Really?! Is this what has become of ATS?

a reply to: MessageforAll

" RT's news isn't fabricated( there might be some,probably )"

Nice save.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

It just came through in the live feed for the #Ferguson hashtag. The retweet was only 24 minutes old.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

This is why I love this website so much.

Disinformation debunked in real-time.

I reply here aswell,

I just looked it up, They tweeted this two hours ago when clicking on the link in the tweet you end up here :
rt.com... ( its the timeline )
And it does under the picture "Riot police stand guard as demonstrators protest the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri August 13, 2014. (Reuters / Mario Anzuoni)

Just to be clear, misinformation? yes and no.
They re-tweeted this 2 hours ago, but the image itself has a clear date on their link showing what day it was taking. Propaganda yes. Fabricated not so much.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

No forgive me, I read the timeline, I saw it was recently posted, but I never saw them say it was a photo from today...
The photographer may only have sold it to RT today...
Or their own journalist took the photo and only relayed it to their employer earlier in the day...

Surely there is more than one option available...


As much as we all agree that propaganda is part of RT's mainframe idiocy is not IMO!!!


Peace again SO!!!

Anyways, apologies for the drift MFA...
Having cleared that up...
Back to the OP...

The Government of the UK fund the BBC, so hopefully the new links apply to them aswell...

Majority rules???
Hell everybody has called for this to apply to all sources so if this is a democratic website it's all or none surely!!!



Peace MessageForAll, great thread... Refreshing concept considering the repetitive IsraelVsGaza/Ukraine/Plane Crashes/AtheismVsReligion trends as of late!!!

Flag & A Spiritual Star For You!!!

Can we take it to a forum wide poll and be done with it?

a reply to: OpinionatedB

This is making too big a fuss I think - for ATS. I'm not sure I understand SO's traffic and trolling issues properly, but I'm getting that they're going to be facing a major hassle and it's probably going to affect quality - and mod time - a pain in the ass all the way around

It's a privately owned site - with rules that we all appreciate. Freedom of speech isn't something we can argue for here - the same way we should argue about it out there. But - I do think most of us would still appreciate a reasonably close facsimile of freedom of speech here at ATS :-)

Russia: RIP freedom of speech?

I read (most of) both articles. There's a difference in tone - but they're both saying essentially the same thing. See the problem?

Qatar is no friend of Russia - Al-Jazeera is biased... Are we a friend of Russia's? Are we biased? Is the enemy of our enemy our friend? :-)

Information is malleable - and the same information can mean different things to different people. We have always defended freedom of speech in this country - kinda sorta. One thing that helps to protect that freedom is knowing that nothing is being withheld - no matter how lame - no matter how dishonest. It's not just about the right to say something - it's also about the right to hear it

What are we really afraid of here? Do we think some latter day Tokyo Rose is going to lure away our naive and our youngsters? Will those people then begin working to destroy the American way of life?

We can't control thinking. Or, we shouldn't try is what I mean to say

If we're going to say that we can't trust some people to think right, and that we need to package things for them according to their smartness - the whole thing begins to fall apart

Critical thinking isn't easy thinking Opinionated - we have to have the freedom to determine for ourselves what's what

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

The Government of the UK fund the BBC, so hopefully the new links apply to them aswell...
Majority rules???
Hell everybody has called for this to apply to all sources so if this is a democratic website it's all or none surely!!!

The tag of state run propaganda has been taken off already of both VOA and RT.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
Fine. There's more important things for all of us to be focusing on than this. The changes have been removed.

There was very good reason for this, essentially for the same reasons we've had to restrict using before itsnews as a source. But fine, embrace you state mandated deceptions and the troll army that comes with.

Tough Decision for SkepticOverlord, but the Right One. If your foolish enough to believe everything you see on the news or read in the paper then Mother Nature will sort you out, it's called "Survival of the Fittest".

If we are going to go down the route of posting faux pas by various media sources then we would be here all year..

The Bush administration media campaign of WMD's in Iraq anyone?

Most news media is biased these days, this thread was about why should we single out one and label it as such as opposed to other known biased sources.

a reply to: Bybyots

Otherwise there's also no point, because we would just be entertaining ourselves.

I think this is one of the more interesting things you could have said. What are we doing here?

