Question ATS More…

Don't believe everything you read, but you gotta read something!

I think we all know that every single media outlet has some bias working on their content, for the dirt on the west I go east and vice versa.

Granted RT is a propaganda channel, but by definition so is the BBC - do we ignore their reporting?

And by legislative mandate the US has legalised propaganda and the white house spends a pretty penny on "public relations" - and that's without even mentioning operation mockingbird, or say the chilling effect from cases such as the late Michael Hastings.

It's a sad state of affairs , but to be honest there are few left among us who really need confirmation bias and sensationalist story's to make us deny the legitimacy of oue leaders.

Personally I think Putin and Obama (or their handler's) planned to carve up Ukraine long ago - and probably use it to reshape the "world order" once again.

Let me off!

The U.S. government produces propaganda itself. The new NDAA, sponsored by Mac Thornberry R-TX, Adam Smith R-WA, and signed by Obama allowed this to be 'legal'.

link

The amendment would “strike the current ban on domestic dissemination” of propaganda material produced by the State Department and the independent Broadcasting Board of Governors, according to the summary of the law at the House Rules Committee’s official website. The tweak to the bill would essentially neutralize two previous acts—the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987—that had been passed to protect U.S. audiences from our own government’s misinformation campaigns.

I'm pretty sure all governments do this. Just remember to ask yourself, "Who benefits from this story?"

All MSM outlets are just versions of "good cop" bad cop". They all spill the same thing, contrite fluff to inspire the mass's. Ones for the left, ones for the right, ones right down the middle. that way WE ALL GET FOOLED over & over again. It is all scripted and contrite. It's what keeps us tuning in & dumbing down.

I remember the western media headlines the day after MH17 went down. "Putin's Missile" and "Putin Killed My Baby"...personally I'd call it a blatant example of "propaganda" and not "bias"...

originally posted by: qwerty12345
The U.S. government produces propaganda itself. The new NDAA, sponsored by Mac Thornberry R-TX, Adam Smith R-WA, and signed by Obama allowed this to be 'legal'.

link

The amendment would “strike the current ban on domestic dissemination” of propaganda material produced by the State Department and the independent Broadcasting Board of Governors, according to the summary of the law at the House Rules Committee’s official website. The tweak to the bill would essentially neutralize two previous acts—the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987—that had been passed to protect U.S. audiences from our own government’s misinformation campaigns.

Yeah, that's it. Thanks.

originally posted by: Soapusmaximus
Don't believe everything you read, but you gotta read something!

I think we all know that every single media outlet has some bias working on their content, for the dirt on the west I go east and vice versa.

Granted RT is a propaganda channel, but by definition so is the BBC - do we ignore their reporting?

And by legislative mandate the US has legalised propaganda and the white house spends a pretty penny on "public relations" - and that's without even mentioning operation mockingbird, or say the chilling effect from cases such as the late Michael Hastings.

Good stuff. Mentioning Hastings, who remembers this?

The U.S. Army illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in "psychological operations" to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war, Rolling Stone has learned – and when an officer tried to stop the operation, he was railroaded by military investigators…

…"My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave," says Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, the leader of the IO unit, who received an official reprimand after bucking orders. "I’m prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you’re crossing a line."...

...Those singled out in the campaign included senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Jack Reed, Al Franken and Carl Levin; Rep. Steve Israel of the House Appropriations Committee; Adm. Mike Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Czech ambassador to Afghanistan; the German interior minister, and a host of influential think-tank analysts.

www.rollingstone.com...

originally posted by: Liberal1984

GrantedBail: Excellent post. I smell a lot of gatekeepers around here.

Who do you think derailed this thread by e.g. reading too much, into too little? Don’t follow the stars, follow actually what was meant, and what actually happened…
www.abovetopsecret.com...
PS: it’s an old thread, so don’t reply (out of respect for the newer ones).

I read the first page of the thread up until the point you accused people of the same thing as above. Looking at the thread in a vacuum, without comparing multiple threads to see if those posters do it over and over again. It seems like you just do not like people disagreeing with you.

Whenever you post a thread, you are going to have people who are of the exact opposite position of you posting, as well as people who fall over themselves to agree with you. You just have to respond and try to counter what they say. That is how this works. Before the first page of that thread is over you are obviously mad that some people are still not agreeing with you and you start accusing people of being paid agents. Maybe they just do not agree with you even after you have laid out your best arguments.

