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.

 

Mainstream news forgets facts

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
There are a few other threads going around about this topic but they are not about the part that bothers me. This article from ABC is about conspiracy sites and mental illness. The problem is, the entire story is void of any facts, stats, studies, evidence, proof, any of the things you expect from the news. Well, should expect. Many people are debating the validity of the idea proposed. That is the crux right there.

The fact that there are two sides proves this did it's intended job. It has people believing it. It even has people claiming it is factual. With no facts in it??? A few years ago, some company was caught putting commercials in the news that looked just like news reports. I forget the details but I remember that when people found out that their news was infiltrated by opinions, they openly disliked it and the news made it end.

Where are those people now? Have we become so used to O'Really and Hannity that we can no longer distinguish between news and just some people's ideas? How do you all feel about a news story that is really just what a couple guys think with not one example to cite.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by angel of lightangelo
 


I rebuked my statement surrounding factual evidence being brought forth in this article. With that said, I hold psychologists in a higher regard than those not holding a PhD.

The article also does not make the assumed statement, "Conspiracy theorists are mentally ill". Instead this conclusion was drawn out of those who supposedly read the article.

The article raises more questions than it answers, which is expected in a subject that needs more research than has been done.

"Does Conspiracy Always Equal Delusion?"

It is you who assumed they provided a statement which was not backed by solidified evidence.

[edit on 12/16/08 by Yoda411]



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yoda411
The article also does not make the assumed statement, "Conspiracy theorists are mentally ill".


I did not say that it did. I did not get into the specifics because there are already threads that you are losing that argument in. This is about news reporting with no facts. If you no longer feel there are facts in there, then you have none to show me. If you have something else on topic, feel free. I can argue with you in the other threads about that stuff still too, don't worry. I have a topic here for a reason. Thank you for respecting it. Also, I would thank you not to imply that I said quotes I did not say. Thanks a bunch, Yoda!



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I find both this thread and the article interesting, so thanks to the OP for bringing it to my attention.

The way I read the ABC article, it is more of a comment than an actual news rapport or story. The piece is intened to raise some questions, instead of answering them. The article also states:


"It's not an area that has been studied very well," said Angus MacDonald, a spokesperson for the mental health charity NARSAD, and an associate professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

abcnews.go.com...

In the history of psychology, the different conspiracy sites (such as ATS) is after all a rather new phenomena. I think it will take years before scientists and psychologist can draw any conclusions regarding the connection between mental illness (paranoia, delusions) and activity on sites as ATS.

And I suspect that in time, the researchers will also find that many of the more "outrageous" theories are posted by people most interested in having a good time and stirring up some heated debates. There is no doubt in my mind that some of the wildest threads here at ATS are created by people who are just having fun hoaxing and trolling and making people mad as hell... They just enjoy a good argument.

My 2 cents, anyway.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60
I find both this thread and the article interesting, so thanks to the OP for bringing it to my attention.

The way I read the ABC article, it is more of a comment than an actual news rapport or story. The piece is intened to raise some questions, instead of answering them.


Thanks, flattery gets a star. I agree, about the good question being raised and all. I think Yoda agrees as well. It raises an interesting question and may be worth discussing. But not on my friggin' news!

We have O'Reilly and Hannity and Olberman and Maddow for thoughts and questions and all that junk. The news was supposed to serve a purpose to the public. It is supposed to be it's own entity built on keeping facts between the people and the people that have power over them. This is why I feel that if this is not agenda driven, it is a clear attack on the last remaining shreds of journalistic integrity.

Just my 1 1/2 cents.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization.

source
In light of this ruling, why would you expect there to be any facts, truth, or unbiased reporting anywhere?

The media will just report whatever it feels will sell the best, even if they have to make it up. They are not legally obligated to report the truth, so why would they need facts?



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 


WOW. I knew FOX news fought and won the right to lie but they are cable so I really did not care. This is kinda scary.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   
To me, media is media, it doesn't matter if it's a cable channel or a newspaper. Once the court made their ruling, it opened the doors to all media to report "untruths", as it were.

I would hope that some areas have at least a shred of journalistic integrity left, but I certainly wouldn't count on it.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by subject x
To me, media is media, it doesn't matter if it's a cable channel or a newspaper.