First of all - about removing those variables...why does RT have to go and FOX gets to stay? Fascist news is less honest?

:-)

Pardon me - my bias is showing

So - are we here for more than fun? I personally think this place is unique - weird. I love the chatter - I love the freely flowing ideas - I love the fighting, and the humor. Tinker with it too much and you lose the magic. I'm more than willing to put up with some nonsense and some crap if that's what it takes to make this place happen. I realize not everyone sees it the same way

I draw the line at hate speech - and, that's the thing. We all have different ideas about what's tolerable and what's not

I have learned more from R.T about American life than any mainstream American news station , last night they had the riot's in Ferguson long before BBC/SKY or CNN etc

Just like A.T.S had the riots in London up long long before the BBC ? horses for courses i think

originally posted by: MessageforAll
I reply here aswell,

I just looked it up, They tweeted this two hours ago when clicking on the link in the tweet you end up here :
rt.com... ( its the timeline )
And it does under the picture "Riot police stand guard as demonstrators protest the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri August 13, 2014. (Reuters / Mario Anzuoni)

Just to be clear, misinformation? yes and no.
They re-tweeted this 2 hours ago, but the image itself has a clear date on their link showing what day it was taking. Propaganda yes. Fabricated not so much.

So actually not misinfo at all there was no 'real time debunking' either, just people unable to read and follow links.
The only dis or misinfo was trying to say that RT were saying that it was from today

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Lady_Tuatha

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Well, when I see an OP that uses RT as a source, the first thing I will post is the facts about what RT really is. That's my right as a poster, so get used to it.

At least try and read the post first. sheesh.

Well, duh - of course I'm going to read the post. Even if I agree with the post, I will disclaim the use of RT as a source.

see... this is part of the problem, a person saying that even if they agree with what RT is saying that they will disclaim the use of RT as a source.

the mind boggles

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Well, since you ask, let's remove Fox as well, I did years ago, and I would certainly invite the entire forum to join me in doing so.

Collectively ignoring stuff that is bad for us is a form of civil disobedience that I see rarely employed and seems especially well suited to the WWW.

I'm intrigued by the possibilities when it comes to collectively disbelieving news soureces that are bad for us.

So, let's then: let's cut off linking to RT and Fox.

Thanks for your responses, I've enjoyed thinking about this stuff.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Wow, what an argument.

Quoting a thread of my containing video reports of thousands of people waiting in line to buy Putins shirt, reported by RT. Most likely CGI, faked, or staged. I was wrong. You really are smart.

Well Skeptic Overlord himself basically came out the other day and told us all to accept the spoon feeding rabble from US media while not believing a single word from RT.

What else can you say? The owner of ATS himself is brainwashed into thinking our media is beyond propaganda.

ATS has become censored indeed. What a sad day, pathetic really. Shame on ATS.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: glend
State owned propaganda versus fascist controlled (WMD in Iraq/Iran) news services. One is not better than the other, ATS just doesn't want debate, world is bad, US is the shining knight, end of story.

btw LightningStrikesHere was banned the other day by the owner for questioning aspects of ATS. An act that shows just how bloody childish ATS can be. If they want control thought then so be it. We can move on to other sites.

Wrong , there is a difference between state owned and opinionated but still owned by citizens......

I fail to see how this is hard to understand......

On the second part of the post, I watched that thread evolve with Lighteningstrikeshere

That is not the reason he/she was banned

There are many instances of many members coming onto ATS and getting banned, and ATS being lenient and letting them come back with new accounts, under the understanding that the behavior that led to their first ban would cease.....

Some members cannot seem to do this, in this case he was granted multiple opportunities for redemption , but he continued to display the same attitude that got him removed in the first place......

MANY members from ATS that are banned are allowed to come back and most of them come back and have no further issues.......

If you continue the same behaviors the fault lies only with yourself......

Its one thing to be heated, ive done so myself, its another to display reckless disregard and disrespect.

Heated debates are fine, slanderous and vitriolic diatribe is not

Just had to say that I saw how that evolved as well, and I have to agree with you on the whole.

a reply to: lightedhype

Are you serious? The man reversed himself. What more could you want????

Seems like there's plenty of shame to go around.