Everyone has a right to believe what they want and to debate their side. That is the beauty of an online forum. The various viewpoints. Or maybe I am just a paid shill lol and you can dismiss what I say out of hand.I expect that check in the mail ATS!

a reply to: Liberal1984
Just because your thread doesn't go in the direction you expected, doesn't mean it was because of a huge conspiracy. I see you making accusations, even posting an old thread. I don't see anything but the usual stuff. Some people with strong opposing opinions show up and take you down a trail they enjoy traveling.

A lot of Boo Hoo 'n when maybe you should have defended your position in a different manner, or maybe just maybe possibly your position wasn't that strong after all.

a reply to: FlyersFan

This was my reply to your question in the skeptic overlords thread about this;

I can think of one very good reason, that being the fact that during the 2012 election of the same corporate interests, the only media that covered our third party candidates was RT. They even had Larry King moderate the debate!!

The absurdity of this is a good thing to reflect upon when figuring out the propaganda game!!

They seem to be trying to get Americans information that is very important, to be used collectively in being able to make informed decisions about the direction our country is going. This is a reason to at least analyze the information they bring forth, not necessarily accept as truth, however answer me this.

Why should I not look over their information, than check to see how accurate they are?

On our internal issues they have been very accurate indeed. Example being our third party debate, imagine that they exist and are a constitutional option!! As well as a huge threat to the 2 party system.

a reply to: Liberal1984

Attempting to use the argument that propaganda and bias are not the same thing, is sort of a semantic. The only real difference between Moscow and Washington, is the methodology of propaganda. Russia uses overt means to deliver its biased message it wants for public consumption. Washington does the opposite, in using covert bias - withhold critical facts in until information is rendered useless by the passing of time and events.

I hate to give a short post for such a well put together thread, but it seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the differences between propaganda, the actual definition, and bias.

a reply to: Liberal1984

We are surrounded by propaganda everyday. Advertising is full of it.

Every poll quoted, every stat manipulated, every political or war campaign, is made to sway public opinion one way or another. That is the very definition of propaganda! To use communication to influence the public's attitude in the desired direction.

I do think that even this site is full of it! People trying to influence the opinions of others. My take is:
Question everything!!!!

For those of you that missed it:

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
My point is the people they're supposedly broadcasting to are open - minded westerners.

Let's hold on that thought for a moment.

"Russia Today" rebranded itself as "RT" in 2010 with their first US-based bureau in Washington, DC in 2010. (The english-language channel started in 2005 out of Moscow) The primary force behind the creation of Russia Today was Aleksei Gromov, Putin's press spokesperson with a goal to improve the image of Russia in the west, and chip away at westerner's perceptions of their own governments. Several reports place the RT.com english-language budget at $300 million a year, all provided by the Russian government.

Those "open minded westerners" you refer to, really aren't so open minded. They focused on the truther/birther/conspiracy culture by covering those types of stories just enough so as to be considered a reliable source by those predisposed to believe certain conspiracies and Internet scandals. These people aren't open minded, they're looking for confirmation of their beliefs… and they saw it in RT.com because that was the strategy. It's a brilliant, patient, and fruitful strategy.



It's like this… imagine a group of people love blue food, while another loves red food. Both groups dislike each other, and never eat food of the wrong color. But suddenly someone invents green food, and no one likes it because it has no nutritional value.

Through cunning research, someone discovers that people eating blue food are more likely to switch to green than the red food people. They also discover that people who only eat blue food also only ever wear black shoes, while the red food people only ever wear white shoes.

So the green food people (GT or Green Today) start only talking about how great black shoes are, and how terrible white shoes are. The bias of the blue-eaters have been confirmed by GT, black is best for the feet, white sucks. So it works, and GT gets a bit more aggressive about how great black shoes are, and how no civilized person would ever where a white shoe. The blue-eaters are completely theirs to control.

Next, after careful black-shoe information strategies, GT starts introducing stories about how crappy red food is. More confirmation bias for the blue-eaters. Then, suddenly, GT starts talking about their low-value green food. But since they've earned the trust of the blue-eaters, many switch to green.

And with the switch to green happening, GT starts introducing controversial stories about blue food, "raising questions" and even suggesting that some blue-eaters are wearing white shoes.


So the question is, how can you trust a news/information source that patiently and carefully obtained affinity with their audience through years of expertly crafted confirmation bias?






Someone asked in the thread which western media source I trust. I don't think any can be truly trusted. The inherent bias is the result of the need for subtle spin so as to maintain audience share. Not too long ago, we all thought the Internet would bring a new wave of trustworthy citizen journalism. How naive we all were. It's worse than ever before.

I just know that I would rather parse through the audience bias of five different western sources to form my opinion about a topic, rather than rely on anything from a source whose content is mandated by a government.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: DJW001
If you were an intelligence agency who wanted to sway a segment of your enemy's population against their own government, or wanted to float memes that supported the lies you have been telling through official propaganda, where would the best place to disseminate your subversive material be?

