.

SO was pretty clear:

"...change will likely not be mandated, it must occur through the inspiration of our members."

So we can proceed to talk about what we're doing, together, and where we're going with it, together, or not.

Any chance we could get a clear idea from the administration whether or not ATSNN stories should or should not all have conspiracy angles?

SO said above and on his #7 podcast:

"When ATSNN was first launched, it was intended as the current events news portal for a very large conspiracy theory community. As such, the intent was that we have a primary focus on analysis of major media news as it relates to ATS topics.

...However, we seem to have lost the focus of what we are to the point where nearly any news is considered for posting in an effort to harvest the points of upgrade."


Key phrase IMO - "what we are." So the key question is: "Who are we?"

We can answer that question ourselves, as a functioning democracy. Or we can wait til someone else answers it for us, and then just do as we're told.

Or shall we just continue to publish major and more obscure news stories as usual, without regard to conspiracy angles? I think that will help us all to understand exactly what we need to be shooting for with ATSNN stories, and to keep in line with what the administration would like to see.

In SO's words, the admin originally wanted to see "a primary focus on analysis of major media news as it relates to ATS topics."

But now, ATSNN is member driven - kinda like a democracy. We are just rolling, writing, and voting - our sense of our own identity is evolving - and we are free to do what we want.

IMO - we can take the bull by the horns - get conscious, and talk and think about who we are and what we want, or not.

I mean at this point I am still stuck in that "grey" area as to exactly what kind of stories are the most appropriate for ATSNN, and whether they need to contain conspiracy angles or not.

ATSNN stories are NOT required to have a conspiracy angle. That was the original idea - but now, what gets in is what gets voted in, or what is posted by experts. And most everyone has a different idea of what's appropriate. So the votes are all over the map.

Some people want ATSNN to be a baby Google/FOX/CNN portal - and to drop the whole conspiracy theme; some want to build on the conspiracy focus. ...But what actually happens just depends on who's around to vote when a story gets posted.

I really am trying my best here to get to the bottom of this matter, because to me- it matters.

Thanks,
TA

You are the greatest TA, because you care. And it shows.

And despite our disagreements on relative issues, soficrow, you are an upstanding, respected, and contributing member within ATS and its diverse community.

Your intentions were well meant, IMHO.






seekerof

[edit on 10-10-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by soficrow


Some people want ATSNN to be a baby Google/FOX/CNN portal - and to drop the whole conspiracy theme; some want to build on the conspiracy focus. ...But what actually happens just depends on who's around to vote when a story gets posted.

This is probably where it all went bad...when some one assumed they knew what some one else wanted and then assumed they knew better than what they had assumed everybody thought.

Pretty much letting everybody think for themselves tends to turn out best.

If the point of this thread was to proselytize your opinion as superior to the community's, well, you've preached. Now let's get back to what everybody else thinks best.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by soficrow


Some people want ATSNN to be a baby Google/FOX/CNN portal - and to drop the whole conspiracy theme; some want to build on the conspiracy focus.

...But what actually happens just depends on who's around to vote when a story gets posted.

Pretty much letting everybody think for themselves tends to turn out best.

And part of learning to think, and learning to think independently, involves dialogue.

Part of participating in a democratic structure involves bringing issues into the open, and the freedom of open discussion.

Which is why I love ATS and ATSNN. ATS is:

* A sounding board par excellence.
* A place where I can say what I think without fear of specious ridicule.
* A site where I can post my research for constructive evaluation.

Originally posted by Seekerof
And despite our disagreements on relative issues, soficrow, you are an upstanding, respected, and contributing member within ATS and its diverse community.

Your intentions were well meant, IMHO.
seekerof

Thanks seekerof.



BTW - has everyone checked out the campaign forum on PTS? Amorymeltzer has asked some GOOD questions of our ATSNN councillors.


.