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.


How do you get people to believe in sources other than the MSM?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 07:51 PM
People I try to mention anything to do with the NWO counter me with the MSM. I try to bring up examples of times the MSM has lied or even admitted to being manipulated and they just tell me that it's fake. They refuse to believe any source that isn't the MSM, and somehow even manage to ignore stories IN the MSM that admit this kind of thing. It's always the left-wing or right-wing extremists' take on it, not what's actually going on.

How do you do it? How do you actually get people to believe the free press?

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 08:32 PM
personaly, We cant force people to just discount the news scorces they have always known instead of some site they have never heard of.

i like to give people bits of information and let them go and check stuff out themselfs.. let them open their eyes themself! As if you try forcing facts and news down peoples throats that they have never heard of, theirs a high chance they either think your crazy , or that its just internet crap..

best to point people in the right direction! We all get their eventualy! (you wouldnt believe how many years it took me to actualy notice it wasnt all crazy talk!

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 08:35 PM
I recommend you visit the website It contains some good advice how to reach those, who are still unaware of the MSM-created smokescreen, which hides the true and important events. It gives also good advice, how to conduct your own research and many fine trustworthy sources.

Here an excerpt:

Conspiracy Theories or Conspiracy Fact?

Vital Information for Those In The Know About Major Conspiracy Theories And a Strategy for Reaching Skeptics and Those Who Don't Know

You may have noticed that we consciously avoid using words like "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theories" in our messages. We do this not because we don't believe there are major conspiracies happening in the world. The official story of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory in that the government claims 19 hijackers conspired together to hijack four planes and create terror in the world. We avoid using words like "conspiracy theories" because many people who are not aware of the major cover-ups being hidden from the public shut down their rational mind as soon as they hear the word conspiracy. The main purpose of the website is not to preach to the choir—those who already know about 9/11, mass media, mind control, UFO, and other conspiracies—but rather to reach those who know little or nothing about all that is going on behind the scenes. We have found that the most successful way to reach those who don't know is to present them with reliable, verifiable information that does not overly tax their belief systems. Psychologically, most people can't handle too much disturbing information at once. Thus, we initially present only a small chunk of the conspiracy which the uninitiated can, we hope, digest without being overwhelmed. Yet for those who are ready, we also offer lots more resources to go deeper.

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 09:14 PM
reply to post by Tsuki-no-Hikari
You can't and you don't! The way to get your views across to the non-believers is use your internet and other sources to predict what will probably happen or take place in the short-term future. Record that info by writing it down and dating it saving it for a future time of reference for those who think you're nuts.

Then, when a said incident or some other type of actual physical occurance takes place, whip out your notes and crow like a big ole rooster on steroids! Two or three times of this happening, your friends will take notice and start asking you how you knowed what was going to happen long before it really did. I have done this many times and have opened up many eyes!

Here where I live, I predicted the housing crisis, the bank bailouts, and Obama becoming president. No, I am not a genie, nor do I have a crystal ball, but I do rely solely on internet and other various sorts of sources for my intelligence gathering. I never use the msm for anything other than comparing notes and a good laugh. As good as Glenn Beck has been lately, I don't use much of what he spews either.

Here's a few things to watch for in the next 8-15 months, and they are: Keep an eye on germany and the eu, for german chancellor merkel is pressuring Obama to join the global order now, 2: Watch for more so-called "breakouts" of disease in the usa like the h1n1 so we can all be killed with vaccines, 3: the feds taking total control of our food, not just inspecting it, but authorizing our farmers on how much to grow. This is already starting to happen but most people haven't noticed yet. 4: Our national sovereignty will be either totally abolished, or restricted. This will hapen when countries like china threaten with calling in our debts they are carrying id we don't change our currency away from the dollar.

The above things can happen and will happen if something isn't done, and done very quickly! All of the above are in the works now, and with the midterm elections next year, Obama and his nwo cronies know their windows of opportunities are closing.

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 09:20 PM
reply to post by Tsuki-no-Hikari

Show them this:

Quote from source:

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”

So, essentially, FOX won the case by arguing that they had no legal requirement to tell the truth, nor was it their company policy to do so, and the court agreed. You can bet that neither CNN, MSNBC, or any other MSM has a written company policy requiring them to tell the truth. They reserve the right to lie to you at their discretion.

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 09:22 PM
I just watched Hannity and he had on some guy who dressed in a bear suit and asked the public questions(about 30 people)5 new who Nancy Pelosi was 10 new Biden was vice pres. and all thirty new Brad Pitt was Angelina's boyfriend.How do you help people understand where to get the truth when their not even looking for it?It's a sad commentary on the state of affairs here in the USA when 100% of the people know the reigning heartthrob and less than 30% know who is stealing their money curtailing their rights and destroying their country.

WE have noone else to blame but ourselves.

edit; SHEEP

[edit on 10-11-2009 by genius/idoit]

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:22 PM
Well let me at least make a case here. The so-called mainstream media is an absolutely enormous and befuddled monster if looked at as a whole. This is not to say that it is evil though. We in the media are not all depraved and power-driven maniacs. The vast majority of us do actually want to help and inform our fellow citizens as best we can. As such we have a strict and binding set of ethics that most all of us follow.

True there are unscrupulous and underhanded media outlets, the Fox News Channel in America is notorious. However when comparing us to the so-called underground media we do, as a whole, come out on top when it comes to reporting facts. The BBC whom I work for, has incredible fact-checking resources, and we use them. It would be beyond comprehension for a news entity such as ours not to. We do make mistakes from time to time but we do recognize them and make amends.

Comparing us at the BBC to people such as Alex Jones is laughable in every form. He is a single person with a small, largely unprofessional network backing him whereas the BBC has legions of people, with formal training, that can be dispatched nearly instantly to gather information on almost any story presented. We would never continue to repeat the massive errors he has, such as President Obama being made president of the UN Security Council.

In the larger picture, creating a truly globalized understanding of world events is the best way to keep informed. Read everything you can but take it all for what it is worth. Trust your rationality, and of course facts, instead of the gut. Don't buy the sensationalism or hype on either side of the divide, we're all fighting for your ear after all. Finally, no one outlet, no matter how large or small, can get every single angle on a story, the public has to do their homework to stay informed. Like anything else worth having, an informed opinion has to be worked for!

new topics

top topics


log in