Back in early 2002, there was a lot of research going on that was connecting the notorious "Frenchman" with Mikhail Lesin, minister of Mass Media in Russia at the time, and ultimate chief architect of RT western focus. For those who don't recall, the "Frenchman" was the first to postulate that the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was actually a missile… some time around November of 2001. He did so with a big budget and slick computer graphics through off-primetime TV commercials on cable channels. Based on the number of commercials and print ads that were run, his total budget was estimated at over $4 million. After the ads stopped, he disappeared, and a conspiracy culture was given a significant kick-start.

Today, many of his 3D renders are still used in conspiracy theories about 9/11, without people realizing the potential poison of their source.

Best thread I've seen on here for a long time.

I salute you, Liberal1984, for having the balls to author this, and for presenting it so well.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: Liberal1984
In my experience RT is closer to the truth than any outlet I’ve ever found.

Well, the Russian Ministry of Mass Media's long-term plan of building affinity with specific American audiences has certainly worked well on you.

And I suppose, that caused the epic knee-jerk reaction that, just because I focused on one news organization, I must think western organizations are A-OK by omission.

The point I was making was/is/will-continue-to-be completely missed by you and other ATS members because Russia Today has fooled you into trusting it through an expert deployment of confirmation bias strategies. That's too bad. Sad really.

I am not speaking for the poster, but for myself, so let me say this, Skeptic.

Any thread that tries to look at how ATS may not be the best is immediately put into the Trash Bin forum, as if it's wrong to question anything.

ATS' motto is to deny ignorance, but there are times where ATS staff has stated it's fine to be ignorant on certain things. Anything that looks at how ATS may be wrong, how it should change in a different way, anything that the staff deems it in a bad light is considered treason on here.

Is RT a tool of Putin? Probably, but if a member were to say that ATS is a tool of the US government, the thread would be destroyed in a second.

You and your staff can't be biased on things like this. I am sorry if this offends you, but I have always valued the right of saying my mind, and when anyone decides it's better to censor it, than this site is no better than the very people who you claim are wrong.

originally posted by: Fr33domPoet
a reply to: Liberal1984

Fine example of double Speak...

DENY IGNORANCE

Deny;

1.
state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of.
"both firms deny any responsibility for the tragedy"

2.
refuse to give (something requested or desired) to (someone).
"the inquiry was denied access to intelligence sources"



A STATE THAT ONE REFUSES TO ADMIT THE TRUTH OR EXISTENCE OF IGNORANCE.

Refusing to acknowledge your ignorance is the first step to being stuck with it.

Lol, the first thread I had deleted here was called 'The conspiracy of a Conspiracy Forum Conspiring to Silence me.'

Am I obeying and denying my ignorance in questioning the denial of my ignorance?

I've been saying the like since I became a member that the motto didn't make any sense. In one thread on the subject, I actually had a poster who came up with a reasonable alternative "Confront Ignorance" (I think is was Twffa for someone like that). I'd not been able to come up with a suitable replacement.

Maybe the time is now??? Confront (don't deny) Ignorance.

All of them run propaganda. All news outlets and sure, ATS has biased members as well.

I don't believe much of what anyone says anymore. Whether it be new journalists, politicians or people I know personally. I require proof with my own eyes and/or my own ears.

Everything isn't always as it seems.

Oh goody, another thread from someone not living in the US slamming US media......yawn.....

Yeah, like I'd rather take a ridiculous "media" like RT, Info Wars, WND, and their batty crazy ilk seriously. How anyone in their right mind can call these legit news sources is beyond me. Along with your drama laden whining as to how the ATS site owners are messed up, this smacks of star and flag whoring.

I was flamed the F out of for pointing out that certain topics on here are essentially censored by moving them to LOL without any discussion. I guess I committed ATS treason.

*waits to be flamed*

originally posted by: ChiefD
Oh goody, another thread from someone not living in the US slamming US media......yawn.....

Yeah, like I'd rather take a ridiculous "media" like RT, Info Wars, WND, and their batty crazy ilk seriously. How anyone in their right mind can call these legit news sources is beyond me. Along with your drama laden whining as to how the ATS site owners are messed up, this smacks of star and flag whoring.

I think most people on here agree that RT isn't legit, but what they're saying is that ATS is being hypocritical in how they act.

SensiblyReckless, I like that phrase, ATS treason.

This is what I'm a bit miffed at. The staff has taken a view on how bad and biased other sites are, but ATS's # doesn't stink, and to even mention it, you're commiting ATS treason on here.