There is a difference between the cable news and network news though. The networks are supposed to provide factual news stories as part of their payment for the frequencies they are being given on which to broadcast. It was a way of keeping each other in balance, sort of. Not perfect, but it still stands. The networks that broadcast on public airwaves are required to provide factual news programs in order to keep their liscence to broadcast on that frequency.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 


I can't believe that they would be "allowed" to do this.
I mean, i know they do lie and distort , and i take all msm news very lighly and with a handful of salt, but to actually be free to BS as much as you want is extremely worrying.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by angel of lightangelo
 


S&F - because this is no small thing

I’m glad you’ve stuck it out this long – even if some people are wondering why you’d fight so hard to get people to see something that should be obvious

realizing of course that it’s obviously not obvious to some – and opinions vary

but why should mainstream media bother with all that fact finding if the majority of people are willing to accept that "it might be true"?

:-)



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   


Fact

From Wikipedia:

Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something having objective reality that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.


It’s not really quite that simple unfortunately – there’s much more to consider in determining what is fact – what is truth. The explanation launches into philosophy pretty quickly – you can read more here: en.wikipedia.org...

If we’re talking about sources of information or news, I think the words: “can be verified” are what most of us will agree determines what is fact.

I only bring it up because of how much discussion there’s been revolving around whether or not the article in question uses facts – at all.

When it comes to a news source, or information in general - from any source, it should always be a case of buyer beware. We each are responsible for what we make of the news, how we let it influence our thinking, our decisions - our lives. It requires critical thinking - something I'm sure we each believe is what we use all the time.

We don’t - we're all guilty from time to time of interpreting information so that it works with what we already believe. I say all of us - because it's almost impossible not to mold the information we take in to fit what we’re already expecting.

There are many forums here at ATS where you can get by without the same dedication to critical thought that’s absolutely necessary in other forums. With some topics it's fine to speculate - theorize - extrapolate - let your imagination run wild. In fact - those threads can't even get off the ground unless you do.

Critical thinking is work - it's not based on emotions or what’s comfortable, quick or easy. And it doesn’t depend on faith or belief. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to be in the position of believing “it might be true” :-)

When it comes to the news – it can only be useful if it contains facts.

We want to believe that no one would lie to us. Well, we can believe whatever we want or need to believe – but, if we’re angry at some point because of the things that happen as a result of our trust – and trust alone - it’s not just the fault of our sources.

which is actually where I’m going with all this

something that may seem trivial or inconsequential – especially when it’s camouflaged by the sea of information that surrounds it – can set a precedent

if no one questions it, it becomes accepted - as fact. It then goes on to become part of history and a solid mass of information-less information that the public just assumes is true – because they’ve heard it repeated over and over. This truth-less truth can then been used as the basis for legislation.

I’m sure that many people who have been following this and other discussions concerning this one article from ABC are wondering – why? What kind of nutcases would get so worked up over one simple throwaway article buried in a mountain of throwaway articles? Why take it so personally?

Because it’s opinion – and opinion posing as fact is a dangerous thing – in the long run

The simple truth about this particular article and all the attention it’s managed to attract is – it may be much ado about nothing. I can’t know what the motive or reason for this article really is. However – even if there was nothing behind this articles apparent “lack of article” beside haste to fill empty space – and writing without any real investigation, it was approved and allowed to be set in stone by someone – on view for all the world to see.

It does contain opinions and observations – from professionals even. No matter what their credentials might be – opinion isn’t the same as verifiable facts.

And people are right to be upset about this little article – not because of what it implies (or, not just because of what it implies) but because it was allowed to be “printed” at all. It demonstrates what’s happening to the news in general.

To the people who would just as soon look at this as completely inconsequential and overblown – they should consider how not expecting more from their news sources may come back to bite them in the ass one day. It will probably seem more important to them - when it’s about something that's actually important to them.

It won’t be the fault of the media – respect and trust have to be earned – earned from people who have high standards and an expectation of excellence and integrity. If you want the truth you have to insist on the truth – not just once in a while – but all the time.

That part is up to us.

This is why such a simple thing as a fact is so important – it’s verifiable – by everyone. We can disagree with each other about how to interpret those facts – but we should all be able to agree on what the facts really are.

When I read through the comments section of any newspaper or magazine, or on any website – I’m always happy to see how many people go out of their way to jump on bad information, question the “facts” or call into question anything that doesn’t add up – demand an explanation. I’m not sure how much they influence the news in the end – but, it’s not for lack of trying.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
but why should mainstream media bother with all that fact finding if the majority of people are willing to accept that "it might be true"?

:-)


That is what scares me. If people just accept this then what is next? Just blatantly making crap up on the spot? Letting all the advertisers write the stories?



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


That is a great post.

I thought that "fact" had a tenuous grip on its definition as it was but I figured that when it came to a news story, we could all agree on what a fact would mean there.




top topics



 
3

log in

join